Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 4

< February 3	February 5 >

February 4

"Oceanic" categories

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 as nominated. Syrthiss 14:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a couple of categories dealing with Oceania incorrectly using "Oceanic" as the adjectival form. Oceanic is the adjectival form of "ocean". The adjectival form of Oceania is "Oceanian". To put it another way, Iceland is an Oceanic country, but it is not Oceanian.

Depending upon the naming conventions, the latter one might be better as Category:Countries of Oceania Grutness...wha? 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as proporsed. Prevailing format for countries is Fooian countries. - choster 15:38, 10 February 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:Jon Stewart

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. Syrthiss 14:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category only contains images of Jon Stewart. These are just promo pictures from The Daily Show that also have the parent category Category:The Daily Show. waffle iron 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And send Jon Stewart to my house for an explanation. *g* Deborah-jl _Talk 15:38, 6 February 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:U.S. Congressional agencies --> Category:United States Congressional agencies

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 with modification. Syrthiss 14:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer the form Category:Agencies of the United States Congress which is more in keeping with sibling names. - choster 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can support Category:Agencies of the United States Congress. Vegaswikian 20:34, 6 February 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:U.S. Republican Party vice presidential nominees --> Category:United States Republican Party vice presidential nominees

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 with modification. Syrthiss 14:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Republican Party (United States) vice presidential nominees as the party is never formally referred to as the "United States Republican Party" and this name conforms to the main article name. -choster 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Republican Party (United States) vice presidential nominees. As worded, the original proposal makes it as if "United States Repubilcan Party" is the proper name for the party, which as far as I know is not the case. Josh 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Choster. Anthony 20:02, 7 February 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:U.S. Republican Party presidential nominees --> Category:United States Republican Party presidential nominees

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 with modification. Syrthiss 14:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer the form Category:Republican Party (United States) presidential nominees as the party is never formally referred to as the "United States Republican Party" and this name conforms to the main article name. -choster 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Choster. Anthony 18:16, 8 February 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:Israeli scientists by name

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. Syrthiss 14:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty (excepy for red link) category that duplicates Category:Israeli scientists JLaTondre 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for cfd about a month ago. Has this still not been taken care of? Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see an edit by you for either of those categories for cfd. --Syrthiss 15:55, 10 February 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:Failed Apple initiatives

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. Syrthiss 14:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category is questionable based on the discussion pages of articles included in it. There's a lot of argument over POV in what constitutes "failure", degrees of failure, and reasons why Apple should be singled out for such a category. Recommend complete removal unless a less controversial category name is proposed. MFNickster 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: "Unsuccessful Apple initiatives?" Addaone 02:49, 11 February 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:Legal London to Category:Legal buildings in London

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 merge as nominated. Syrthiss 14:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Legal London into Legal buildings in London, as their aim would appear to be the same. TimPope 18:47, 4 February 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:Embassies and high commissions in London to Category:Embassies and High Commissions in London

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. Syrthiss 14:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission should be capitalised, see High Commissioner. TimPope 18:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as per nom. JW 19:37, 4 February 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.

National Hockey League

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 as nominated. Syrthiss 14:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to nuke the abbreviations. Wouldn't want a user from Ireland getting lost and thinking that this is the National Hurling League. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. CalJW 20:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.--Mike Selinker 21:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but change the proposed name for Category:PreNHL to Category:Predecessors of the National Hockey League or something else without the abbreviation. Vegaswikian 00:33, 5 February 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:Suspected hoaxes to Category:Suspected hoax articles

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. Syrthiss 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make clear that this category (populated through {{Hoax}} is about hoax articles in Wikipedia, not real-world hoaxes Pilatus 17:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support AnonMoos 21:36, 8 February 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:Markets in United States of America to Category:Markets in the United States

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. Syrthiss 14:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to conform to naming conventions of Category:Buildings and structures in the United States. - EurekaLott 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support to lose the of America. However I'd like to see something more specific like Category:Retail markets in the United States. Vegaswikian 20:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a bad idea, but it may be better to hold off on the second part until we can better address the entire markets category. Right now it's a mix of financial markets and shopping markets. - EurekaLott 20:14, 6 February 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.

