Category talk:Pages for discussion

This category was nominated for deletion on 7 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

We should subcategorize this category so that we can reduce the population. --SuperDude 19:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a theology student, I find the Latin phrases very useful and would hope that they are not delected.

I really do hope that the Phoenix Homes article is not deleted. It is a very good article- perfect for doing research- User: Shane bellinger

Please don't delete Phoenix Homes!- User: Minimouse

The purpose of this page

In accordance with what I understand to be the purpose of this page, and based on its new name, acquired in this disussion for rename, I'd like to propose the folowing.

Move all subcategories with the word "deletion" (4 out of 7) to Category:Wikipedia deletion. Leave all subcategories with the word "discussion" (the remaining 3) here.
Move this category up to Category:Wikipedia maintenance, because "discussion" should be on the same level as "deletion". Surely "discussion" is not a subset of "deletion". Debresser (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unsigned nonsense above. This category is (and has always been) retained for sub-categories about both deletion and discussion. We call them deletion discussions. It was renamed "discussion" because somebody that should remain nameless actually removed discussion subcategories from this category. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds....
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "it has always been so" is a non-argument. A pages name must describe its content accurately. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. These are all Foo For Discussion, regardless of if they are called for deletion or for discussion. Yes, yes they are. Consensus is based on discussion. And per WAS, this proposal is only going to separate subcategories that are only different in what they are discussing. This change doesn't make sense. Yes, I know, you already said a pages name must describe blah blah. Seems like this (and other changes you have proposed or made) are just making changes for the sake of change, and that is not a reason to make the change. --Kbdank71 17:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why isn't Category:Wikipedia deletion a subcatgory here, rather than the other way around? Debresser (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related suggestion

I'd like to use this occasion for a related suggestion. To remove from the Category:Wikipedia deletion page the category Category:Wikipedia administration, because it is already in Category:Wikipedia maintenance, and IMHO this is incorrect duplicate categorisation. Apart from that, Category:Wikipedia deletion seems rather out of place in comparison with other subcategories in Category:Wikipedia administration. Which might be because that very same reason of duplicate categorisation has prevented related categories to show up there. Debresser (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – deciding that something is out of place based on the name is just plain foolish. The contents are administrative. I'm not certain it belongs in maintenance, but this is not the place for that discussion.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pages name must describe its content accurately. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who ever took an intelligence test knows that many questions are based on the "odd one out" principle. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]