Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 17

< October 16	October 18 >

October 17[edit]

Category:Haïtian music[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Dugwiki 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - category serves no additional merit that a list wouldn't better serve. NetK 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Did NetK mean to comment on a different discussion perhaps? Golfcam 01:20, 19 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chick flicks[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 01:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Chick flicks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
this is a category that is colloquial at best. This category will become overfull in minutes the definition is so vague. It's not a genre, you wouldn't find it in any sensible shop went you went to buy a dvd. So far we don't have Category:films by audience and I don't think we should. Mallanox 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Admittedly there seem to be some folks interested in maintaining this category; despite the main article description, I think this term is too broad (NO pun intended, really) and definitely not a genre in the "film studies" sense of the word. Her Pegship 23:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough and it would be difficult to qualify the films contained in the category. Nehrams2020 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV— I for one would have populated it mostly with entries from Category:Romance films, not Category:Teen films.-choster 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless. It didn't need top be created from the start. Even I agree it's POV. Hmrox 01:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something less POV and vauge and add more stipulations. But don't delete completly. There is an intrestind disctioction here. After all, more women went to see The Notebook, than Robocop. (Animedude 07:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete One should click on a category to find a considelable group of similar films. If an essential new category is created, it is another matter. Hoverfish 08:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly classification. >Radiant< 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Category entirely based on POV. Prolog 10:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a vague category, and I think that it would overlap with Category:Romance films for the most part. —Cswrye 14:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV problems. Dugwiki 15:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No films are specifically targeted at baby chickens, as they have no money. Or, read it as per all above. Hiding Talk 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. NetK 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous. Danny Lilithborne 08:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Easy to identify movies that appeal to women, there is a category for children's films, do we delete that? --Sugarcaddy 01:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we keep children's films but we don't split it into boy's and girl's. Also, can you really assert that you can tell which films appeal to women? Plenty of women love Star Wars, is that a chick flick? Mallanox 14:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about the majority here. Again I statemore women went to see The Notebook, than Robocop. I'm sure a few women went to see Robocop, just as a few men went to see the notebook. But who is the core audience here? (Animedude 17:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as POV. --musicpvm 01:13, 23 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia critics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 01:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia critics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Delete - Usually, avoiding self reference means deleting perfectly valid and useful redirects to non mainspace locations. But here's another manifestation which breaks WP:ASR, Wikipedia navel gazing, where every minutae that effects Wikipedia is expanded upon and then broken off into their own articles. Why do we have a category for Critics of Wikipedia, when we don't have categories for Critics of George W Bush or Critics of John Kerry or Critics of just about any political figure. Why do we have a special Wikipedia critics category, when Daniel Brandt doesn't even have a Google critics category? It's not like the people in this category make a living out of criticising Wikipedia, I know all Jerry Holkins has done is write a few critical blog/news posts. If you look at Category:Critics, you'll see that the only entities large enough for a seperate critics category are the religions. Whereas I'm sure there'll be cries of CENSORSHIP!!! Tell the WikiTruth!!! Wikipedia, a religion it ain't. - Hahnch e n 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find Hahnchen's reasoning compelling. Criticizing Wikipedia isn't an important enough attribute of a person that it merits a category. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A few of them should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but beyond that it is a Wikipedia namespace issue that should not be covered in this encyclopedia, as it would not be highlighted in the main content of others. Hawkestone 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the past, we've deleted categories like "Critics of foo" and "Fans of foo" because they are too vague. Everyone has some criticisms of just about everything; even though I like Wikipedia, I have quite a few criticisms of it myself. How much criticism is needed to qualify someone as a "critic"? Mentioning the critics in the article is probably good enough. —Cswrye 14:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the really good reasons listed above. Hiding Talk 20:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Suppose an advocate of Wikipedia becomes a detractor, or visa versa? And what precisely is the criteria for this vague category? NetK 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:45, 19 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2006 United States Congressional election candidates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete (senate not included, wasn't tagged) --Kbdank71 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2006 United States Congressional election candidates to Category:2006 United States House of Representatives candidates