National Basketball Association

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, if you want 6 feet changed to 6 feel tall please relist it later. Syrthiss 14:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to nuke the abbreviations. Wouldn't want a user from the UK getting lost and thinking that this is the Net Book Agreement or the Newcastle Brown Ale. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 17:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom CalJW 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (though I seriously doubt the "under six feet" one would cause any confusion as is).--Mike Selinker 21:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, though I doubt many Ukrainians would get lost ;) Grutness...wha? 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above. Not so hot on the "under six feet" naming convention. Sounds like a category about deceased NBA players. I'd prefer it if it was renamed National Basketball Association players under six feet tall (hahaha, the UK!! ..Ukrainians!!) Downwards 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- anyone using an abbreviation while complaining about abbreviations deserves mild petard-hoisting :) Grutness...wha? 08:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I was referring to these students at the University of Kentucky. Well, they had this nasty habit of getting lost in ... oh, never mind ... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:59, 8 February 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:Roman era books

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 see below. Syrthiss 13:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant with Category:Latin literature. "Roman era" isn't used in classical philology or history to denote an era; if one wants to subcategorize by time frame, well-defined current terms like "early republic", "late republic", "Julio-Claudean" etc should be used. Pilatus 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. See next section below instead. Apologies for not checking categorization thoroughly. Pilatus 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this goes, category:Latin literature should be categorised under Category:Ancient Rome, which isn't the case at the moment and doesn't seem quite right. CalJW 20:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment Category:Roman era books is a subcat of Category:Ancient Rome. Category:Roman era writers isn't, neither is Category:Latin literature. Wikipedia is pretty weak on the Classics, the category mess is merely a symptom. Pilatus 02:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ancient Latin literature and cleanup. This category as currently constituted does not belong in Category:Latin literature as it includes works by Josephus, Dio, Ptolemy, etc. Compare at Category:Ancient Greek literature and Category:Ancient Egyptian literature. For literature according to publication date rather than language, periods are more useful per Pilatus. - choster 21:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer a Category:Latin literature to a Category:Ancient latin literature for the sake of clarity. If the former gets too large we can always introduce subcats like Category:Early Latin literature, Category:Classical Latin literature and Category:Latin literature in the Middle Ages Pilatus 03:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be a category for language and a category for era. Therefore I oppose this nomination; I would support a nomination for change of name (to Category:Books written under the Roman Empire?). Septentrionalis 18:10, 8 February 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:Roman era books to Category Latin texts and Category:Roman era writers to Category:Latin authors

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 as nominated, add latin lit to ancient rome. also, see note.. Syrthiss 14:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman era books and Category:Roman era writers are both subcategories of Category:Latin literature. We are classifying by language and cultural background of the authors here, not by timeframe (and what is "Roman era" supposed to mean?), so Latin texts and Latin authors is the appropiate way of putting it. It would also be consistent with the categories in Category:Ancient Greek literature. Also cleanup per Choster. Pilatus 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Category:Latin literature must be made a subcat of Category:Ancient Rome per CalJW above. Pilatus 05:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Old cat name is ambiguous: when exactly does Wikipedia say is the "Roman era". Would Justinian agree? While Rome stands, it is still the Roman era in some people's view. Carlossuarez46 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closing admin - This seems like the best choice. I looked at Choster's suggestion of Ancient Latin literature, and thought about putting a cat redirect there to Latin literature...but since Ancient Greek literature and Ancient Egyptian literature don't exist in any one category together (so no need for consistency with them) AND there are modern texts in greek and egyptian but not in latin then the ancient would be redundant. --Syrthiss 14:04, 12 February 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:Articles needing their notability explained

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 merge. Syrthiss 13:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained. Cats serve the same purpose. >Radiant< 12:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. NatusRoma 05:14, 9 February 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:Wikipedia articles that might be vanity

