Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 14

< March 13	March 15 >

March 14[edit]

Category:The Naked Gun Templates[edit]

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, serves no purpose, contains presently only 1 eponymous template. --cjllw ʘ TALK 11:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Either delete as unnecessary or rename with a lower-case "t" in "templates." One of the three templates is currently up for deletion, if that's relevant. Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 14 March 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:Special Guest Stars of Police Squad![edit]

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. the wub "?!" 09:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, performer by performance overcategorization, per multiple precedents. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - performer by performance, non-defining, per nom, etc. Otto4711 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 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:Kinship (TV series)[edit]

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. the wub "?!" 09:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 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:The Unit[edit]

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. the wub "?!" 09:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. Otto4711 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 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:Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles[edit]

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: upmerge to Category:Terminator. the wub "?!" 09:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. Otto4711 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Terminator 70.51.8.110 (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 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:Taxi (TV series)[edit]

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. the wub "?!" 09:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:23, 19 March 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:Ambassadors to Canada[edit]

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 to Category:Ambassadors and High Commissioners to Canada. the wub "?!" 09:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ambassadors to Canada to Category:Ambassadors and High Commisssioners to Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As a Commonwealth country Canada gets near as may HCs and Ambassadors. Kevlar67 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename is fine in principle, but it should be Category:Ambassadors and high commissioners to Canada. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it should not - see other categories, lists and High Commissioner; but it should have 2 "s"s, not 3! Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was disagreeing with the caps on a different principle than "precedent". I agree that it could be capitalised when referring to a high commissioner from a particular country, since the person could said to hold the title of "High Commissioner of Foo", but when we are referring to high commissioners going to a particular country it should not be capitalised because we are referring to people who serve in multiple different positions, i.e. they are all high commissioners in the generic sense in that they are from different nations. They don't all hold the same title of "High Commissioner of Foo", but they are all "high commissioners". Disagree if you will, but don't negate my opinion. If there are other "high commissioners" in a "to" category that are capitalised, I'd be happy to agree with using caps for the sake of consistency, though. (As for my 3-s typo, it was corrected in less than one minute and before you posted your comment.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to your typo, but the one still in the nom. I take your point, but still think caps are correct. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — my typo no doubt came from copying that one. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 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:Former members of Youth With A Mission[edit]

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. the wub "?!" 09:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is not in itself notable, beyond the 2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings. JeffBillman (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also notable are Dave Andrews, Harold Bussell, Ten Shekel Shirt and other articles which could be created, e.g.: James Croker, choreographer of Canadian dance troupe Motus O and Paul Miller, author of Knowing God's Will, The Reluctant Evangelist, Into the Arena and Levantate Colombia. ClaudeReigns (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, membership or former membership in this org is not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:40, 20 March 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:Bosnian Muslims[edit]

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. the wub "?!" 09:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Bosnian Muslims to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims

Nominator's rationale: Merge, To standardise within Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people by religion. Granted, the categories could be interpreted slightly differently, with the "Bosnian" category being extended to those of Bosnian ethnicity of whatever "nationality", with the target category being only those from B&H of whatever ethnicity, but in this case the difference is, in practical terms of applicability to WP articles, relatively non-existent and thus we're better off using standard terminology throughout WP. (Creator of category is banned so I didn't bother notifying.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mistunderstand Bosnian politics methinks. In Bosnia "Muslism" is more a ethnic term than a religious one. The term "Bosnian Muslim" is a ethnic term that is slowly being replaced by "Bosniak". A Turk or an Arab (or yes even a Bosniak) living in Bosnia practising Islam is a different matter altogether. Your category should be called "Muslims in Bosnia and Hercegonvina". It would have a similar but not the same membership as a category called "Bosnian Muslims". Kevlar67 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's essentially what I outlined above with my discussion of ethnicity vs nationality, and I think I amply understand the "politics" of the termilnology being used. However, as I also stated above, the differences between the two groups in WP right now are essentially nil, since all Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina that there are articles about are Bosniaks. If the consensus is that we want to maintain two categories which essentially duplicate each other for the future instance in which there is a non-Bosniak Muslim in B&H that has an article, that's fine; we could even reverse merge. I just don't see the need for the duplication yet. Finally, "Bosnia and Herzegovina Foo" appears to be the more used format than "Foo in Bosnia and Herzegovina", so I don't see a need to change that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded religion cat, and unneeded intersection of nationality & religion to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 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:Reality television participants from Pittsburgh[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. the wub "?!" 09:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Reality television participants from Pittsburgh to Category:Reality television participants