Rename, There is a separate category for Senate candidates. Frankly, I think this should be speedy, but I didn't know how to do that. —Markles 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete along with most candidate categories. First of all, many thousands of people stand for office in any given election, and even among the minority with WP articles, candidacies cannot always be taken seriously, whether it's Bernadette Castro's sacrificial run against Daniel Patrick Moynihan or Ezola B. Foster's farcical run against Maxine Waters. Second, a successful politician will win numerous elections over the course of a career, cluttering an article already full of categories for offices actually held: Scoop Jackson has 6 House and 6 Senate races a piece plus 2 presidential, while [[John Dingell] has stood for the House 40 times. Articles can capture the significance of a candidacy far better than a category, especially considering a third case, of underpopulated categories. The vast majority of Category:Mexican presidential candidates subcategories are useless. -choster 00:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some people could be in 20+ such categories, but if they were that would harm the category system, not improve it. Hawkestone 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not elected = not notable. >Radiant< 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Just to reply to some of the comments, though, "not elected = not notable" isn't true. There are plenty of people who are notable and who haven't won election and whose losing election is an important feature of their career or they played an important spoiler roll in the election (eg. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader). So it is important to sort candidates in elections, even those who lose. However, that being said, the category above is flawed because it specifically doesn't include incumbants, making the category effectively incomplete. Also, the category has no information telling you which person is running for which specific office in 2006; it's just a big list of names. A list would be a more effective way of sorting these articles and can also include info such as what specific office they are running for and actual numerical voting results. Dugwiki 16:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since Category:2006 United States Senate candidates is a subcat it is included in this vote. Right? Vegaswikian 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intended result is Category:2006 United States Senate candidates and Category:2006 United States House of Representatives candidates are at the same level, and not a parent/child relationship.--G1076 19:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well since the senate one isn't tagged, and the original nom was a merge, if that's what is wanted, I suggest that someone relist the whole thing. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify Better served as a list with qualifiers per above comments. NetK 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Listify both Category:2006 United States Congressional election candidates and the child Category:2006 United States Senate candidates. Per comments above. Vegaswikian 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, or listify. Since it doesn't include incumbents, candidates shouldn't get too many of these on their page. Having hundreds of thousands of people vote for them makes them at least temporarily notable, though it's better if they're merged to a specific election page (eg. Illinois 8th congressional district election, 2006) until they win. Which is why this list is so useful, to let the Wikipedia:Candidates and elections people know which candidates need to be merged, either now, or at the very least once some of them lose. --Interiot 07:51, 23 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Turkish military people[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename as proposed -- Drini 01:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Turkish military people to Category:Turkish military personnel[reply]

Rename, as per the other 43 subcategories of Category:Military personnel by nation. Piccadilly 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Paintball marker operation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus (btw, paintball marker seems to be a fancified version of painball gun) --Kbdank71 14:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge per nom. (Also, "Paintball marker operation" doesn't seem sufficiently self-explanatory.) David Kernow (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a subcategory which will be used extensively by the Paintball WikiProject in the near future. If it is deleted, it will simply need to be recreated for the new articles that are, at present, being worked on offline. Might as well just save the trouble and keep the category in the first place. ~ Ma x i m illi, 17:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Maximilli. RavenStorm 00:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but is "Paintball marker operation" meant to categoriz/se different ways in which paintballs are applied...? Paintball application...? Paintball equipment...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with DK, could you clarify the category's usage in it's introductory section? - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Marvel Comics superhero team memberships[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