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 merge as nom. Syrthiss 13:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained. Cats serve the same purpose. >Radiant< 12:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. NatusRoma 05:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 04:25, 12 February 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:Wikipedia articles needing priority cleanup and Category:Articles that urgently need verification

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, and nom that template for deletion. Syrthiss 13:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless forks of the existing "need cleanup" and "need verification" cats; whether something is "urgent" or "priority" is entirely POV and not a useful distinction. >Radiant< 12:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have appreciated if you'd talked to me first but, sure, delete it since it has largely been superceded by WP:PROD. The idea behind the "urgent" label was that the articles would be nominated for deletion soon if no verification showed up to give the author a grace period beyond the 5 days of shooting on AfD. I was using Template:Needs-verification to put articles into this category but it didn't really catch on and once your PROD proposal showed up I decided not to pursue it further. You may as well delete the template too. - Haukur 13:51, 4 February 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:NFL Europe alumni

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. Syrthiss 13:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these players have now been more specifically categorized by NFL Europe team in Category:NFL Europe players, a la Category:National Football League players. So this ubercategory should be deleted.--Mike Selinker 09:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Actually, you forgot to move Martin Dossett, but I took care of him. Now all 46 members of the candidate are also categoriezed under at least one team. (I love Cat Scan) ×Meegs 12:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was an erroneously created cat whose problem has been rectified. Anthony 20:06, 7 February 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:German World War II strategic missiles

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. Syrthiss 13:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty. Even if needed later, should be Category:World War II strategic missiles of Germany. Josh 09:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What's the meaning of "strategic" here? Anyway there could be one or two items here and that's not enough for a cat. Pavel Vozenilek 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category:Strategic missiles is also nominated for merger above (February 6), so should be tied with that. Gene Nygaard 17:10, 7 February 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.

U.S. elections

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 as nominated, these aren't a subcat under elections by country as far as I saw. Syrthiss 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 08:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. presidential primaries --> Category:United States presidential primaries - Vegaswikian 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:U.S. presidential nominating conventions --> Category:United States presidential nominating conventions - Vegaswikian 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:U.S. presidential election, 2008 --> Category:United States presidential election, 2008 - Vegaswikian 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:U.S. presidential election, 2004 --> Category:United States presidential election, 2004 - Vegaswikian 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:U.S. presidential election, 2000 --> Category:United States presidential election, 2000 - Vegaswikian 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:U.S. presidential election, 1992 --> Category:United States presidential election, 1992 - Vegaswikian 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:U.S. presidential election, 1876 --> Category:United States presidential election, 1876 - Vegaswikian 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Close U.S. presidential elections --> Category:Close United States presidential elections - Vegaswikian 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:U.S. presidential campaigns --> Category:United States presidential campaigns - Vegaswikian 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:U.S. presidential elections --> Category:United States presidential elections - Vegaswikian 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. Although not addressed specifically by the naming convention guidelines, the overwhelmingly prevailing form in subcategories of Category:Elections by country is Category:Fooian high foobah election, 2006. So it would seem these should become Category:American presidential election, 2004 and on down the line. - choster 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the election for the President of the United States the name of the category should match the office. Bhoeble 19:53, 4 February 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:Things in the Washington Post

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. Syrthiss 13:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too vague as formulated. Indeed, Bunnyman, the first entry, makes no mention of the Post at all; Watergate scandal, the second, of course involves the Post but I do not find utility in categorizing events by which news media outlet was the first to publicize them. choster 07:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't a good idea to classify things by the publication they have appeared in as it is very rarely an important attribute. Bhoeble 19:54, 4 February 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:As Told By Ginger

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. Syrthiss 13:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty category --Melaen 02:10, 4 February 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:Lutheran History to Category:Lutheran history

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. Syrthiss 13:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to use standard capitalization. - choster 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename CalJW 20:19, 4 February 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.