Nominator's rationale: Merge - splitting up these contestants by city is too fine. This is the only city-based category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 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:Elimination television series[edit]

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. the wub "?!" 09:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - doesn't strike me as a useful categorization scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 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:Day care sexual abuse hysteria[edit]

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 change. the wub "?!" 09:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Day care sexual abuse hysteria to Category:Day care sex abuse hysteria

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the corresponding article Day care sex abuse hysteria). Of course, there's a separate issue here, namely that the name of the article has been the subject of much discussion because some feel that the title is not neutral. Personally, I think the titles are ok (both for the article and the cat) since they focus on, precisely, a string of cases which are fairly routinely grouped together because they were part of a sudden scare that sexual abuse was a routine occurrence in day cares in the 80s. Anyhoo, this can be debated separately at some point but for now, the rename I'm considering is just for consistency with the article title. Pichpich (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - rename the article. The main parent article and category are at Sexual abuse and Category:Sexual abuse, which is probably the more widely used term. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming per Grutness. In fact, I have already gone ahead and renamed the main article. Cgingold (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are a small number of other "X sex abuse" categories within Category:Sexual abuse that may also need changing for consistency. Grutness...wha? 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "sex" as an adjective becomes "sexual", it is the abuse that makes this notable and sexual is a subtype of abuse. No one has shown that "sex" is the main theme, and only abusive of the "sex" - implying that there is some good sex and some not good sex in day care setting, which I find hard to fathom - is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and rename the article (and anything similarly titled) to "...sexual abuse" instead, as they are about sexual abuse [of people] not abuse of sex. — CharlotteWebb 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and rename the article, per Grutness. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per CharlotteWebb. Since when is "hysteria" an appropriate (i.e. NPOV) term to use in categorisation? Or in most Wikipedia articles, for that matter? This CfD needs to be closed rather quickly, and followed with another CfD to either delete the category entirely, or rename to something more NPOV. See also delete, do not keep. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:57, 19 March 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.

Years in Europe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge, but just the foo in europe; I recommend tagging and nominating foo by country as well, which appear to fall under the same problem as below and the other discussions mentioned. Kbdank71 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

These are seemingly disruptive replacements for the equivalent "year in Ireland" categories which were deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 30 and endorsed per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18. One article categories are no use to anyone, as has been amply established by the discussions above, as has the pointlessness of creating categories as "placeholders" when sub-categories can be created as needed. At this moment in time there is no need for any of the above categories to exist, the articles can easily be placed in the appropriate year cat, eg Category:20, none of which are sufficiently populated to justify these recreations of deleted categories that contain exactly the same articles as before with just a different name. If at any point in the future those categories become sufficiently populated to justify the creation of sub-catogories then such categories may be justifiable, but as present they are not and the "give us more time" argument was rejected at the previous discussions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 30 was far from unanimous and the nominator and one of the nom's supporters (user:Zoporific) turned out to be puppets (meat or sock). I don't myself see any problem with a category with 1 article, or with the 'give us time' argument. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was unanimous, as the supporters of the category failed to counter the arguments, except "give us more time". The community does have a problem with one article categories, as is aptly demonstrated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is just your opinion. My opinion is that the delete argument was not established. And there is no problem with 1 article categories, (eg Category:Polish popes) if part of a wider coherent structure, as I'm sure you know. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominated. The year categories can contain one extra article each.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom without prejudice to re-creation later if justified by more articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, without prejudice per GO. Do we need Category:260 by country etc? I think not. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Within a categorization scheme, Category:260 by country is no different than Category:2008 by country. Neier (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - no justification at this point for setting up these small by continent categories. If there's a sudden explosion of articles by year then we can look at re-creating these but for now they aren't needed. Otto4711 (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Europe was hardly isolated during those years - the Roman Empire was fighting wars in Asia (Persia, Parthia, etc.) and in Africa, all of which had effects in Europe. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 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:U.S. members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America[edit]

