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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete "Small car" isn't a term with encyclopedic use (as do compact car and full-size car). It's used by motoring media with no accurate definition. NaBUru38 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, --Typ932T·C 02:55, 28 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.
Category:Coor * templates needing repair
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 all as deprecated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The nine Coor * templates are deprecated. All instances should be converted to ((Coord)), which has its own repair category. ((Coor title/at d/dm/dms cat)), used only on those category pages, should go with them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – most are empty or effectively empty containing only user pages. (I can't see why Chicago Loop is in the 2nd; perhaps someone could address this.) Occuli (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - I think the Chicago Loop entry is due to server lag . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it (coords were wrong) and it has now left the category. Maybe something to do with the Chicago infobox which perhaps calls coor. Occuli (talk) 00:35, 28 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.
Category:Theatres in the United States
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 15:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. WP:ENGVAR - Since we are talking about American theaters, as "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." and categories should also follow these naming conventions, we should rename the category. U.S. university style guides, including those from Buffalo SUNY, SUNY New Paltz, and The University of Texas describe the word "theater" as the preferred and common spelling for the word in common noun usage. Please consult the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_24#Category:American_Theatres_or_Theaters.3F - EDIT: I must also add that Addoxford.com acknowledged "Theater" as being preferred US spelling here [1]WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC) - EDIT 2: Columbia Guide to Standard American English [2]WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – it's not tagged; and the cfd in Sept 2008 by the same nom is fairly recent and looks more like an oppose than a support. Occuli (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, what else do you need to do to tag it? EDIT: Tagged category page.
Second, the reasons for the initial "oppose" votes was because it was originally only nominated one category and not the whole category tree (the entire U.S.). Many of the oppose votes are invalidated because of the way the first nomination came in. Not only is this now properly filed, but also we need to consider evidence, not simply "these guys opposed it, so I oppose it too"
Now, after crossing out those two points, is there anything else? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you wish to nominate the whole US tree, it all needs to be tagged and listed. (It is perfectly in order to cite previous cfds, particularly if recent, without needing to repeat the oppose arguments.) Occuli (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case you have to clarify them because the reasons varied in the nomination depending on who opposed. Some were conditional on the way the categories were tagged. Other reasons were proven to be invalid (see the outcome of the Johnbod oppose statement below) via discussion, so new reasons have to be created. Please specify any additional specific reasons. Also, do I have to tag every single daughter category affected? There will be a lot of affected categories. Where does it say that I have to tag all of the daughter categories? I may tag some categories if the categories page says I absolutely have to. If the category instructions do not require me to tag all of the daughter categories, that isn't a reason to oppose the nomination. I'll look at the instructions again.WhisperToMe (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important edit: The instructions say "use an umbrella nomination (each category must be tagged, for nominations involving large numbers of categories tagging help can be requested at the talk page):" - All I need to do is ask for help for tagging all of the categories, then your requirement will be fulfilled. Help has been requested here - I may tag some daughter entries, but it is not reasonable to expect me to tag every single one, so therefore as long as I tag some of them, then that requirement is fulfilled and the "Oppose" input has no valid rationale left. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, right. You're supposed to add talk posts to the bottom of the page, btw. Have you ever considered changing your user-name to ShoutAtEveryoneElse? Johnbod (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. It is perfectly acceptable to reply below a person's post in response to the previous post, and 2. Please focus on the issue, Johnbod. Please be civil. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to your post at the top of the talk page here. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose anyway, same reasons as last time. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And last time I said why the rationale was not correct. When you said "SUNY New Paltz ignore (very rightly) their own style guide by having a "Department of Theatre Arts"!" - It was not ignoring its own style guideline rightly. In that case "Theatre" arts was a proper noun and this was clarified. When you do a category name, you use common nouns, not proper nouns, not specifics names of things. Therefore we shall not use "Theatre" as that only is in names of theaters and departments. As the SUNY guide said, only use Theatre when it is a proper noun. Now, with this in mind, please develop new arguments that build from previous arguments. By the way, the name of the category on the Commons is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Theaters_in_the_United_States - Shouldn't we be consistent with the Commons category? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom; we should be consistent with recognized style guides. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Even though most American theatres (I m Canadian) refer to themselves using the British spelling, the trend for some time has been that category page names not to use commonplace naming but more formal naming, and in standard Amer. English of course the correct spelling is 'theater' Mayumashu (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - all this quibbling about proper or common nouns doesn't change the fact that both the -er and the -re spellings are valid in the US and no priority exists between them. The OED does not recognise the variation as one pertaining to a US/UK distinction either (which it usually does when the variation relates to the difference between US and UK English). How many times do we have to rehearse this argument? DionysosProteus (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Theater is the preferred spelling in the United States, and the university style guides say to use it instead of theatre. Also, as Alanson said in the previous discussion, the OED is British. This is concerning United States-related categories. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a holder of degrees in theatre from both the UK and a couple of institutions in the US, I can confirm that neither of your claims here are accurate. There is no preferred spelling in the US--one of my US degrees is in "theatre", not "theater". The difference between the -re and -er spellings, too, is not regional. Yes, the OED is based in Britain, and it charts the variations in the English language as spoken across the planet. The OED does not support your claim that the difference is regional--when the difference is, it says so. And why hasn't the Theatre Wikiproject been informed about this attempt? DionysosProteus (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "There is no preferred spelling in the US--one of my US degrees is in "theatre", not "theater"." - SUNY New Paltz explains that this stems from the name of the institution that granted your degree. For instance the University of Kansas has the "Department of Theatre and Film" - "Theatre" is acceptable as it is a part of the name of the institution. "Theatre" is a part of your institution's name, and this spelling is only used in names of groups. The three university guidelines clearly state theater is to be used in common noun referencing. Plus, you have Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) which states that theater is used in the United States (as seen in the below reply) - The OED seemed to have missed the fact that "theater" is more commonly used. EDIT: Actually the OED indeed indicates the regionality at "American Spelling" (AskOxford.com) - "Theater" vs. "Theatre" is one of the examples used, with the former being American and the latter being British. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My degree is not named after the department in which I studied but from the subject in which I hold the degree. It is categorically not a proper noun. Feel free to contact the department and have them confirm this for you (if it isn't completely obvious). The OED does not recognise the difference as a US/UK difference - take a look at the actual entry for the word in the dictionary. The Wikipedia manual of style merely indicates commonality, and, I might add, without providing a source to substantiate such a claim. The claim stands or falls on the basis of any such sources; manual of styles for particular universities essay writing hardly constitutes the kind of evidence such a claim requires. Both the -re and -er are accepted in the US and no priority exists between them. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "The OED does not recognise the difference as a US/UK difference - take a look at the actual entry for the word in the dictionary." - In the US we have separate editions of the Oxford Dictionary (The Oxford American Dictionary). I don't have a copy with me but I would imagine it would say "theater" first. Also I must add that askoxford.com IS from the people who make the dictionary, so even if the dictionary itself doesn't indicate it, the dictionary may as well have said that theater is used, preferably, in the United States. There, the OED said so. Now you said "The Wikipedia manual of style merely indicates commonality" - The MOS indicates differences and commonality. Look, if the MOS only indicated commonality, what would be the point of using the MOS? And the MOS itself says that the word used first is the most common. So, no, it does not only indicate commonality. The language is very clear. And even if it didn't cite sources, we have sources it can cite. EDIT: It indeed cites a source, as stated below. You said "The claim stands or falls on the basis of any such sources; manual of styles for particular universities essay writing hardly constitutes the kind of evidence such a claim requires." - This is not a true statement. First, the American spellings on the style guideline had the following citation: "American spellings: The Chambers Dictionary (1998), page xx and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (2003). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc. ISBN0-87779-809-5." Second, "theater" did not have preference, why does the MOS clearly say that it does? Why do UT and the SUNY campuses say to use "theater"? Why does Columbia University say "theater" is used in American English? If a university style guideline says to use "theater," the word IS being used more commonly. When askoxford.com says that "theater" is American English, the word IS being used more frequently. For that matter Frankfurt International School states that "theater" is American English here [3]. I also have Middlebury College here [4]. Florida State University[5]. And I have the Columbia Guide to Standard American English [6]. I'll find more examples. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you said: "My degree is not named after the department in which I studied but from the subject in which I hold the degree." - Of course the subject is the source of the naming, but the degree name is a name, and so is the department. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, I believe I have changed from the last time. The case of the style guides listed above does suggest that one form should be favored over the other. Most American English spell checkers don't accept theatre as valid. If we don't change it this will be a continuing discussion. No harm is done by changing and no one is confused. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the change is harmful when it institutionalises inaccuracies. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please provide a reference stating that this would institutionalize "inaccuracies." I have sources from three American universities, the OED (AskOxford), and the existing Wikipedia guidelines and all support a change to "Theater." WhisperToMe (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the OED and common usage in the US indicate the inaccuracy such a change would institutionalise. Your sources do not support the claim you are making. Both spellings are in use in the US and no priority exists between them. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I found more sources, including one from Columbia University. 2. The OED (AskOxford.com) supports my claim, as I said above, 3. You never cited a source, with page numbers and/or info which makes it easy to confirm, which explicitly said that no spelling has any sort of preference. 4. There is no "inaccuracy" - As I said above, the sources I selected support my claim. I have no sources which state otherwise. By the way, I will look at the Oxford American Dictionary for more information. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how a proper American English spelling can in any way be called inaccurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support while the individual locations often call themselves a "theatre", they are collectively "theaters", which is the preferred US spelling. The defining guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) indicates that "theater" is the preferred spelling for US-related articles. Alansohn (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you need to consult the manual of style article that you reference more closely. Nowhere does it indicate that -er is a preferred spelling, and with good reason. On the contrary, both spellings are valid in the US. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dionysos, I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) and in the table it says "When two variants appear, the one listed first is more widely used." - For the United States "theater" appears first. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - which, if it provided a source to support such a claim, would indicate frequency of use, not which form is correct. It doesn't provide such a source, nor do those you have offered support such a claim.DionysosProteus (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English says "Americans spell it theater except sometimes in proper names" - If there is a source for frequency, that's it [7] - I must also add that the Wikipedia Guideline page cites "American spellings: The Chambers Dictionary (1998), page xx and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (2003). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc. ISBN0-87779-809-5." for American spellings. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that the Wikiproject hasn't been informed. Is there a reason for this? DionysosProteus (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go inform them. Anyway, its on Categories for discussion, so I have appropriately alerted the Wikipedia population. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As a Canadian who has lived in the U.S. and in multiple Commonwealth countries, I can interchangeably and quite happily use both British and American English without caring much about which I'm using. So I had no real opinion on this matter when I initially saw the discussion. After reading through all the comments and looking at all the linked sources, I agree that "theater" should be used here. The sources I have seen seem to indicate that "theater" is (overall) narrowly preferred, though it wouldn't be "wrong" to use "theatre" in the U.S. This change also brings the category into conformity with other U.S. spellings of words that end in "-re" in British English, like centre/center. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The usage in the sources I'm looking at (including innumerable New York City Broadway productions) seem to indicate that the "general" usage (which, as noted above, is not universally consistent) is "theatre" for the stage presentations, vs. "theater" for film showplaces. - jc37 03:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which sources are they? And why would we prefer them when we have academic sources that say otherwise? Our guidelines regarding the English language are built from using academic sources such as Columbia University's guide, university style guides, etc. We don't use "innumerable New York City Broadway productions" as they are not academic sources. They could use "theatre" because they like it, or use it as part of a name of a place as said earlier. We use common nouns for category names, not proper nouns. This move ought to happen because the U.S. academic sources clearly support it. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was going through old Stagebills, reviews from the '30s to the present, etc. Incidentally, this falls under "common usage". Check out WP:NC(CN). You may also want to check out the names of the theatres themselves, such as the New Amsterdam Theatre. (See also Template:Broadway theatres, for one such list.) - jc37 03:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would need a reliable, academic source that explicitly says "This is commonly used in this genre" or something to that effect - Finding a group of stagebills and saying "See, this IS common usage" is not sufficient. In fact the method described sounds very Wikipedia:Original research-ish. - It's saying, there are X instances of this, so it must be common. Even then, you still have to go against sources like the dictionaries and Columbia University, which are reliable sources which describe how things are done in the American English language. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you said: "You may also want to check out the names of the theatres themselves," - As said earlier in the discussion, the names of theaters are different from the category - it is okay to name theaters "tre" as that is part of the name - But the commons categories should use common nouns, not proper nouns. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2009 (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.