These are the Marvel Comics superhero team memberships. All of the DC Comics team membership categories were deleted[1] and this merely continues the process. All of the same reasons apply. CovenantD 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the DC ones were deleted as well. 20:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete per DC precedent. Doczilla 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. The DC ones were deleted? That's depressing. It was something like a 45:55 split on votes, and that's not a consensus by any means. I still think this is a bad idea, as this is probably the best and maybe only way to subcategorize superheroes. Keep. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Eleven in favor of deleting them, 10 (including myself) in favor of keeping them actually. I asked the admin who closed it to review, but they never bothered to respond. CovenantD 06:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. Since team memberships change all the time, this info should be kept in a list so that additional data can be added, such as who joined when and for what reason. Comprehensiveness is important. >Radiant< 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify if only because WP would otherwise be biased against DC. Some of these should be deleted anyway though. I mean, Young Avengers members? None of the characters from that book should even have their own article yet. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 13:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the bias. Hiding Talk 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still for "keep" but if these are deleted, they need to be merged with Category:Marvel Comics superheroes (or villains). That wasn't done with at least some of the DC ones, leading to some orphaned pages that will take some time to clean up. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above mentioned previous cfd result Dugwiki 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge upon deletion of the category. Doczilla 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify for the DC Comics team memberships precedent, and due to the aforementioned bias. Opposing a merge, it will simply shift the problem somewhere else rather than dealing with it directly. NetK 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, if these aren't merged many won't be Marvel Comics anything. They'll be uncategorised, or only under the power or nationality categories. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Squaron Supreme and the Xavier Institute (both of which, I think are different), Delete the rest. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Secret Society of Super Villains[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 01:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Secret Society of Super Villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
This is another DC Comics membership group, most of which were deleted earlier this month[2] and should be deleted as well. CovenantD 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per deletion of all other DC team membership categories. Doczilla 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above, keep or merge with Category:DC Comics supervillains --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I forgot to add to merge the content upon deletion. Doczilla 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify Per precedent and DC bias. NetK 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions, mainly, but yes, merge first. Hiding Talk 09:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is slowly becoming a list of all DC comics villains. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Injustice Society members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Injustice Society members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
This is another DC Comics membership group, most of which were deleted earlier this month[3] and should be deleted as well. CovenantD 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per deletion of all other DC team membership categories. Doczilla 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above, keep or merge with Category:DC Comics supervillains --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I forgot to add to merge the content upon deletion. Doczilla 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify Per precedent and DC bias. NetK 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions, mainly, but yes, merge first. Hiding Talk 09:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Batman actors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Batman actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
In keeping with many discussions about "Role played by X"[4], these are better presented in a list to allow for annotation as to role played, timeframe and significance. Right now there are hundreds of entries, some with no supporting text in-article. CovenantD 17:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman cast lists, which is now empty and was simply a test page while trying to figure out an alternative to Category:Batman actors, needs to go too. Doczilla 20:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could only possibly be appropriate for those for whom appearing in a Batman film was a career defining role, and for most of them it wasn't. Merchbow 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The actors' names confuse people who see the category and think, "Surely this can't be right." For many of those actors, the Batman connection wasn't important enough to mention in their own articles. An actor's article should not get an additional category for every single role the actor has every played. Furthermore, we are already listifying this information at Batman cast lists. Doczilla 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doczilla. Hawkestone 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloachland 12:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and create sub-categories for specific batman series. Tim! 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or list, but remove actors that don't mention "Batman" in their article An actor should only appear in this category if their article mention them playing a character on a Batman series. In general you should not categorize articles based on information that isn't already in the article, as the categorization might be unverifiable, incorrect or not notable for that particular subject. So I recommend removing all actors from this category that don't mention "Batman" in their article. Dugwiki 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty reasonable test for inclusion, if one finds an article through such a category, the least that can be expected is some content about the series. Tim! 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. NetK 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories such as this don't work because it is in the nature of Wikipedia for them to expand to include people for whom this is not a defining characteristic. Golfcam 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again something that will make a far better article than it does a category. Hiding Talk 09:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Landolitan 13:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - performer by performance category - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Superman actors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Delete This could only possibly be appropriate for those for whom appearing in a Batman film was a career defining role, and for most of them it wasn't. Merchbow 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Batman actors discussion. Doczilla 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Batman actors discussion. Hawkestone 00:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This si a little silly, as Gilbert Godfrey is in this category for his breif role in the Superman Animated series... I would not be agaisnt a category specifically for actors who have portrayed Superman, though. (Animedude 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Just fyi, Godfrey played Mister Mxyzptlk, and appeared in two or three episodes. It wasn't exactly a "brief" role. Dugwiki 17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and create sub-categories for specific series such as Lois & Clarke Tim! 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or keep but remove actors that don't mention Superman in their article as per Batman discussion above, remove articles from the category that don't specifically mention the actor playing a role on a Superman series Dugwiki 17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is going to enforce that on an ongoing basis? Your proposal simply isn't viable imo. Golfcam 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. NetK 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories such as this don't work because it is in the nature of Wikipedia for them to expand to include people for whom this is not a defining characteristic. Golfcam 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again something that will make a far better article than it does a category. Hiding Talk 09:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Landolitan 13:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - performer by performance category - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Haitian Slaves[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (empty). David Kernow (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category: Wellesley College alumni[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wellesley College alumni to Category:Wellesley College alumnae

