Baseball teams by country or state
[edit]
- 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 discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:United States baseball teams to Category:Baseball teams in the United States
Also rename the following:
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with recommended naming conventions in WP:NCCAT. Closing administrator of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 1#Category:U.S. baseball teams recommended relisting this proposal for all affected categories. BRMo (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've decided to amend the recommended names for "the Republic of China" to add the parenthetical "(Taiwan)." The addition of the parenthetical is consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions and would be helpful to readers who may not be familiar with the official name. BRMo (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines in WP:NCCAT say to use "the Republic of China," which is the name of the main article. I personally don't care one way or the other, but if we're trying to be consistent with the guidelines, that's what we should go with. BRMo (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Digging a little deeper, it looks like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV might support Category:Baseball teams in the Republic of China (Taiwan), if that is preferred. BRMo (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll abstain as far as which of the three options is chosen. As long as the X in Y format is used, I'm happy. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Claymation series and films
[edit]Category:Claymation
[edit]
- 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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Claymation to Category:Clay animation
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Claymation" is a trademarked term used by one clay animator, Will Vinton. The correct generic term is "clay animation." Trivialist (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
United States ice hockey teams
[edit]Category:Oersted Medal recipients
[edit]
- 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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Oersted Medal recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This is an award from the American Association of Physics Teachers. It has been given to such notables as Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, and Frank Oppenheimer. Although Feynman & Oppenheimer etc. may be defined as science teachers, they are not defined by having received this award. Thus, the award category should be deleted as a form of overcategorization for the award-winners; it is also an unnecessary eponymous category for the award itself. The list of award-winners is available in the article, which is a better way to handle this information. Lquilter (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Sports organisations
[edit]
- 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 discussion was keep. The precedent, if I recall correctly, was specific to use "sport" for categories whose countries that use "sport", like "sport in Malta", and "sports" for categories whose countries that use "sports", like the "sports in the US". There was no precedent for what to use for umbrella categories such as this one. If people aren't going to be confused with the vast differences of "sport" and "sports" already in use (because remember, while it is "sport in Malta", people from "sports"-speaking countries are also allowed to view the category), we'll probably be ok here too. Kbdank71 15:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Sports organisations to Category:Sports organizations
- or
- Propose renaming Category:Sports organisations to Category:Sport organisations
- Nominator's rationale: Rename one way or the other. Don't randomly mix-and-match US and UK English. There are probably subcats that will be affected. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Sports organizations. This is close to the current name. If we wanted to change the other way it would need to be to Category:Sport organisations if I understand how the naming is being used and that may be more problematic. Of course we could leave it where it is. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is. "Sports" is not an exclusively U.S. English term; it is used in the U.K. and other English-speaking countries, it's just not as commonly used, that's all. In other words, it would not be "wrong" to write "sports organisations" in the UK. WP generally doesn't mess with spellings/usages like this if they are an acceptable use in UK or US English, and this is an acceptable use in UK English. Zoporific 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Contradictory to precedent and MOS: It has already been determined at CfD, repeatedly, that "sport" is used in category names for the UK and any other countries in which this is more common, and for all of Europe (e.g. "sport in Malta", not "sports in Malta"). I.e. we already have precedent on this, and this is not a "correct or incorrect according to the dictionary" matter, but a matter of CfD consistency, and compliance with WP:ENGVAR, which is very explicit about not mix-and-matching. While, yes, one could get away with saying "sports" in British English, it is quite rare, and it is not consistent at all with other categories, nor with dialectal English usage in articles and in article titles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still keep. Meh, I still don't see a problem with it and I don't find slavish dedication to "precedent" necessarily determinative; the usage that exists now is not "rare"—see my comments on google hits below. I still say keep. Zoporific 05:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One example of a rare occurrence does not demonstrate the occurrence to be common. This isn't the point anyway; the point is intra-WP consistency. Defenders of British (and Australian, etc.) usage have fought long and hard to preserve "sport" in hundreds (by now probably thousands) of category names where North Americans would use "sports"; consistency demands