Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 5

< August 4	August 6 >

August 5

Category:US Vice Preidents who have shot someone

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. - EurekaLott 21:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it is kind of funny, I can't imagine it including ~~more than one~~ very many Vice Presidents. (Apparently Aaron Burr shot someone, too.) --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree. Shanes 21:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would find it funny, but it's not even spelled correctly. Vandalism is way more entertaining when it's properly copy-edited vandalism... :p --Jaysweet 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:05, 5 August 2006 (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:Names for Human

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not encyclopedic. UtherSRG (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. It's a stub, give it time. The definition and delineation of humanity, in a continuum of biological and cultural evolution, is inherently the subject of debate. Tracking different significant interpretations of such is encyclopaedic. Suryadas 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete Subject does not merit a category, but an article would be appropriate. Kurieeto 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, it deserves an article titled something like List of names for human, rather than a category? I can agree with that. Suryadas 20:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, exactly. Some subjects such as these are definitely encyclopedic, but categories aren't the best way of presenting them. Kurieeto 21:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, list seems OK. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Support listing.ThuranX 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: whoever emptied this category, please repopulate it. Do not empty categories before the CFD discussion is final. --M @r ē ino 15:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as now listified per above. David Kernow 05:26, 13 August 2006 (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.

Youth organizations by country

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-categories of Category:Youth organizations by country are currently named "of X". I believe this should be changed to "based in X". "Of X" has connotations of being of the state, which very few articles in this category actually are (the National Civilian Community Corps being one, etc.). "Based in X" is also the convention used for this category's parent Category:Organizations by country (Ex: Category:Organizations based in Canada). Given the above, renaming the following to a "based in X" wording would be an improvement in the areas of consistency, clarity, and precision. The following renamings are proposed:

--Kurieeto 17:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. David Kernow 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC), withdrawn 11:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. the wub "?!" 09:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. --Mais oui! 08:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; "based" suggests having a base and operating abroad. --Malyctenar 09:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I think... Maybe Category:Youth organizations of X and Category:International youth organizations in the parent Category:Youth organizations is a solution...? Regards, David Kernow 11:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, if a distinction between a national and international scope not necessary, rename all per nom but state on category page that "based in" may mean national or international...? (If so, perhaps something similar required for other "based in" categories...) David Kernow 12:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. I don't see any weight in the objection raised. Osomec 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, thats how we have the regular organizations categories named. Recury 18:46, 10 August 2006 (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:Airbases

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airbases with Category:Military airbases

Merge, nearly empty cat, not sure what the differences, between them would be, if any. — MrDolomite | Talk 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any airbases that are not dedicated to military purposes, e.g. search and rescue, policing, firefighting? — Insta ntnood 19:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge to Category:Airbases. Since airbase is the same as a military airbase and since the main article is airbase, then we should do the reverse merge. Vegaswikian 20:18, 5 August 2006 (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:WikiProject EastEnders

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is no longer needed by the WikiProject (WP:WPEE), and is full of talk pages of articles which are already categorised in either Category:EastEnders or one of its sub-categories. Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)}^(contribs) 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thank you. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2006 (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:People by American metropolitan area

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by American metropolitan area to Category:People by metropolitan area in the United States

Category:People by American metropolitan area is a sub-cat of Category:People by city. I believe it should follow the naming convention of all other sub-cats of Category:People by city, which is "in X" (Ex: Category:People by city in the United States). This is a much more precise wording, and serves consistency. Kurieeto 16:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. --musicpvm 06:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recategorize Metropolitan areas are bigger than cities and can spread over state lines (NYC for example). This should not be categorized under cities or states for that reason. It should only be a subset of American People. As for renaming, there seems to be several conventions. I'd vote for a rename to Category:American people by metropolitan area. Look at Category:American people for other naming examples. The bigger problem that I see is that it is not clear if the people by cities includes people of other nationalities. They are subcategorized in a way that makes it look like they are Americans (or whatever nationality), but the category discriptions say that it includes people who live there, and/or have made significant contributions to the city. I have no idea what people are included in the metropolitan regions (born, raised, contributed, citizens, etc...), so I think this should be made clearer. -- Samuel Wantman 09:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike Category:American people by metropolitan area, Category:People by metropolitan area in the United States could include people who aren't or weren't (considered) American or American citizens – or is that the problem...? Apologies if I'm confusing myself, David Kernow 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 02:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. and suggest Category:American people by state renamed to Category:People by American state to properly include non-Americans who are long-term resident. wonder then if the over-arching cat page should not be renamed Category:People from the United States instead of Category:American people (and likewise Category:People from Nigeria instead of Category:Nigerian people and so on). i think "people in fooian" is still one step better. in either case, the POV issue of how long residency is long enough should be voted on, archived, and able to revoted at decided intervals should someone wish to change the decision - residency over nationality in an ever increasingly "fluid" world. Mayumashu 05:41, 9 August 2006 (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.