On October 3, 2006, there was a very brief discussion here, after which it was decided that Category:Wellesley College alumnae would become Category:Wellesley College alumni. One argument in favor of the renaming was that "it's a minor hassle" to change later if Wellesley decides that it wants to go coed and has a man in attendance. There are no such plans at this time, and Wellesley is thriving, with record enrollment. Wellesley College refers to its graduates as alumnae. The explanation of when to use which word is laid out in the article entitled Alum. Furthermore, under Wikipedia naming regulations, a gender-neutral term should be chosen, if possible. However, the previous renaming, rather than creating gender neutrality, swapped the correct latin form of gender exclusivity to the opposite, incorrect form. It is a major, vital, and distinctive characteristic that Wellesley College is a college with female students. I propose that the renaming be reversed, and that Category:Wellesley College alumni be a redirect to Category:Wellesley College alumnae.

I started doing the renaming process manually, creating a parallel category, and putting entries on the talk pages, but it seems this is the appropriate avenue to make this change.

Dbackeberg 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States, and general policy against gender-based categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment here's the previous discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not a gender-based category: if men graduated from Wellesley no-one disputes that we would put them in this category too. (We might also change the name, but that's irrelevant.) —Blotwell 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is, in fact, relevant that no men graduate from Wellesley. That's why I believe the original name change was mistaken, and why it should be changed back to the correct word it used to be. Graduates from Wellesley receive literature asking them for money with the word alumnae, not alumni. It is a unique thing about the institute, and it deserves to be honored with the correct word, which is coincidentally the word they use at Wellesley. Dbackeberg 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alumni is gender neutral in English. Merchbow 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The definition of alumnus, usage note, at dictionary.com disagrees with Merchbow. English doesn't have genders, but the words still mean what they mean. As the word is the direct word used in Latin, we should be consistent and use the correct form of latin. Besides that, alumnae is also in English language dictionaries, as the word has also been appropriated into English. Alumnus and alumna are also present in English language dictionaries. Latin is very popular in academia. Graduates of Wellesley College (and Harvard University, among others) receive their diplomae in latin, and thus earn an Artium Baccalaureae, rather than the Bachelor of Arts more commonly granted in the United States. When writing résumé, they list their degree as A.B., rather than B.A. They also receive syllabi depicting what to expect in a given course. The Latin, and therefore, reliable English dictionaries, should be controlling. Any graduate of Wellesley knows that they are an alumna, and that they are collectively alumnae. Literally, calling graduates of Wellesley "alumni" is saying that at least one of them is a man, and this is an insult. Dbackeberg 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your last comment is outrageously sexist. Hawkestone 00:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Wikipedia should not promote linguistic reformism. —Blotwell 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is nothing to do with linguistic reform as alumni is used as a gender neutral word everyday. It is mainly and primarily gender neutral in English. You are arguing that we should follow a wilfully anachronistic usage by an outside organisation, but I see no reason to prefer that organisation's policy to our own convention. Hawkestone 00:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The usage by an outside organisation is precisely what should be used, as this category refers only to people who are associated with this particular outside organisation. "Mainly and primarily" applies to the fact that most institutions have both male and female students, in which case the word "alumni" is linguistically appropriate. I've explained that women who've graduated from this women's college
  - Prefer the word alumnae
  - Know enough Latin to know the difference
  - Because of this, find the word alumni offensive
