Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3[edit]

Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: *Delete by nominator. This is a group which anyone can join, like the Sierra Club, for example. Doubtless an admirable organization, but not worth noting on anyone's article. See, for example, Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Does_being_a_Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society_of_Arts_meet_notability_criteria.3F Student7 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2011 (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:Album covers by artist[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 13:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Album covers by artist to Category:Album covers by recording artist
Nominator's rationale: It is not clear under the current title whether "artist" refers to the artist who recorded the album for which the cover is used or the artist who created the cover art. Since the category tree appears to follow the first meaning, this category should be renamed. Category:Album covers by recording artist is one option, but there are others (e.g. Category:Album covers by musical artist). -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; perceptive (so unlike a lot of comments I have seen at CFD lately). Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to agree, although it would be better to discuss renaming of "album covers" to "audio recording covers" first, to save a double move. See discussion below about single covers. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2011 (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:Queensland floods 2010-2011[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, without prejudice to renominating the category in order to propose deletion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Queensland floods 2010-2011 to Category:2010–2011 Queensland floods
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest matching the category name to the corresponding name of the article 2010–2011 Queensland floods. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this category really necessary. The articles in the category to date could all be listed in the main article, no? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes I think it is necessary, and all the article are beneficial listed seperatelyEnidblyton11 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2011 (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:Canada city 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: Keep. Ruslik_Zero 15:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canada city templates to Category:Canadian city templates
Nominator's rationale: Grammer. Should be Canadian cities templates ~~EBE123~~(talk) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I used this form (name instead of gentilic) because some time ago i've read that it was decided to use -country name + templates- formm and not -gentilic + templates- to simplify... or else. See for exemple the Canadian mother category (Category:Canada templates instead of "Canadian templates"), or all country name forms used in Category:Country templates. Or the 22 names used in Category:City templates by country (Japan city templates, Bulgaria c.t., Australia c.t and so on.). Of course I know that the correct form is Canadian, but i've simply followed a standard rule decided, i think, some years ago. A proposal reguarding name changes should be presented, but it may be IMHO general, reguarding all countries. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I express this vote for technical reasons: As explained in my comment above, I followed a largely-used standard. Better than a change for a singular category it could be necessary to propose a general renaming (as done time ago for almost all the categories cities and towns in Foo {subject}, now renamed populated places in Foo {subject}). --Dэя-Бøяg 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: If you look at the naming format under Category:City templates by country, DerBorg's point is valid. I don't see the point in making one of the 22 categories have a non-standard name. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2011 (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:Images of A-Teens[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 13:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images of A-Teens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Images of Dream (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Images of Fatboy Slim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Images of Orson (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Images of Play (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Images of Wishbone Ash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Each of the nominated categories is a subcategory of Category:Images of musical groups and contains only one member: the category for covers of the corresponding band's audio recordings. The use of "Images of {band}" categories in this way is misleading and unnecessary. It is misleading because images of a musical group's album covers are not, technically, images of the musical group. It is unnecessary because the categories of album covers by band are already appropriately categorized, and the "Images of {band}" categories merely add an unnecessary layer that does not facilitate navigation. Specifically, each member of the nominated categories (see e.g. Category:Dream (band) album covers) is already in:
The "Images of {musician/band}" category tree is not (yet) an established categorization scheme like Category:Albums by artist, and I would argue that it should be used only when there is something to categorize which cannot be categorized via other, more appropriate categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (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:Single covers[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 and merge. The proposal to rename Category:Album covers makes a lot of sense, and should happen. But the amount of efforts needed to split single covers and album covers is unthinkably large. Much better to rename the album categories to something format-neutral and be done with it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: In the context of non-free use of covers of audio recordings, there is no need to differentiate between albums and singles. All non-free covers use {{Non-free album cover}} and appear in Category:Album covers automatically. It may be a good idea to rename Category:Album covers to Category:Audio recording covers but there is no need to start a separate tree for single covers in the meantime. Note, also, that the previous discussion (in 2007) resulted in deletion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest withdrawing this nomination and make a new proposal for merger & rename of "album covers" to "audio recording covers". In the past I felt a bit guilty at categorising a single within "albums" as it is far from obvious, at the lower category level, that this has policy support. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm far from being an expert on the subject of albums and singles, but I had the impression that "album cover" is used to refer to any audio recording cover. Insofar as Google hits statistics are informative, "audio recording cover" has only c. 4,000 hits as opposed to 2.8 million hits for "single cover" and 50 million for "album cover". I agree that extra clarification is needed (I experienced similar confusion until I read the 2007 CFD), but this could be accomplished by adding category descriptions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with proposal. I think with the use of the template {{Non-free album cover}} for all covers, this makes sense. There's really no need to distinguish both singles and album covers separately by artist. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2011 (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:Literary collaborators[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. That someone at some point collaborated with another person to write something does not seem to defining for them. So, I will delete this category. Articles about literary collaborations should be placed in the respective category. Ruslik_Zero 13:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Literary collaborators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems like a very broad and not very useful way to categorize writers. All it tells us is that at some point these authors wrote something of some kind with someone else (without telling us what or who). If there are notable writing teams or collectives with articles I can see grouping them in a category for writing teams but putting individuals in this kind of a category doesn't strike me as helpful. I Want My GayTV (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a useful category for single-subject articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ooo, I agree that this is quite a bad method of categorization. If it contained articles named after two or more collaborators, then it would be appropriate, but it does not. I can't really even envisage a situation where we would want or need an article named after two or more literary collaborators. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though, because Category:Literary collaborations exists (and is important), I feel less strongly about this category. I agree the category is at present inappropriately populated but I do not see that as a sufficient reason for deletion. Charles Lamb (writer) and Mary Lamb collaborated over a number of books and, had they not also been sole authors there could well have been a single article about the two of them. If an article on their Tales from Shakespeare did not exist then it would be difficult to categorise the situation even with separate biographical articles. Neil Forsyth is a literary collaborator with Elliot Castro and, because there is no article about the book[1] or Castro, categorisation would again be awkward. Where should Category:Translators of the Authorized King James Version fit in the categorisation scheme? The category would best be applied to a writing team for a book or series of books where the team is more notable than the individual authors and where there isn't an article on any of their books. Thincat (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Where should Category:Translators of the Authorized King James Version fit in the categorisation scheme?" As a subcategory of Category:Translators of the Bible into English and as a subcategory of Category:Authorized King James Version. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is fine then. I've now found Emma Darcy is a writing team who has written a series of books, none of which seem to have Wikipedia articles. This pseudonym could be (and, indeed, is) in Category:Literary collaborations but "collaborators" might be more suitable. This AFD nomination acknowledges that teams such as this would be appropriate in the collaborators category. Caroline and Charles Todd is an example where the article is named under the two authors. Thincat (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2011 (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:Royal Air Force Medical Corps personnel[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 15:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Royal Air Force Medical Corps personnel to Category:Royal Air Force Medical Service personnel
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There's no such thing as the RAF Medical Corps (which is an army term) - it's the RAF Medical Service or Medical Branch or just RAF Medical Services. Note that there is already a Category:Royal Air Force Medical Service officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (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:World Heritage Sites in Asia and Australasia[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: split to Category:World Heritage Sites in Asia and Category:World Heritage Sites in Oceania.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:World Heritage Sites in Asia and Australasia to Category:World Heritage Sites in Asia and Oceania
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term Oceania is widely used on WP and outside WP to include Australia, PNG, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands; the term Australasia is far more slippery and ambiguous, excluding the Pacific Islands and not always including New Zealand. Quite a number of the sites listed are in neither Asia nor Australasia but are in Oceania (there are ones in Fiji, Pitcairn, and the Solomons, for instance, which are not in Australasia by any stretch of the term). Others may or may not be in Australasia depending on your definition. And to cap it off, this has Category:Asia and Category:Oceania as its two continental parent categories. As such, using Oceania makes far more sense. FWIW, UNESCO – which designates World Heritage Sites – doesn't use either term, but instead refers to "The Asia-Pacific Region" (which implies that it covers far more than just Asia and Australasia). Grutness...wha? 12:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UNESCO calls that region "Asia and the Pacific", so possibly the same terminology should be used here. bamse (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a reasonable alternative. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either. I don't believe we should slavishly follow UNESCOs often bizarre terminology, with its "state parties" etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but split There should be separate categories for Asia and Oceania respectively. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but split Oceania is usual term , and is used for the article List of World Heritage Sites in Asia and Oceania (which should also be split) Hugo999 (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Asia and the Pacific" . We're using UNESCO's organisation so it's only appropriate that we use their naming as well. Also change the main article to suit the category. Munci (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2011 (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:Presidents with pet dogs[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. Ruslik_Zero 15:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Presidents with pet dogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Trivial; not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. However, the converse may be acceptable, Category:Pets of United States presidents. Surprisingly, this one has a parent article: United States presidential pets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (WP:OC#TRIVIA), noting also that the office of President is not (as the category description seems to assume) a feature associated solely or even primarily with the United States; see Presidential system. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Presidents kept as pets by dogs, to correct the speciesist misrepresentation of the relationship between four-legged people and their human assistants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a lifelong dog owner person owned by a dog I must acknowledge that you are correct. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But dogs don't even realise they are in charge! Now a cat—a cat will believe it is your god even if you lock it out of the house and it's forced to enter the house by ripping a hole in the screen of your basement window. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, "cat" does stand for "centre of all things"... delete, BTW - and Black Falcon, if that other category is moved then the key article should be, too, since they agree with each other. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Importance for categorization does not move in both directions. Even if US presidential pets are important in themselves as it may seem, he specific president gives notability to each pet, but pets do not give notability to the presidents a single bit, in fact, no biography of them would be deemed incomplete if their pet was not mentioned at all. MBelgrano (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In case this category stays, it should be renamed, as it is about US presidents, not presidents anywhere that may have pets MBelgrano (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changing my !vote). Being kept as a pet by a dog is a normal part of the human condition, and does not need to be categorised. Mind you, that does suggest that there may be scope for Category:Weirdo Presidents who are not kept as pets by dogs .... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 7 February 2011 (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:Government Aided Engineering Colleges[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 to Category:Engineering colleges in India.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Government Aided Engineering Colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. One member in four month old category, not being built out. Brianhe (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the category is underpopulated, the solution is to tag it with {{popcat}}, not delete it.
    I don't know enough about the structure of education in India to make any judgement about the substantive merits of this category, and the nominator offers no information to enlighten me. Has anyone notified WP:INDIA? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Engineering Colleges in India, whether they are or are not government-aided seesm a NN characteristic, but the one member ought to have this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2011 (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:Miscellaneous triathletes[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:American triathletes. All members of the category are American.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-category category with self-referential stated scope, ultimately useless to readers. Upmerge and cross-merge member articles as appropriate. ―cobaltcigs 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It appears to be an improper maintenance category for Wikipedia:WikiProject Triathlon.- choster (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Triathletes. WikiProjects have no official status, so how they categorise people is fundamentally irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was that if the category is in use, it would be better to rename it properly rather than simply discard it.- choster (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re-naming it to something which clearly reflects its purpose within said wiki-project and making it “hidden” (or whatever they do these days) would be equally acceptable. ―cobaltcigs 23:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: See relevant discussion from September 2010 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Triathlon/Archives/2014#Category:Miscellaneous triathletes. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- The citerion for this category seems to be that the members should not be subject to maintenance by a project. If it is a maintenance-related category, it should not be on the article page. the parent category has not direct population and the contnets of this category would fir well in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2011 (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:Punch card[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. I will leave a category redirect at the current title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Punch card to Category:Punched card
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match punched card. (This was nominated at the speedy section a few weeks ago, which prompted a nomination to move the article to punch card. That discussion has just been closed as "not moved".) There's no reason to have the article and the category have different names; a redirect should be placed on the nominated category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, for consistency with Punched card, which was discussed at length. --Pnm (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • do it very reasonable change Hmains (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like a no consensus type closure to the move request. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with Comment - Is this Wikipedia's bureaucracy gone mad? Just do it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps not "gone mad", but given the lack of agreement on the article name, it's clearly a CYA situation (or CMA, in this case). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it would be bureaucracy gone mad if clearly controversial names are renamed without discussion. As having the requested move close as not moved following a lack of consensus from a lot of discussion shows naming controversy, so it's better to have a discussion here. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the RM discussion, which gave editors a chance to have their say. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above supports. Occuli (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I prefer punch card, but more than that, I prefer the article and category match in title.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match eponymous article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but leave a cat-redirect. The category should match the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per decision on Punched card - you might argue that was a bad decision (I wouldn't), but inconsistency is just silly. SteveBaker (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_3&oldid=1074807327"