that we not make a random exception unless for a very good reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the point is that combining "sports" and "organisations" is not "rare" in non-U.S. English. For example, Google gives 120,00 ghits for "sports organisations" but only 26,400 ghits for "sport organisations". Anyone who has argued in the past that "sports" is not used commonly in non-U.S. English, is, I'm afraid, possibly more informed by linguistic pride than by reality. With respect to "Sport(s) in XXX", it is probably true that using "sport" is more common than using "sports" in non-U.S. English, but both/either are used when combined with "organisations". Zoporific 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we have an example of one of these cfds when UK usage was asserted to prefer 'sport'? I would agree with Zoporific that "Sport in 2007" sounds better to my UK ear than sports; but here it is a noun. In sports college, sports day, sports organisation, sports field, sports venue, etc etc it is being used as an adjective and is correct UK usage. Carminis (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As another UK person, I would "sports" or "sporting" in this situation, but "sport" as the generic noun. Bluap (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Table soccer (& subcat)
[edit]Category:People by medium - Tree
[edit]
- 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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:People by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Collected below. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Authors by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Collected below. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Agatha Christie by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Collected below. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Charles Dickens by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Collected below. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:William Shakespeare by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Collected below. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Entertainers by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Collected below. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Madonna (entertainer) by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Collected below. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Frank Sinatra by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Collected below. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Joan of Arc by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Collected below. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Group above - Nominator's rationale: -
- If nothing else this new developing group tree needs discussion.
- The naming seems to imply that people come in "mediums" (or media) - no mention of their "work" or other qualifier. It can be implied but it not clear and for a growing tree that has to potential this one does we need to get it "right" from the outset.
- There is a significant tree of "Works by ..." etc (artists, authors etc) that was being sucked into this and thus this has to potential for enormous duplication of categorization.
- Subcategories of all kinds of types and naming conventions are being assigned to them - not sure there is a clear scheme or naming convention to be had.
- I know we have been trying to avoid categories purely by the individuals name, however these seem to be being used in almost the same way. Is that what we want? If it is fine, but the debate needs to be had.
- For instance (Category:Frank Sinatra by medium and Category:Joan of Arc by medium) highlight just one problem, one is the producing article and the other is the subject of the material, is this confusion or helping in any way!
- Finally - this is a scheme that has huge potential (for good or ill) we just need to be sure it is what we are comfortable with. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't really see any benefit here; I think all the few individuals already had eponymous categories, which could organise the sub-cats perfectly easily. Am I missing something? Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Missing something' "for" or "against" these categories. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went back over 2000 edits and found "no" examples of a reply to a question made to this user (User:Stefanomione). Seems like someone a little out of control. I may be wrong but please correct me if so. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 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 discussion was relisted on feb 13. Kbdank71 15:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Wireless to Category:Wireless communications
- Nominator's rationale: Both categories claim to be top cat for Wireless, which creates some confusion. Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 08:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support, but there is a lot more work to be done. Wireles, mobile, telecomunications, mobile software, telephony, etc. are very loose terms, with different meanings per country. I have been error on the side of lots of nested categories, but I've been violating parent child. I recomend we merge it all into main category, Mobile. Mathiastck (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to be careful here. While all mobile is wireless, not all wireless is mobile. So we need to structure the categories with care. Clearly shortwave is not mobile but is wireless. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, strictly speaking, wireless doesn't have to be mobile, and vice versa. You can wirelessly get internet on your home PC, and the Game Boy is pretty mobile. I think Cellular is a subset of Wireless, but Cellular has been abused to refer to most wirless usage with more then one tower. Mathiastck (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess one problem is that terms like "wireless" and "mobile" are used in context where the specifics are implied. When taken out of context it have to be supplied, like wireless communication, mobile computing or mobile telephony. It's easy to round up content for a super category like mobile or wireless, but where does that category belong in the existing category tree? If we can't find a logical place, maybe it is because we don't need it. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 23:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that mobile as used these days is the common name for a cell phone. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Heartland albums