  and still you say that you find no reason to prefer the word alumnae. I'm only left to assume you're being disingenuous. Dbackeberg 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as there are places where using Latin is appropriate, but at Wikipeida we use English. Even parts of Wellesley's own website use the generic alumni in places.[5] Thus I assume that Wellesley alumnae know enough English to know that Latin forms are not appropriate in this context. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where exactly, would Latin be more appropriate, than on a page referring to an institution that uses Latin on their diplomae? Would you translate the Latin portion of the commencement address at Harvard? And as I've stated repeatedly, alumna, alumnae, alumni, alumnus, are all present in modern English dictionaries. We should use the proper English word, which is alumnae. In the usage referred to, at a subpage of the Wellesley website, the word alumni clearly refers to a superclass of both MIT and Wellesley graduates. Wellesley students may cross-enroll in classes at MIT. MIT allows both male and female students, therefore it is linguistically appropriate to refer to the collection of both MIT and Wellesley students as "alumni". In fact, on that page, the only presence of the word "alumni" is immediately preceeded by "MIT". You will also note the presence of the words "alumna" and "alumnae" on that page, all used appropriately. When referring to just Wellesley students, as the category called "Wellesley College alumnae" does, it is only appropriate to use Wellesley College alumnae. I can't believe you linked that page, claiming it supports your position rather than mine. Dbackeberg 10:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, do not categorize by gender. >Radiant< 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As noted before, if males attended Wellesley, we would put them in this category. Wellesley has done what every women's college has done: decided that women get a unique and superior education when educated with only other women. This is not a decision that Wikipedia need sanction but it is something that should be reflected when writing articles and categories about the institution. And for the record, the main Wellesley College article uses the correct word "alumnae". Dbackeberg 10:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but it is a good thing if similar categories use the same naming scheme. >Radiant< 11:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. If the college calls its graduands alumnae, and they call themselves alumnae, then we should do the same. I don't see the need for having a convention that all the categories should be called "X alumni". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep spelling as alumni For category consistency, all such categories should have similar names. Otherwise readers will have difficulty discerning which specific way a category might be spelled. Since most of the categories are spelled "alumni" (eg Category:Harvard University alumni), and since there doesn't seem to be a truly compelling reason to break spelling consistency, this category should likewise using the "alumni" spelling. Dugwiki 17:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a pedantic hobby-horse. Anyone who is offended by the word "alumni" must have a life extraordinarily free of real problems. Golfcam 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Alumni is only gender-neutral when both men and women have graduated from a particular school. Only women have graduated from Wellsley, thus "alumnae" is both correct and preferable. LaszloWalrus 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - if there are no male graduates it's simply bad grammar. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 03:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the English-language wikipedia. Piccadilly 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As with blond/blonde, this is a word where English still makes a distinction. "An alumnus (masculine) or alumna (feminine) of a college, university, or school is a former student. The plural is alumni for men and mixed groups and alumnae for women. The term is often mistakenly thought of as synonymous with "graduate."", [6], [7]. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I was going to oppose until I saw this: [8]. I think we should follow what the university calls themselves. I think this is an exception to the Wikipedian standard. (Note: this link .[9] from their site has "Alumni", but only when grouping this university and another. On the same page, they use "alumnae" for only their school.) - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as alumnae:I created the Wellesley College alumnae category and someone came behind me and created Wellesley College alumni, emptying out my data from the alumnae category. I just now became aware of it. This is completely dishonorable and reprehensible, and I am very upset about this. No one should have taken it on themselves to change the category, which was perfectly fine, without first bringing it up for discussion.