Islands by region

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are island by region categories. As their scopes are not bounded by a country, they should be named "in X" and not "of X" or "Fooian X" (Ex: Category:Islands in the Black Sea or Category:Islands in the English Channel). The following categories are proposed for renaming:

--Kurieeto 16:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the convention may be modified... Category:Baltic islands strikes me as preferable to the ungainly Category:Islands in the Baltic (Sea), as does Category:Carribean islands and Category:Swedish islands in the Baltic. If so, I'd suggest Category:Islands of Oceania became Category:Oceanian islands. Undecided, David Kernow 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A convention that produced a name as ugly as the last one is bad and should be changed, not implemented. Osomec 14:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By "the last one" do you mean Category:Islands of Sweden in the Baltic Sea or Category:Oceanian islands or something else...? Regards, David Kernow 05:29, 13 August 2006 (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:User SWFC

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redundant, replaced by Category:Wikipedians who support Sheffield Wednesday. — Dan1980 13:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you may mean merge, which sounds like a good idea to me. - EurekaLott 14:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't really make any difference if it is deleted or merged as it is an empty category anyway! — Dan1980 16:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a rather misleading thing to say, since you changed the template that populates the category after you made the nomination. I don't have a problem with this renaming, but please allow the CFD process to finish before manually renaming a category. - EurekaLott 18:07, 5 August 2006 (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.

People by city

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a good number that are inconsistent with the "People from foo" convention. As this seems to be the accepted naming convention based on previous discussions, all the following should be renamed for consistency. --musicpvm 07:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "people from" is highly subjective, and thus POV. How on earth do you objectively define where someone is "from"? Where they spent their formative years (say 5-15)? The only objective method of doing this is to use cold, hard facts, and where someone was actually born (there can only be one place) is usually a matter of record. "Natives of" is the only NPOV way of titling these types of categories. All the other "people from" cats should be moved (back) to "natives of". --Mais oui! 08:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per standardization, and also to avoid overcategorization with natives/non-natives. People born one place and who later spend much time in another are "from" both places, and many categories reflect that. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and Dan. It may be a good idea to add the categories in Category:People by city in Scotland to this nomination. - EurekaLott 14:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Mai oui! --Malyctenar 09:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mai oui! --M @r ē ino 15:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have been moving toward a "people from" form over the past few months. Why are you opposing now? "Natives of" is not accurate as the majority of these categories contain people who were not born in the city. If you oppose, then nominate the other 1000 categories that already have a "People from" form for renaming because there is no reason these categories should be inconsistent with others. Inconsistency makes Wikipedia look very unprofessional. --musicpvm 18:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about the rest, but I've been advocating judicious use of demonyms and "of" for quite some time. --M @r ē ino 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about using Category:People associated with Place with subCategory:People born in Place as a structure...? (Cf Category:Orkney people CfD and Scottish demonyms CfD on August 3.) Regards, David Kernow 23:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

