Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 1

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< September 30 October 2 >

October 1 edit

Politics edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename all. ∞Who?¿? 03:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the categories in category:Politics by country which are not in the "Politics of X" form, apart from one or two which have been nominated separately and category:Roman Curia which should surely stay as it is, as the political arrangements of the Vatican State itself are only a tiny part of its signficance:

Rename all It looks a lot but it's only a small fraction of the total. CalJW 23:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:French government to category:Government of France edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename, see closure note. ∞Who?¿? 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to standard form category:Government of France as per nearly all the others in category:Government by country. CalJW 23:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. -- Reinyday, 02:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename (could be speedied per criterion #4). Also rename Category:Hong Kong Government similarly. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Don't think standard form is necessary. If a government prefers to call itself Foo Government or Fooian Government, what's the point to rename its category as category:Government of Foo? — Instantnood 09:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • These categories are about all government in the country, not just the national government. The name of the national government isn't relevant, indeed I don't think most government have an "official name", and if the French government did it would be in French. 11:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Right. However in some smaller countries there are only one tier of governments. — Instantnood 12:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Vatican city maybe? Even Andorra has subdivisions. And in any case that doesn't make the standard form inappropriate. CalJW 11:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose renaming category:Hong Kong Government. — Instantnood 13:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please explain why you oppose this? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RenameCarina22 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note cat:Hong Kong Govt will not be renamed, if this were a speedy it had an oppose vote, which would require further discussion. No other voters specified specifically to rename all. Please submit it as a Cfd on its own. ∞Who?¿? 03:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Industry of Hungary edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 02:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, somewhat old-fashioned and most importantly non-standard. It contained an entry about a car, which I have moved to the Technology category mentioned below, and an article about a manufacturing company, which was already in category:Manufacturing companies of Hungary, which in turn is in the companies category, which is in the economy category, in line with usual practice for other countries. Delete CalJW 22:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep where would the coal industry/oil industry/mining industry/refining industry go? Arnie587 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In the economy section until there were enough articles to justify subcategorisation, but there aren't any articles at all, so please consider amending your vote. There are a few countries with categories for mines or oilfields. CalJW 01:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Carina22 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bhoeble 13:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Technology of Hungary to category:Science and technology in Hungary edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 03:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to standard form category:Science and technology in Hungary to agree to the other categories in category:Science and technology by country. CalJW 21:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Politics of the Northwest Territories edit

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

The result of the debate was Reverse merge. ∞Who?¿? 03:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to remove redundant category. The other similar category is Category:Northwest Territories politics Cloveious 18:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Category:Northwest Territories politics should be merged into this one. Bhoeble 19:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have nominated the other categories for renaming above. CalJW 01:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bhoeble. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No sense in renaming all other provincial categories, see discussion above Luigizanasi 03:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a clear Wikipedia policy set in this matter, and it favours keeping the category that's proposed for deletion and deleting the one that's proposed for keeping. Whether we like it or not, we cannot simply ignore the policy that's been determined. Parent categories do not each get to define their own individual standard which needs to be respected even if they're the opposite of defined policy on Wikipedia-as-a-whole. As per Bhoeble, oppose deletion of the category proposed for deletion here, and merge the other way. Bearcat 05:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge/Rename as suggested by Bearcast, CalJW, others. James F. (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge/Rename as suggested by Bearcast, CalJW, others. Carina22 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge/Rename as suggested by Bearcast, CalJW, others. maclean25 02:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - reverse merge and rename as suggested by Bearcat et al. Mindmatrix 19:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bhoeble. siafu 02:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

subcats of Category:Theme parks edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename, Naming conventions candidate. ∞Who?¿? 03:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't very many or these, but I suggest we rename as follows and establish "Theme parks in foo" as the convention for (by country) subcats of Category:Theme parks at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