HOT L Baltimore 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Proveit supplied the link to the discussion above. --Kbdank71 16:51, 23 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category: PBS Masterpiece Theater[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Masterpiece Theatre --Kbdank71 14:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PBS Masterpiece Theater to Category:PBS Masterpiece Theatre

As far as I know the series used the British spelling, as does the main article Masterpiece Theatre. JW 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Masterpiece Theatre - The actual name, according to IMDB[10], is "Masterpiece Theatre" without the PBS. Also, category names should almost always match the names of their main article, which in this case is Masterpiece Theatre. Dugwiki 16:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Dugwiki. Recury 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Masterpiece Theatre, per Dugwiki. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Andrew[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 01:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Andrew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
A rather silly reason for a category (people named "Andrew" or a variation thereof). howch e ng {chat} 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has little or no relevance to many of the topics listed in the category. It is also too broad to accurately describe any articles that it includes. Nehrams2020 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it would be ridiculous to have categories based on first names or any variations. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (plus category would need more informative name). David Kernow (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Project Steve. Delete. >Radiant< 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; too broad. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Project Steve? Wow. Oh, delete of course. As a bad idea. Hiding Talk 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nehrams2020 Piccadilly 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though I think it could make an interesting list, it's about the same value as people born on the same day. (I wonder if we have categories for that... If so, then maybe "Andrew" should stay...) - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British-Filipinos[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, the intros may be different, but the contents are the same --Kbdank71 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" This is the same category as "Filipino British people". Andy_UK
Comment - Actually Category:Filipino British people would seem to be quite different than Category:British-Filipinos, according to their introductions. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Methodist Canadians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Methodist Canadians to Category:Canadian Methodists

Rename, to form used for Category:Canadian Christians and the other categories of Methodists by nationality. Piccadilly 11:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cloachland 12:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Planning on suggesting a rename for Category:Presbyterian Canadians as well? - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Heroscape[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Delete category only contains Heroscape, and only other possible additions would be in-universe gamecruft. Percy Snoodle 11:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one article, the main article, is in the category. Related articles could easily be added under a "See Also" section of that article. No need for a category. Dugwiki 16:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now... Upon further development, I think this category could be re-created. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Supervillains without costumes[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 01:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Supervillains without costumes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
POV category that isn't really needed, same as Superheroes without costumes[11]. CovenantD 06:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom . Merchbow 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and discussion about superheroes without costumes. Some who regularly wear costumes also commit crimes without costumes. Some who normally do not wear costumes have worn them before. Category is vague. Suppose you wear a uniform. Is that your costume? If you always wear a trenchcoat, is that your costume? Doczilla 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. POV it is. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 13:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcategorisation, pov, original research, hard to cite, controversial, trivial, useless and a bad idea. Hiding Talk 20:46, 18 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Companies based in Orange County, New York[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, creator requested deletion per last comment in debate. Hiding Talk 10:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category is not likely ever to become well-populated, as there really aren't a lot of companies here meeting WP:CORP. Two of existing entries show a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept anyway: Velveeta has long since ceased to be an independent company and is now just a brand, and Woodbury Common Premium Outlets is a popular outlet mall, not a company (and it, too, is owned by a company based somewhere else). That leaves only Orange County Choppers as a notable company for this cat. Daniel Case 05:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the number of companies based in New York state was a lot larger, I'd support subcategorizing them by county. But in this case it looks like there is only one page worth of articles, which works fine. Dugwiki 16:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I originally created to remove confusion with Category:Companies based in Orange County. That is now Category:Companies based in Orange County, California. Time has resolved any possible confusion. I support deletion. Williamborg (Bill) 04:57, 19 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles with example pidgincode[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... as well as Category:Articles with example pseudocode. I don't think these categories are helpful. Just because some articles have some kind of code it does not mean that they need to be categorized together. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for keeping it. I created Category:Articles with example pidgincode becuase I need it, and beleive others also do. When I have written academic publications with pidgin code (mathematical style pseudo code), I have often searched for good examples on formatting the code. I also need it as a template when writing WikiPedia articles on mathematical algorithms. Pidgin code is much more compact and less informal than conventional pseudo code, and is ideal for describing algorithms. There are 16 sub categories of Category:Articles with example code. Explain to me why not Category:Articles with example pseudocode and pidgin code? Not every article with pesudo code necessarily have to be included, there are probably thousands, but we need more good examples to establish a wikipedia convention. I will try to add a few more good articles to these two categories.