Category:Major league baseball players by team
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 all (wikipedia has been around since 1876??). Kbdank71 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. It looks as if MLB (capitalized) is used in Wikipedia since 1876, although I can't find anything on when an entity started calling itself Major League Baseball. As it stands, the category name is somewhat ambiguous as there are major leagues in other countries. Capitalizing MLB would solve that problem as well. The only concern is that there are some teams in this category who played in leagues which are disputedly termed "major" by various historians. The category even mentions at the top that NAPBBP teams are included, despite the fact that they are not usually termed "major". So, the suggested rename is just that – a suggestion. But, I think the current name should be changed in one way or another. Neier (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Regardless of when 'Major League Baseball' as a term came into existence, it certainly exists now and has for a few years at least. Mayumashu (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe that "Major League Baseball" became a proper noun and the formal (trademarked) name of the two highest North American leagues sometime in the 1980s. As the nominator noted, Wikipedia articles generally treat it as a proper noun for all years, so it's appropriate to be consistent here. BRMo (talk) 03:34, 29 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.
Category:MLB players from Taiwan
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand TLA to proper name. Neier (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match name of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, obvious. Wizardman 23:41, 29 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.
Border crossings
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a follow-up nomination to a test nomination. The test nomination didn't get a lot of attention, and perhaps it's because this change is probably fairly uncontroversial. Right now, most of the subcategories of Category:International border crossings are either in the format "Fooian border crossings" or in the format "Foo border crossings", and it's impossible to predict which will be used in any particular situation. I propose standardizing all to "Border crossings of Foo". They are all subcategories of "Geography of Foo", not "Fooian geography"; and all of the subcategories are in the form "Foo-Goo border crossings", not "Fooian-Gooian border crossings". Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I've only looked at one category, and that was Category:Vietnam border crossings. This has a sub-cat of Category:China-Vietnam border crossings. What happens to the naming structure of that? Lugnuts (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, as far as this nomination goes. As I said, the subcategories are in the format "Foo-Goo border crossings". This may suggest using "Foo border crossings" is the way to go for these, but I just think "Border crossings of Foo" makes more grammatical and logical sense when we are only referring to one country. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom (which leaves Category:China-Vietnam border crossings alone, resisting the temptation to revisit the en-dash debate). Occuli (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename all per nom to match subcats and and cousin cats mentioned. Hmains (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom - This seems like a perfectly reasonable proposal for standardizing these categories. (And especially when the nominator -- unlike many an editor -- has already gone to the trouble of actually listing all of the sub-cats, it would be a shame to see all that effort go to waste... :) Cgingold (talk) 11:29, 28 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.
Category:Wine by country
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge: In both Wikipedia and Wiktionary there is confusion from the creation of categories for both Category:Wines and Category:Wine. Having 2 categories is a duplication, and the same confusion has resulted (in Wikipedia), for example, where we have w:Category:Wines by country and w:Category:Wine by country. Taking a closer look at say w:Category:French wines and w:Category:French wine we see that many of the pages are listed on both eg. Argant. Why? The comment that wine is about wine making and that wines is about the varieties of wine, doesn't really make sense given the encyclopedic nature of the pages that cover a wide spectrum of information. So, we have a page on the Duras (grape) variety at both w:Category:French wines, and on w:Category:French wine. This is absurd nonsense! Consistency with Sister Project: Wine is a sister project — see: commons:Category:Wine so it is important to be consistent — Wikimedia only uses the commons:Category:Wines by country. Pkravchenko (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this category structure is hard to follow is that the nom has completely misunderstood the difference between Category:Wine and Category:Wines, and has taken a chain-saw to the structure, emptying Category:Wines leading to its deletion today (see Pkravchenko's edits on 27 Dec). I would ask Pkravchenko to undo all these edits forthwith so we can discuss the proposal properly. Occuli (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are seeing entirely too many end runs around the CFD process by a variety of means. This is (apparently) just the latest of many examples. I think the rules are badly in need of tightening up -- otherwise the existence of this forum/process will be rendered meaningless. Cgingold (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested restoration of Category:Wines by the admin who deleted it. Cgingold (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some consistency between countries is needed, also tidying up and deciding at what level wines become wine, but the principle is clear. I couldn't care less what projects outside wp.en do. Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the distinction between articles about wine-making and those about varieties of wine makes perfect sense as can be seen in the difference between Category:French wine and its subcat Category:French wines. If the nom thinks some articles are miscategorised in both then a simple edit is all that is required. Occuli (talk) 21:29, 29 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.
Categories:(Item) in the Northwest Territories
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't these recently get renamed to the current names. Because there is no the in the official name? -Djsasso (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're thinking of (the) Yukon categories. Cgingold (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Yukon and the Northwest Territories have opposite rules about them, which is confusing, but an accurate reflection of modern official usage. Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:57, 3 January 2009 (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.