The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match main article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per correct rationale of nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. --Xdamrtalk 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category includes spin-offs of Horrible Histories, not just articles directly related to the main page. --Coin945 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match title of parent category. Include further descriptive details in category description, as needed. Alansohn (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Rename per correct rationale of nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete, OCAT. Categorizing birds by one mountain range in Mexico (with a slight tip in the U.S.) seems too fine a division, particularly given that the vast majority of species occurring there have far wider ranges. All of the included species were placed in categories for broader geographic ranges; over 40 of the included articles did not even mention the Sierra Madre Occidental. There is one species that is "for the most part" restricted to that mountain range, but presumably not entirely, so broader range categories can better accommodate that article, as does the list I've made from this category that preserves its information. Postdlf (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assuming the nominator is correct that only one article would really fit into this category if we limit it only to species that are endemic to that area (and he is correct as far as the examples I checked), then it seems to be an unnecessary category. --RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, as in previous similar nominations. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, OCAT. None of the 16 included species are restricted to Michigan (most articles don't even mention their occurrence there), but instead range widely over the U.S. or even North America as a whole. All of the contents have already been included in the list of fauna of Michigan. Postdlf (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as overcategorization. I don't even think doing this by country is useful, let alone by subdivision. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom and arguments made on a number of similar nominations recently. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator, as in previous similar nominations. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is routine for works intended for the general public to divide things this way. people reasonably enough want to see what animals hey are likely to encounter where they are. Wikipedia is written for the general public. IU'm not quite sure how to proceed on this, where I and am convinced that the basis on which these upmerges are being done is altogether wrong and misconceives the purpose of a general encyclopedia. I'll probably start an RfC, some day when the fiction minimalists leave me some time to work on what my actual professional background is about. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained in the fish category CFD, this is a matter of how best to organize information. Those interested in what can be found in Michigan will start with Michigan topics and categories, so it is important that such lists can be found from within that Michigan-specific structure. None of which justifies flooding widely distributed species with categories for every subnational entity where they can be found. This category is currently unique and not part of an amphibians by state category scheme, nor was it even integrated into the amphibians category scheme when created, but instead just myopically focused on Michigan, one state of 50 within one country. The trend instead is to handle subnational groupings by lists (see for example, Category:Lists of birds of the United States), as separately maintained lists do not burden the species articles with repetitive distribution details that can all be summarized as "distributed widely throughout the United States" or "throughout North America." Postdlf (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete, unnecessary butterfly subfamily categories. When I found them, the only contents of these two categories were species articles also categorized by their genus, and list articles of species found in North America that were completely redundant to the family-level list. All of that has been cleaned up now, leaving these unnecessary and empty. The family level, Category:Papilionidae, and the genus level subcategories are more than capable of handling its contents without the clutter of intervening subfamily levels to navigate through. Postdlf (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. --Xdamrtalk 11:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This name is shorter, and matches the Seattle article (which doesn't have a comma and Washington after it). There aren't any other cities named Seattle, so there's not need to add the Washington. ← Georgetalk 14:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename. The naming for this category is consistent with the naming for all other categories about the city. Although there is no other city with that name, there are other uses for 'Seattle', so including the state ensures the clarity of the categories. --RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What other uses? Debresser (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the disambiguation page above. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Seattle links directly to the city's article, and not to the disambiguation page, doesn't that indicate that the categories should as well? Also, from the list of articles on the disambiguation page, I don't think anything, besides the city, would have any sub-categories, let alone a "soccer clubs" sub-category. ← Georgetalk 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the category's contents are only about the city. Yes we can consider redirects, but in reality the metropolitan areas are very commonly the intended target for the category's contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal raises the issues with our perception that only cities can be the primary use of a name. If anyone bothered to look at the contents you would see that only 4 of the 10 teams actually play in the city (I could not determine where one of the teams played from the article). So the suggestion to support renaming to match the lead article is in accurate at best and completely misleading! Likewise, keeping the current name is also misleading. So given the facts, the best solution seems to be Rename to Category:Seattle metropolitan area soccer clubs. That solution avoids the issue of the city disambiguation and is totally accurate for the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. --Xdamrtalk 11:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The Category:Actors with dwarfism page mentions to list all actors having proportionate and disproportionate dwarfism (physical structure). The proposed name, Category:Dwarf actors, correctly applies to the same. The proposed name implies that actors with short stature acted in the roles as dwarfs. -- Thaejas (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename. The naming of this category is consistent with its parent, Category:People with dwarfism, and other similar categories. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RL0919. And "dwarf actors" sound more derogative than "actors with dwarfism", which is also an argument. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. I agree that "the proposed name implies that actors with short stature acted in the roles as dwarfs," which is not what we want. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We want a category which lists all the actors who are born with dwarfism, i.e., they could act in the films only as dwarfs and not otherwise. Pls do let me know which actor (having short stature) acted as a normal actor. Dwarfism is a physical deformity similar to deafness, for which we have other categories like Category:Deaf actors, Category:Deaf people, Category:American deaf actors. I suggest we have a common terminology used across wikipedia in naming such categories. - Thaejas (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too must not be "getting" the nomination. The problem as I see it is that the role of dwarfs have been played both by "actors with dwarfism" and "actors without dwarfism" (J. Rhys-Davies in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, most obviously). We don't want the category to imply that these are actors who played the role of dwarfs, which is what the proposed name suggests. These are actors "with dwarfism", hence the name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then, can I create another category Category:Dwarf actors, which lists all the actors who played the roles as dwarfs? - Thaejas (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a lot of trouble with the syntax "played the roles as dwarfs", but are you saying you want a category for actors who have portrayed dwarf characters? We don't categorize actors by roles in that manner, and even notwithstanding that principle, I really can't see what that would accomplish. Postdlf (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As differentiated by Good Ol'factory, Category:Actors with dwarfism includes only those people who are born with "dwarfism" (short stature). This category does not include actors without dwarfism. That implies, people who are not born as dwarfs (without dwarfism) but acted as dwarfs do not come under this category. I feel, for such kind of people, a separate category is required. - Thaejas (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I could not understand your question. If you are asking why should a category be there for actors who are not dwarfs by birth but acted as dwarfs, then I would like to know where you would categorize such kind of people (as mentioned by Good Ol'factory). - Thaejas (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't. I'm straining to imagine who would even be included, apart from the voice cast of Snow White and perhaps John Leguizamo. Really, why? Postdlf (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would suggest that you have to take a look at the actor mentioned by Good Ol'factory Rhys-Davies who is not even categorised as a person acting as a dwarf. Suggest you to go through Ol'factory comments (differentiation between actors with dwarfism and dwarf actors). And there are a lot many more actors who have acted as dwarfs which should be categorized under the proposed category. - Thaejas (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Gimli and Toulous-Lautrec are together at last? We don't categorize actors by roles generally, and at this point I still can't imagine why you think it should be done here. So really, why? Postdlf (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear Thaejas (since my comment keeps getting invoked), I wasn't saying that I think we need a category for actors who have played dwarf roles. Postdlf is right when he says that we don't typically categorize actors by roles. Well, actually, we never do it that I'm aware of. I don't think there is any good reason to do it for dwarfs, either. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pls refer to my reply to Debresser. To be uniform across all categories mentioning disablities, they should be renamed using either the preposition "with" (with dwarfism, with hearing disablity, etc) or simply use the actual wording like (Deaf, Dwarf, Dumb/Mute, Blind, etc) as in the Category:People with disabilities - Thaejas (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with dwarfism isn't a subcategory of Category:People with disabilities, so that's hardly relevant. Even if it was a subcategory thereof, there isn't any uniform naming scheme among its contents, and I don't know of any reason to expect that the preferred terminology would be the same for each such condition. Absent such consistency in real-world practice, it seems ill-advised to force that kind of superficially uniform nomenclature in such a sensitive and diverse area. But this is all moot for this CFD anyway, as Category:People with dwarfism (or any of the contents of Category:People with disabilities) are not under consideration here, and no reason has been given as to why Category:Actors with dwarfism should not follow the naming of its parent, Category:People with dwarfism. Postdlf (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, OCAT. All entries have really large ranges; none even deign to mention Oklahoma. One final word: Mallard. Postdlf (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. There is nothing Oklahoma-specific about these birds, and it should be obvious that birds don't turn back their flights at the state line. --RL0919 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, OCAT. Only one article. There are only two other geographic gastropod categories, for Australia and New Zealand. There isn't even a Category:Molluscs of the United States. Michigan shouldn't get such special treatment. Postdlf (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. You're doing a good job! Debresser (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom and the arguments made in a number of similar nominations recently. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wrong and misconceived, ignoring the purpose of a general encyclopedia. See my note above for amphibians. these divisions are useful to the readers, and that is the purpose of categories. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename, calling the Great Lakes exclusively "US" is inaccurate, as only Lake Michigan is entirely within the United States; all of the others are partially Canadian. Postdlf (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to more accurately describe category contents. The species described in the included articles are not limited to just the US side of the lakes. --RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Now this was an ugly case of wp:bias. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to give the original creator the benefit of the doubt and assume they were trying to disambig between the North American and African Great Lakes. But since the main article for the North American ones is at Great Lakes, that's where the cat should be, unless the article is renamed. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to more accurately describe category contents and match naming of similar categories. --RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wrong and misconceived, ignoring the purpose of a general encyclopedia. See my note above for amphibians. these divisions are useful to the readers, and that is the purpose of categories. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't agree with you regard the categories for articles on individual species in a specific state, I would point out that this is a different situation entirely. The actual content of this category is list articles. It isn't part of any scheme to categorize articles by state. --RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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, category empty at close. --Xdamrtalk 11:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I don't think that this is a particularly controversial change. The article title for the team from 1994 to 2008 is Seattle Sounders (USL), so this category should match. That's the style already in use for Category:Seattle Sounders (NASL) players. ← Georgetalk 09:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As this move didn't seem at all controversial, I've moved the articles from the old category name to the new category name. The category itself should be renamed, to maintain the history. ← Georgetalk 22:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename. This team played in four leagues, the APSL (1994), A-League (1995-1996), USISL A-League (created by the merger of the A-League and the USISL: 1997-1998), USL (1999-2004). The USL did not exist under that name until 1999. Unfortunately, George has put players, Brian Schmetzer for example, who were never in the USL into the Seattle Sounders (USL) players category. Keep the Seattle Sounders (1994-2008) players so we can categorize players according to the team, not the league. Mohrflies (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. --Xdamrtalk 11:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete, OCAT. The Madrean Sky Islands comprise a region of the SW United States and northern Mexico at certain higher elevations. All of the included bird species have far wider ranges, and 34 of the included articles don't even mention the Madrean Sky Islands. Madrean Sky Islands says nothing about its wildlife, let alone birds specifically. I've already created a list of birds of the Madrean Sky Islands from the category's contents, which is the proper way to handle such fine-toothed geographic delineation of wide-ranging species. Postdlf (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rhythm and blues music discographies[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.
Response Be that as it may (and I am going to propose a similar suggestion about sub-genres at the Discographies WikiProject), as long as this category exists, it should have the same name as the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split per AllyD to match the names of the two main articles. If the articles are separate, having the discographies in a mixed category only serves to confuse the reader. Jafeluv (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 21:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, OCAT. These are all sparsely populated; half only contain one article, and if the merge is performed, Category:Dinosaur museums in the United States will still only have 39 articles. As many of the included museums are actually general natural history museums, all but two of these categories have all of their contents also contained in their respective state-specific natural history museums categories, so they are not serving to unburden those (which are also lightly populated); this is why only one merger target is listed for 8 of the 10 above. Postdlf (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nominator. This is not the first such a case, where we just don't need a per state categorisation. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been discussed in the past at WP:MUSEUMS, and there's general agreement that museum cats that are only in a few states should be tracked at the national level and rolled up into a more general category at the state level. There will likely be some exceptions for things that dont roll up as easily as dinosaur into natural history (American National museums comes to mind). I'm about 2/3 done with walking through the US museum cats (North Carolina if you're interested). Some of the cleanup on things like Dinosaur museums I was putting off until I'm done and can see how many there actually are, or are extremely likely to be. Further discussion of this may be better suited in the Museums project. dm (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sure this has come up before, but is there an authoritative source which says they are Fugees and not The Fugees? The external links and references on the article mostly seem to have the The in there. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's really a question to take up on the talk page of the main article. However, the quick answer is that from looking at the covers of their albums, none appear to include "The". --RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I saw it on one of the album covers, but can't find it now, so I may have dreamed it. I agree, the way it appears on the album cover is the best source of the info, but that The is just all over the place. I just wanted to make sure the article was named correctly before using that as a reason to rename a few categories and articles like Ready or Not (The Fugees song) (though it looks like that is the only one). -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename and suggest cleanup of instances of the other form. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per main article, Fugees. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename and suggest cleanup of instances of the other form. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
It's a good idea. This would avoid confusion for people searching for "albums meant for funerals" or something like that. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 03:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match main article for category and avoid ambiguity. --RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for obvious disambiguation. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