subcats of Category:Universities and colleges by country edit

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

The result of the debate was RENAME per revised list. At least several of the pre-revision comments lean quite clearly towards supporting the revised list which effectively takes account of local usage and fixes 'of'→'in'. -Splashtalk 15:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), subcats of Category:Universities and colleges by country follow "X in foo" format, but does not specify "Universities in foo" or "Universities and colleges in foo". I suggest we standardize on "Universities and colleges in foo", which would require the following renames (and merges). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: In germany there are Universities and "Universities of applied sciences" (polytechnic). The term "college" is usually used as translation for schools that enable the pupils to study (only) at polytechnics (11th & 12th grade). Those colleges exist in many of the > 2,000 german towns. -- 217.237.149.162 19:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably. It seems a perfectly clear comment to me. CalJW 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Don't think it's necessary to standardise all subcategories. In North America universities are often called colleges, but this may not be the same case elsewhere. — Instantnood 18:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there will usually be some colleges as well. Subcategories can be created for specific types where there are enough articles. Bhoeble 19:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, this is not the case in North America as a whole -- it's only the case in the United States. In Canada, colleges and universities are two distinct things which are never interchangeable with each other. But category-wise, we still use the Category:Universities and colleges in Canada naming format, and where appropriate we simply divide universities and colleges into distinct subcategories. The proposed change is consistent with Wikipedia naming policy, and does not at all have to create any of the problems raised here. Rename all. Bearcat 05:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The proposed change most certainly does create problems. In the case of the UK the proposal is to abolish the subcategory for universities, and the implication is that no other country should have a sub-category for universities either, including Canada. CalJW 11:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all apart from those which merely change "of" to "in". I've changed my mind as there are already problems with 2 categories. There may be many others where there are complications which no one has commented on yet. There are many countries where "college" is used for some schools and Oxbridge colleges for example do not belong here either. Defer to local usage and nominate those where change is appropriate one at a time after researching local usage. Bhoeble 19:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except those which are just format tidying where college and university already appear. In almost every country in the world except the U.S. universities are formally defined and never referred to as colleges. There are many types of colleges around the world (including lots which are schools). Universities should be a subcategory of "Universities and colleges". I suggest that the nominator goes through all of these and creates "universities and colleges" parent categories if he wishes to standardise these. CalJW 21:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose artificially adding the term "college" where not justified by local usage. In many of these places colleges are more like High Schools in the U.S. and not at all comparable to Universities. No problems with changing "of" to "in" though. FYI, there has been related discussion on this point previously Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Universities and colleges by nationality older≠wiser 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all which merely change "of" to "in". Oppose all others. Hiding talk 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename only those where university and college are synonymous (that is, almost none ;-)) - same as Hiding, as it were. James F. (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in line with everyone else, except for changing "of" to "in". Carina22 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here's an amended list. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fooish universities → Universities [and colleges] in foo

miscapitalized, Taiwan → Republic of China

Universities and colleges of foo → Universities and colleges in foo

No change

dup category

Universities of foo → Universities in foo

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

Category:Terrorists edit

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is far to POV one man's Freedom Fighter is another man's terroist. This is just an attempt at labeling.--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or create a main category Terrorist organizations proscribed by the government of the United States and then create sub categories for these organizations, and then further sub categories Members of ***** Arnie587 17:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Bhoeble is correct if you read the description on the page, it is thorough and very clear that only those that use terrorist tactics should be included, freedom fighters may also use terrorist tactics so then they are also terrorists and should be listed in a terrorist and also freedom fighter category Arnie587 23:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The usage is defined appropriately. Bhoeble 19:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another inherently POV category! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    surely it is obvious what a terrorist act is so surely it is not POV to describe people who use terrorist tactics as terrorists? Arnie587 23:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It is entirely opaque what a terrorist act is (not all violence, obviously; not all non-military violence; basically, it's whatever "the other guy" does). And it's no less unclear what type of involvement in an allegedly terrorist act qualifies one as its actor (does funding an act? does advocating it abstractly? does providing instructions for the act? etc). No group has ever called itself terrorist (as opposed to guerrilla, insurgent, revolutionary, freedom fighters, etc); and virtually every group has called its opponents terrorist.
  • Delete POV-pushers will salivate when they find this category and use it as a tool to push their agenda. Just moments ago I had to remove it from Henry Kissinger. [1] 172 | Talk 01:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it's Ronald Reagan. [2] 172 | Talk 01:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    But Reagan and Kissinger unambiguously meet the criteria stated on the category page (unlike a number of others listed). Of course, the term is pejorative, not NPOV, but if you look at the "definition" given. I think especially of Reagan and the anti-Sandinista terrorism, and Kissinger and the bombing of Cambodia, but there are other examples. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are all these so-called POV-pushers? There are just NINE articles currently listed in the Category:Terrorists. All seem to me to be properly categorized. Therefore, the question is: if this category has previously been listed for deletion, and been voted to be retained, why are we re-running the debate now?Phase1 13:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has survived one nomination already. If we removed things because they might attract vandalism our coverage of contemporary politics would be fulls of gaps. Counteracting it is just part of the normal maintenance routine. CalJW 02:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV-label. Shanes 04:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thought we'd deleted this a year ago or so. James F. (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an objectively-defined category. Then argue on the respective talk page about the individuals thus categorized.Phase1 11:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CalJW. TexasAndroid 14:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal keep. Carina22 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all categories are "attempts to label", that is their purpose. I agree with Phase1, keep the controversy to the individual articles. Sherurcij 05:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if an "objective" definition of terrorism can be agreed on, deciding who it applies to is too difficult as the facts surrounding such issues are often disputed. I think it would be easier to create "bad guys (according to somebody)" category. --Yodakii 07:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a disclaimer stating that the category only contains things widely and objectively considered terrorists, but it may still be subjective and POV-loaded to some. — Instantnood 13:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE wasn't this category deleted already? 132.205.45.110 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see category talk:terrorists. Nth cycle of trying to do the same. Did the proposer of this 5th or 6th vote on the same topic ever read wikipedia:categorisation of people? Upon every vote cycle the keep consensus grows stronger. --Francis Schonken 09:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

category:Rivers in Ireland or category:Rivers of Ireland edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 02:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to standard form category:Rivers of Ireland as per the other categories in category:Rivers. CalJW 09:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename and do so also with Category:Rivers in Northern Ireland. - Darwinek 11:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both (could be speedied per criterion #4). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both as per Darwinek Bhoeble 19:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both as suggested Carina22 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does this mean the Northern Ireland category is nominated? Is it tagged? If that's not the case, then, procedurally, it has to be separately nominated. — Instantnood 13:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Northern Ireland category is not tagged. In that case, rename category:rivers in Ireland, and nominate category:rivers in Northern Ireland separately as speedy. — Instantnood 07:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

category:Croatian military to category:Military of Croatia edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 02:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to standard form category:Military of Croatia as per the other categories in category:Militaries. CalJW 08:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