I could go for that. It appears that some people dislike the word "native", but if "born in" is less unpopular then it is better, although it means exactly the same thing. --Mais oui! 00:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See below for further comment. David 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. but there is the POV issue that would be nice to settle in a separate vote on this page - 5 years minimum residency, 10? and there's still counties/council areas in Britian and Ireland to do eg. Category:Natives of County Londonderry, Category:Natives of West Yorkshire Mayumashu 05:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - recomment the first in the list be Category:People from Birmingham (U.K.) [David Kernow: Category:People from Birmingham, England...?] as not to confuse with the fairly large city in Alabama (Category:People from Birmingham, Alabama) Mayumashu 05:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect categorisation by residency may be a non-starter, whereas I'd hope birth and/or arguments for association with a place (other than merely being or having been resident there) could stand scrutiny. Anyone else...? Regards, David Kernow 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David, notable residency is the only thing that matters, not birth place. Italo Calvino (cited below) is an excellent example. Born while his parents were visiting Cuba (not a "native" of Cuba); Italian citizenship (Category:Italian novelists); notably lived in Paris and received the French Légion d'Honneur; notably lived in New York and made an Honorary Member of the American Academy (verifiably self-identified: "Naturally I visited the South and also California, but I always felt a New Yorker. My city is New York."); married an American (while visiting Havana, Cuba). --William Allen Simpson 23:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. I'd say my uncertainty over this "People from" issue indicates that all such categories should carry a brief explanation that the "from" refers to a significant period of residence and/or association with a place rather than birth, ethnicity, etc. I guess this is something a bot could be instructed to do; where would you say the most appropriate place to find a consensus for or against this idea would be – Wikipedia talk:Categorization or somewhere else...? Thanks, David 05:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For consistency, which is generally a good thing, we should think about the guidelines/policy that editors are looking up. The current guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization of people talk about "notable residence", and say "The place of birth is rarely notable." Nationality is dealt with separately. We know we've got a good structure in place, using "People from Foo", that deals with residence. Personally, I see arguments for identifying place of birth as well as residence for people who are notable; and the structure for place of birth would have to accommodate people being born outside cities. Maybe these existing "Native" categories could be a core part of a new structure (like David Kernow's idea above). But I think we ought to be using the Categorization talk pages for any discussion of that scale. --Mereda 08:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for standardization, and also because theoretically someone born while their family is on vacation is not a native of their real home town, even if they live there all the rest of their lives. "Natives" is way too restrictive. Badbilltucker 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Italo Calvino isn't a Cuban and I'm not a Texan. Recury 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It rather have categories named "People born in ..", but this may be an additional categorization, rather than a rename of one or the other. -- User:Docu
Support -- the residence has to be notable -- it's "Jesus of Nazareth" (upbringing), not "Jesus of Bethlehem" (birthplace) -- and folks haven't been using these categories to mean "People born in Foo", they've been using them to exclude folks of various heritages as "not native", you'll note that not a single one of the (very well-known) Harry Potter ethnic actors are listed as "Native", although all were born in Britain. Rename all of these! --William Allen Simpson 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reason that many people seem to oppose: this will broaden the history of these categories, for example, Nikolai Gogol spent a few years in Odessa, Ukraine and it would be nice to have a category for this. Odessaukrain 06:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you see this is the kind of thing that really concerns me: some people want to keep the totally indefinable concept "from" in the category titles, so that they can "claim" certain "trophy" biographies for their own cities; but how many are going to do the same for drug cheats and murderers? This whole "from" concept is just going to get messier and messier. We need some precision, and NPOV in these cats, or else we must get rid of them altogether. --Mais oui! 10:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example - here is a case in point:

Alexander Graham Bell is in four of these categories:

Now, is he really "from" all of those places? He was born in, brought up in and educated in one of them (Edinburgh), so it is fairly safe to say that he is "from" there (although I prefer the objectivity of "native" or "born in" categorisation); but he went to various other places. At what point do we say that he is "from" those other places? --Mais oui! 10:12, 14 August 2006 (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:F-Zero Playing Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 already complete --Kbdank71 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:F-Zero Playing Wikipedians was renamed to Category:Wikipedians who play the F-Zero series due to Wikipedia's Categories for Deletion policies. FullMetal Falcon 05:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is already covered in the nomination from several days ago.--Mike Selinker 05:52, 5 August 2006 (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:Perth landmarks