Do you suggest that the name Articles with example pidgincode should be changed to Articles with mathematical style pseudo code? Mange01 11:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this aids the users. It may aid the editors to some extent, which suggest the proper venue would be a list in Wikipedia: space, or in Talk:Pidgin code or Talk:Pseudocode, respectively. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was surprised to see this category appear. It is conveys nothing of meaning or interest. And the article that came to my attention does not use “pidgin code”, but merely code in something other than C. --KSmrq^T 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless. >Radiant< 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there is no other place (besides the templates themselves) which show how to display these. I think that this is great as a wikipedian editor tool, if looking for examples how to insert such code into articles. More examples = clearer understanding. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Famous Bankrupts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:People who declared bankruptcy --Kbdank71 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like overcategorization, as well as having that lovely word "famous". AuburnPilot ^Talk 01:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either Category:Bankrupts or Category:People who declared bankruptcy - I don't have a problem with this category. It's similar to sorting people who have committed a crime or sorting people who are billionaires. Having a list of notable people who were at one time bankrupt sounds interesting. However, I agree that the word "famous" isn't necessary. If the person isn't notable, they shouldn't have their own article on Wiki.Dugwiki 16:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People who declared bankruptcy, could make a reasonable subcat of Category:Bankruptcy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do you declare bankruptcy or are you declared bankrupt? If the latter, suggest Category:People declared bankrupt. I assume some people oppose the hearing and yet the court finds against them. Or at least, that's how it worked in Eastenders once, which may not be a reliable source, but is anecdotal evidence. Hiding Talk 20:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - either Rename to Category:People who declared bankruptcy, or Delete. Personally I prefer deletion, because I think these should have citations/references. But if kept, rename. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept or no consensus, rename to People made bankrupt as my understanding is per Hiding above, i.e. someone has to be declared bankrupt by a court or other authority in order to "be" bankrupt. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harrisburg Area Roads[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Roads in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Pennsylvania roads and routes. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is actually a part of the Harrisburg Area Roads WikiProject. The category wasn't added to the pages that are a part of the WikiProject. --myselfalso 01:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This category may be small, but it will grow as more relevant articles are added. What's wrong with having it as a subcat of PA roads and routes? Also, may I suggest renaming the category to "Harrisburg area roads"? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 14:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we rename it as well. --myselfalso 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the time I nominated this, it had only a single member. Now it has quite a few more. I have no objection to keeping it if it's being used, and would support a rename to Category:Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area roads, since there are many places named Harrisburg. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad name, but for some reason, I don't think the "Pennsylvania" distinguisher fits well in that spot. Maybe a name something along the lines of "Roads in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania" would be better. Comments welcome. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Category:Roads in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds good. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Roads in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Roads in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Roads in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area. AuburnPilot ^Talk 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Roads in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area. --myselfalso 00:07, 18 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:California History[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:History of California, convention of Category:History of the United States by state. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, I think... The note on the category's page states "19th-century California journal 1877-1893", but this seems to describe the category's one article The Argonaut, not a publication named California History... David Kernow (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sounds pretty sensible to me LW77 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merchbow 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—Merge and soon. Williamborg (Bill) 14:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think DK is right, and this is an accidentally created category that was originally intended to be an article. - jc37 08:59, 22 October 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sforza[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename as proposed -- Drini 01:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Sforza to Category:House of Sforza[reply]

Rename, to match the article House of Sforza and the categories of other European ruling houses. Sumahoy 00:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Merchbow 17:42, 17 October 2006 (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.