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. the wub "?!" 09:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America to Category:American members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change "U.S." to "American" for persons. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per usual conventions. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary religion category and intersection of nationality & religion to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 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:Ontolodoxical characters[edit]

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, empty. The three articles have been moved by the creator to Category:Characters who are their own ancestors. I'll not comment on the merits of the new category except to say at least none of the words in the title appear to be made up. Kbdank71 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I dearly wish this wasn't necessary, but as an officer of the court I feel duty-bound to prefer charges. The problem is, "ontolodoxical" seems to be an invented word. This, in other words, is purely a lexicological fabrication. But it's awfully clever. Perhaps we could set up some kind of fenced-off area, like a sort of nature reserve, to display items like this for posterity? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ontolodoxical seems to have no existence beyond wikipedia, unfortunately. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - if you like the catagory, but not the name... wouldn't renaming be a better option? Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to what? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever floats your boat. Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're the category creator, it would be very helpful if you would recommend an alternative name for the category. Cgingold (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the catagory creator I like the name it has. My point is that the people who want to delete it seem to want to deleted it due to the name. If it is just a problem with the name and not the concept, I suggest renaming rather than deletion. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, we can't even consider keeping the category when the name is quite literally an invented term. If you can suggest an acceptable name -- using real words whose meaning would be clear to readers -- you'll be in much a better position to make a case for keeping it. Cgingold (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again it appears that the name is the problem, not the category. I suggest you come up with a new name. Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Ya can't say we didn't try. Cgingold (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't try. Unless you've come up with a new name and are keeping it secret. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what... I am no longer amused by your antics. If we decide to rename and keep this category, it will be in spite of your participation here, not because of it. Cgingold (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to amuse you, I'm here to help make Wikipedia work. I think that the category is useful. It is my impression that most of those proposing deletion don't have a problem with the category but rather the name. If I had a better name, I'd have come up with it in the first place. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now found Ontological paradox which does at least include the word ontolodox; but this was inserted by an anon edit. A suitably succinct phrase for a rename remains elusive however. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WTF is ontolodoxical? Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We now have the same three characters in Category:Characters resulting from Ontolodox Paradox, created by Duggy 1138 during the course of the discussion; it might have been useful to mention it when the possibility of renaming was mentioned... Bencherlite ^Talk 13:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I have just taken the new category to CFD as well. Cgingold (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to me the category is simultaneously too specific and too general to be of much use, taxonomically speaking, even if you could come up with an acceptable name. In any case, the neologism is cute, but doesn't seem particularly apt in its usage here. The three characters listed under the category all exist in the context of some sort of temporal paradox, but I don't see that they themselves are ontologically paradoxical, per se. --Uhlume (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All three are their own parent or grandparent (in one case both parents). They aren't just timetravellers, but rather results of their own sperm. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've finally decided to engage in a serious discussion we might actually get somewhere, Duggy. Cgingold (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as undefinable and not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We really cannot pursue this discussion in two separate CFDs -- so it needs to be consolidated in one place. Therefore, one of these CFDs needs to be Speedy closed. (The other CFD is here.) Cgingold (talk) 14:09, 19 March 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:Kozani[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep, and also create Category:Kozani Prefecture. Assign cat members to one or the other as appropriate. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kozani to Category:Kozani Prefecture

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is not being used for the city Kozani, but for the prefecture Kozani Prefecture, of which the city is capital. So, let's rename it to reflect the usage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nomDimadick (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split and keep the former (containing anything related to the city itself) as a sub-category of the latter. — CharlotteWebb 17:27, 17 March 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.