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Shouldn't be here, created by accident. frendy 03:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eligible for speedy delete, then. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 14:16, 10 August 2006 (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:Cab drivers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Category:Fictional cab drivers up 1 level to Category:Taxicabs, then Delete Category:Cab drivers that will then be empty. I am rationalising the Taxicab articles and simplifying the Taxicab category structure so things can be found.! TerriersFan 00:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. The articles here are about people, not cabs. And we shouldn't mix fictional and nonfictional article subjects. This feeds nicely into category:Fictional drivers and category:Cab drivers (although that's empty, and I could swear that when I made the category, there were articles going into it), so I'd leave it alone.--Mike Selinker 05:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have not seen anything else in Cab drivers. Whether or not you have Cab drivers or Fictional cab drivers linked from Taxicabs you will have one category of people linked from Taxicabs. Again, if anything else went into Cab drivers you would be mixing fictional and non-fictional. At the moment all we are doing is making it harder for people to find by having to drill down unnecessarilly. TerriersFan 14:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think there was, but it's not important now. I now understand what you're suggesting. Sure, I don't have any problem with deleting Cab drivers if it has no contents other than the Fictional category, just as long as the fictional category has a home. Support.--Mike Selinker 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it fits with all the other sub-categories of Category:Fictional characters by occupation Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)}^(contribs) 16:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no suggestion of altering its relationship with Category:Fictional characters by occupation. It will remain exactly where it is in that category in which, I agree with you, it fits in well into what is an excellent category. TerriersFan 16:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading the nom right, Category:Fictional cab drivers isn't actually the category under consideration; Category:Cab drivers is. I think that Category:Cab drivers should be relisted seperately under its own header to avoid confusion over exactly which category is being nominated for deletion. -Sean Curtin 21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I've amended it now. Sorry for the confusion. TerriersFan 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category:Cab drivers. The category for fictional cab drivers can still be placed in the taxicabs category, just as category:Fictional rapists is in Category:Rape. Are there any notable cab drivers? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2006 (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.

Universities in Tasmania and the Northern Territory

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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.

Delete, There is only one University in the Australian state of Tasmania and the Northern Territory, so unless there’s ever more universities created (and under the current Commonwealth Government, that seems very unlikely), there’ll only be one article in each cat. Articles in these categories should be moved up to the parent categories. —Felix the Cassowary 01:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is much better to have neat and complete sets of subcategories. ReeseM 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ReeseM - also, I'm not sure where the Australian Maritime College and former Tasmanian State Institute of Technology would fit into this category arrangement; tertiary institutions, but not universities. -- Chuq 02:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Colleges and Institutes of Technology aren’t (as far as I know) universities, so they’d fit perfectly into categories like “Education in Tasmania”, but less well into “Universities in Tasmania”. That aside, is there some policy (official or just general practice) allowing these things that I’ve overlooked? It strikes me as the silliest thing; but if it’s general practice I by no means intend to change it. —Felix the Cassowary 12:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ReeseM. In these cases one-member categories are not such a problem. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - it would look odd to have those two institutions in Category:Universities in Australia when all others are in subcategories. These categories are also subcats of their respective geographic education category. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One member categories are fine when they are part of a larger system. Osomec 14:15, 10 August 2006 (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:Forums of Rome

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 keep. - EurekaLott 00:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forums of Rome to Category:Fora of Rome

Come on, this is most definitely a Roman topic, so we should use the proper Latin plural. —Keenan Pepper 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not the Latin wikipedia. ReeseM 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in favor of renaming Category:Cacti to Category:Cactuses and Category:Matrices to Category:Matrixes? —Keenan Pepper 04:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 06:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_30#Category:Stadiums_to_Category:Stadia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that Category:Stadiums is for modern-day sports venues, while Category:Forums of Rome is for ancient Roman structures. People interested in stadiums say stadiums, but people interested in ancient Roman fora say fora. —Keenan Pepper 06:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Google gives about equal (minuscule) results for both. I say use English, so oppose. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per sibling categories, this should be renamed Category:Ancient Roman forums in Rome. See Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Rome. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I certainly didn't even know Forums had a plural latin spelling. But if I'm flipping thru the category and I see the word fora, I'm thinking it is a flora typo. :) — MrDolomite | Talk 20:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "When In Rome - Do As The Romans Do" ergo when in English wikipedia - use English. --TheYmode 21:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Usually I would agree with the other users who would vote oppose, but it just sounds better and "fora" isn't that Latin-ie. English is a romantic language, anyway, if I am correct, so I'd use fora. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English is not a Romance language, but thanks anyway for the support. —Keenan Pepper 20:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not the most common English plural.--Mike Selinker 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above arguments. Osomec 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Recury 18:29, 10 August 2006 (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.