[edit]
- 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 discussion was relisted on feb 13. Kbdank71 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the naming is anti-intuitive, is being used to replace category names that do make sense (Lists of films by source|British sitcoms was replaced with Television programs based on media|Films, Category:Lists of media based on television programs|Films and List of films based on media|Television), is being used by one person. I've asked them to explain the categories, but they haven't. Possibly a rename is in order, but I can't see the point of the categories as they exist. Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment something needs to be done, but I doubt if it is just deletion. There are far too many categories here, and many names are not good. How extensive has the replacement of earlier schemes been? Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I really have no way of knowing how extensive this is. I just know that every day for a week or more some article on my watchlist has been updated. It's one person and they seem to have a plan, but I'm really not sure what it is. I suggested deletion but since I'm completely sure what the point of the changes are, I'm happy to see something else done. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps someone needs to ask User:Stefanomione what their plan is and what this is all about - same thing is true of the Category:People by medium tree that I have included for discussion above. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did ask, but have had no reply. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went back over 2000 edits and found "no" examples of a reply to a question made to this user (User:Stefanomione). Seems like someone a little out of control. I may be wrong but please correct me if so. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - which is why this debate is so important. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reorg - totally agree with Johnbod's comment above this desires more than just deletion. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to the debate - What would you suggest and can you explain/justify the scheme(s). Also bear in mind the Category:People by medium tree above. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When there is a list (ex. Category:Lists of television series), very often there is a category (ex. Category:Television series). So why are the lists Category:Lists of media based on media nominated for deletion, but the categories in Category:Media based on media aren't ? Very strange also that the Category:Lists of media based on films is nominated for deletion, but the Category:Lists of films based on media isn't. The naming of the categories isn't so anti-intuitive as stated in the rationale above. Beside this point, I want to mention that both (categories and lists) encompass the categories in Category:Media by source - So, here the discussion should be split up. Stefanomione (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the "List" categories are different from the others but I don't think we should split the debate. I think the list categories are all too small, and should be merged, but I will wait before making an overall !vote. The sorting within these categories is very poor also. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, let's propose a merge (Category:Lists of media based on media + Category:Media based on media ) : the categories won't be poor anymore (and very useful - look at the Category:In popular culture-entries. Stefanomione (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should be merging into "ddddd by source" :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: agreed, X by source makes much more sense. Duggy 1138 (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: all the Media based on X back into Works based on X as they originally were. In some cases the category will need to be recreated. Duggy 1138 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this tree needs an entire re-think and do-over, so let's start with a blanks slate. I have some doubts about the objectivity of X based on Y on the edges, but will accept that certainly some films are based on books, etc. So the underlying categories seem to be proper, it's just how to organize them and to title them. "Films (Books, etc.) adapted from another medium", or borrowing from The Oscar's various formulations of screenplays: "Films (books, etc.) based on Material from Another Medium" or "Films (Books, etc.) based on Material Previously Published or Produced". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On the objectivity point - yeah, it comes up... is the Hitchhiker's Film based on the original radio series or the later television series, etc. But those are problems for later editors. I still think that Films (Books, etc) by source works, because it's a category to collect sub-categories. Once you categorising actual articles it becomes Films based on Television Programs and doesn't need the clunky wording. The AAs have that wording because they include adaptations, remakes and sequels and have to make that clear in the wording. We don't have that problem. Also, since we're starting from scratch I think that new naming plans need to be developed or exisiting ones adhered to. I've seen Fiction used to mean Books, stories (writing) whereas a film can be fiction, too. And you imply Book, but that's dubious... we have series of books, novels, novellas, short stories, stories not published in book form and who knows what else that will come up. I like Literature as the unbrella for this, although, I admit it has a conotation of quality writing.