National symbols edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to "Fooish cultural icons", see closure note. ∞Who?¿? 03:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have some doubts about this set of categories, but they do relieve some clutter from the main culture categories. I suggest that the best convention would be "National symbols of X" and it is the favoured from in practice, though there aren't many categories yet. Therefore I suggest renaming:

CalJW 06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • While going through to mark them cfru I was reminded that the Scottish one is marked for renaming to "Scottish cultural icons" (and I voted for it!) and the Singapore category is also in category:National emblems, which also contains categories for the US and Ireland. There is also category:British cultural icons. It is a frightful muddle. I really think we need to have just one name and one category type or there will be constant confusion and conflicting usage from one country to another. "National symbols" lies in the middle ground. It would require some recategorisation, but not a huge amount. The national emblem article defines that term so narrowly that there is little to categorise, and the "cultural icon" is rather broad. If we can agree to use it, I will go through and start categories for the top 20 or so biggest national categories with a few items each to create a stronger prededent and make this a more familiar category for users of the national menus. It's still rather hard to see how to prevent the other category types from popping up from time to time, but we could create a convention that any such categories should be renamed or merged. CalJW 07:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the proposed new category category:British and English national symbols is a recipe for disaster. All the supposedly "British" symbols are actually English ones, so let's just apply the correct heading.--Mais oui! 16:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct. There are plenty which apply to the whole of the UK, starting with the Union Jack. Bhoeble 19:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the very obvious solution is to have two categories: a Category:British national symbols and a Category:English national symbols. Why create artificial confusion with the conflated name? Equating England with the United Kingdom is bound to cause endless, needless grief; it is also un-encyclopaedic. Personally I think I prefer the cultural icons tag, but I'm open to persuasion.--Mais oui! 21:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed to have only one because I don't fancy trying to decide which is which, but I suppose it could be done - with a lot of dulpication. So amend proposal to: rename Category:British cultural icons --> Category:National symbols of the United Kingdom, no that just doesn't sound right, make it category:British national symbols, and if that happens I will create Category:National symbols of England. CalJW 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all category:National symbols of Foo as proposed with exception for Britain, which rename as proposed. Bhoeble 19:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would "cultural icons" be a better choice than "national symbols"? — Instantnood 19:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the question. What do you think and why? I am willing to support either of those options if we can obtain consensus for it as the only one to be used, but I marginally prefer "symbols" as I think it will reduce the risk of these categories becoming too baggy, with lots of marginal items. CalJW 21:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like "Cultural icons" much more than "national symbols" (it's much more flexible, at the very least). James F. (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Cultural icons" is my preference too. Grinner 11:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make them consistent I marginally favour cultural icons, but I'm not really fussed. Carina22 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote for consistency, to which I too prefer "cultural icons". However, I'm puzzled as to why it should be British cultural icons rather than cultural icons of the United Kingdom. I would prefer the latter. Hiding talk 19:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amendment Okay, I'll go along with "cultural icons" - and please don't let the disagreement over the British category lead to all this effect being wasted by a "no consensus" conclusion when there seems to be a consensus on the main issue. Let's just go along with the majority preference on that specific point, whatever it may be at the end of the voting period. It tied go for "British" (ie. not my preference) as it is more standard. CalJW 05:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we're already past this problem by now, but calling the new category "British and English" is probably the silliest idea I've seen in my time at Wikipedia. England is a part of Britain: it's not England, with 'the rest' as an inferior addition. Ben davison 23:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note all listed categories will be renamed to "Fooish cultural icons". No specific preference was given except that of consistency, which is currently Category:British cultural icons and Category:Scottish cultural icons. However this leaves the parent cat Category:National symbols and the remaining subs inconsistent. ∞Who?¿? 03:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Croatian legal system to category:Croatian law edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 02:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to standard form category:Croatian law. CalJW 06:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. -- Reinyday, 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Carina22 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Croatian companies to category:Companies of Croatia edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 02:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category:Companies of Croatia in line with all the other national categories in category:Companies by country. CalJW 06:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. -- Reinyday, 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname Carina22 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:FSM music to category:Music of the Federated States of Micronesia edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 02:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's deprive this one of its mysteriousness by renaming it category:Music of the Federated States of Micronesia. CalJW 06:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_1&oldid=1136105202"