- In regards the clean slate... I don't know. It is a mess at the moment. Media by Media is wrong, but the Works by source that it replaced was flawed but worked. I think out all the Media by media stuff back into Works by source, delete Media by media and then rework Works by source to remove problems in it.
- Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a mess and needs work. I think that deleting these categories would be the easiest way to clean this up. Once these are gone if someone wants to go back and straighten things out, feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 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 discussion was delete, empty. Kbdank71 15:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List is now empty, and duplicates Category:Television programs by source
, which is far better named (media is ambiguous, plus excludes Television shows based on real events and probably other things.) Duggy 1138 (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Ozone hole skeptics
[edit]
- 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 discussion was keep. Kbdank71 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Ozone hole skeptics to Category:Global warming skeptics
- Suggest merging Category:Environmental skepticism to Category:Global warming skeptics
- Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure there's any difference between an "Ozone hole skeptic," "Environmental Skepticism" and a "Global warming skeptic." It seems to me that they're pretty much talking about the same thing, so they should be merged.
Note: I know "skepticism" and "skeptic" are different, but I don't see why things covered in "Environmental skepticism" can't be covered by "Global warming skeptics" RedShiftPA (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I've changed Category:Ozone hole skeptics and Category:Global warming skeptics to be subcategories of Category:Environmental skepticism. I think this is the right logical structure. It's not necessarily true that a global warming skeptic must also be an ozone hole skeptic, though the overlap was pretty high when the ozone hole issue was live. And environmental skepticism involves a whole range of other issues.JQ (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose One can be a skeptic of the ozone hole and not of global warming or vice versa. How are these things at all the same? Oren0 (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge - (1) "Skeptic" or "skepticism" is not the problem here. The ozone hole is not the same thing as global warming. Both can be part of "Environmental skepticism". Note to nom: If it really seems to you that they're pretty much the same thing, then you clearly haven't read the basic subject articles, and you might want to rethink your practice of trying to work with the category structure on these articles until you have a better grasp of the subject. Moreover, it's a really bad idea to merge "skeptics" (people) into "skepticism" (a way of thought) -- these are quite different kinds of articles and categorizing them with labels presents very different issues; the people get BLP concerns, for instance. (2) However, I do think there are some problems with how these categories are currently applied. (a) Looking at all the contents in "ozone hole skeptics", most of them (all but 2 or 3) are also in global warming. Thus, it may be reasonable to put people who are skeptics of more than one issue in a broader category Category:Environmentalism skeptics or Category:Environmental issues skeptics. (b) More seriously, I question whether the various politicians are defined by their beliefs about this. If they have no scientific expertise, why are they defined by their opinions on this matter any more than their opinions on any other matter of science, policy, ethics, etc.? Shouldn't these categories be reserved for people who actually make a career out of this issue, e.g., scientists, lobbyists, etc.? --Lquilter (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the Ozone hole has little to nothing to do with global warming, and acid rain is a separate concept from global warming or the ozone hole. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete people by opinion category; the mere expression of skepticism is not defining - activists tend be treated here as defining for categorization - here what we need is something like Category:Activists challenging the existence or causes of the Ozone hole; Category:Activists challenging the existence or causes of Global Warming; Category:Activists challenging positions of the enivormentalist movement... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The two matters do not overlap even if their skeptics do. Dimadick (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. These categories are not 100% overlapping by any means. Snocrates 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:My Name Is Earl
[edit]
- 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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:My Name Is Earl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a television series; the material is adequately interlinked via the main article and the navigational template ({{My Name Is Earl}}). – Black Falcon (Talk) 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Messinia to Category:Messenia
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article is at Messenia for which Messinia is a redirect. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't even think you need to discuss this. Seems like an obvious move as the spelling chosen for the category should be the same as the spelling in the article name. Oren0 (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.