Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 30
[edit]- 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 to Category:Olympics by sport templates. Conscious 07:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consecutives plurals overloads! David Kernow 23:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as nom. David Kernow 23:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Olympics by sport templates for consistency with other template categories (templates as last word). --Usgnus 14:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare with Category:Olympics by country templates. --Usgnus 14:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Usgnus to Category:Olympics by sport templates. --musicpvm 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe these categories better named with "templates" as first word, as I suppose it's possible to misread "Olympics by sport templates", "Olympics by country templates", etc as "Olympics by [sport templates]", "Olympics by [country templates]", etc...? Regards, David Kernow 04:56, 14 July 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.
- 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. Conscious 07:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently it is focusing on locations. "Books" and texts, like Chaldean Oracles need to be split into a separate category. No need to confound the site with the Oracle per se. The former might have serveral Oracle texts over time, each may eventually have its specific article. Connection 23:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename [as nom]. --Connection 23:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose There are plenty of articles here which are not about locations. Category:Classical oracle sites can be created as a subcategory. Chicheley 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is exacly the point (articles which are not about locations mixed with locations). You agree to create a separate Category:Classical oracle sites at the same level with Category:Classical oracles? This what I meant and did not put it right (refer to "need to be split" above).--Connection 11:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there was no need to bring it here. The closing administrator probably won't be an expert on this subject so he or she won't be in a good position to carry that out. I suggest that this is closed as a no action to be taken (your request for a rename doesn't seem to meet your own requirements) and that you go ahead and reorganise things yourself. Chicheley 02:27, 8 July 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.
- 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. Unclear whether consensus is to create a category redirect: I'll create one, it can always be deleted. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency with main article's name (plus disambiguation from similarly-named decorations) David Kernow 22:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as nom. David Kernow 22:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename It also avoids using an American spellling (or a British one). Chicheley 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do we really want to create a category with a letter that is difficult to type on most English keyboards. Articles can have redirects making it painless to use the alternate spelling, but category redirects don't work as well. --JeffW 07:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say they only don't work as well because one more click is required. Is that really too much to ask for the sake of accuracy? Regards, David Kernow 11:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename The French term is commonly used in English. Calsicol 00:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I redirect would not work? As a search with plain characters should work? If so Reserved Rename.--Connection 11:36, 7 July 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.
- 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary duplication of Category:Fictional books. MakeRocketGoNow 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's not a duplication, since a "fictional book" is any book in a work of fiction that only exists in fiction. However a fictional fiction book is a work of fiction in the work of fiction, so is a subcategory, and _not_ a duplicate. The "Encyclopedia Galactica" is a fictional non-fiction book, so thus is not a fictional fiction book. 132.205.45.148 00:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If a book is fictional, I don't think it needs to be further categorized by what genre it is. Category:Fictional books is enough. Also, the majority of fictional books are fiction, so it doesn't make sense to create an ambiguously-named subcategory for them. --Musicpvm 03:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I seem to find the majority of fictional books are non-fiction or religious, and not fiction. 70.51.8.92 08:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If a book is fictional, I don't think it needs to be further categorized by what genre it is. Category:Fictional books is enough. Also, the majority of fictional books are fiction, so it doesn't make sense to create an ambiguously-named subcategory for them. --Musicpvm 03:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom.--Smerus 21:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep to see where it may be going. -Lady Aleena @ 22:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Musicpvm. If it gets to be an overly-large category then we can see about breaking it up. Herostratus 06:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Herostratus. --Elonka 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If there are fictional fiction books are there nonfictional fiction books or aren't those just called fiction? I think this category is getting a bit too specific and could just end up being confusing.--Joe Jklin (T C) 20:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A nonfictional nonfiction book is a regular nonfiction book. A nonfictional fiction book, would be a real book, that is also a book of fiction... IOW, what you find on the fiction shelves at the bookstore or library. A fictional fiction book, is a book that does not exist, except in fiction, but is in the work of fiction, also a work of fiction. A fictional non-fiction book, is a book tha does not exist except in fiction, but in such fiction is a work of non-fiction (ie. Encyclopedia Galactica). Now, is a religious text a work of fiction or nonfiction? So... there's also fictional religious books... 70.51.11.172 11:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand your logic but it seems to be complicating something that doesn't need to be complicated. I just think this category is confusing and too specific. Sorry keeping my delete vote.--Joe Jklin (T C) 05:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A nonfictional nonfiction book is a regular nonfiction book. A nonfictional fiction book, would be a real book, that is also a book of fiction... IOW, what you find on the fiction shelves at the bookstore or library. A fictional fiction book, is a book that does not exist, except in fiction, but is in the work of fiction, also a work of fiction. A fictional non-fiction book, is a book tha does not exist except in fiction, but in such fiction is a work of non-fiction (ie. Encyclopedia Galactica). Now, is a religious text a work of fiction or nonfiction? So... there's also fictional religious books... 70.51.11.172 11:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too confusing. Osomec 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Makes my head hurt.--Mike Selinker 15:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Category:Fictional books is quite sufficient; we don't need to subcategorize them beyond that. Oh, and Mike Selinker, if your head hurts now, ponder this: off the top of my head, the only thing I can personally think of that would belong in this category is the novel-within-a-novel The Blind Assassin in Margaret Atwood's The Blind Assassin. So how do you suppose we would categorize fictional fiction books that exist within works of fiction named for the fictional fiction books they contain? I have some ibuprofen if you need it. Bearcat 06:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yowzah.--Mike Selinker 16:43, 5 July 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.
- 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless category. — Jun. 30, '06 [19:55] <freak|talk>
- Delete, Wikipedia is not MySpace --Cyde↔Weys 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We surely do not need a Category:Famous drinkers of Coca-Cola and Category:Famous users of Colgate toothpaste bogdan 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not MySpace --Ardenn 20:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's a useless cat as almost every celebrity has a MySpace profile these days. It's not a notable characteristic. Also, no category should begin with words such as "famous". --Musicpvm 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Chicheley 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete often unverifiable, otherwise irrelevant Mad Jack 07:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very difficult to verify and maintain, plus of little encyclopedic value. Herostratus 06:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV by nature (what defines famous) and irrelevant.--Joe Jklin (T C) 20:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Naconkantari 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all the members listed in this category to this article and kill the category instead. User:BigBang19 20:26 PST 2 July 2006
- Delete. Roughly as useful as a "Famous email users" category. —tregoweth (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: useless, unverifiable. — getcrunk what?! 18:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it, for all the reasons already noted. I was actually going to CFD this myself when I saw it on Avril Lavigne, before I clicked on the link and noticed that it was already listed. Bearcat 02:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV. Golfcam 03:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think having a myspace account is a stand out charecteristic for anyone. --Ted87 01:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Highly unencyclopedic. --Zimbabweed 01:59, 7 July 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.
- 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the best sound name, and most likely to be used. Current name is confusing. Ardenn 19:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Do you want it to be renamed to Category:Canadian charities? It needs to be consistent with other categories. See parent cat Category:Charities by country. They are all named as Category:Charities based in (country). --Musicpvm 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the parent is wrong. Ardenn 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then propose a batch rename; as it stands, the Canadian category has to stay in line with the existing naming convention until the convention changes. Bearcat 06:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the parent is wrong. Ardenn 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Musicpvm and parent. BoojiBoy 21:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_3#Organizations_by_nationality.2Fcountry. It helps create a nice uniform standard. All of Wikipedia is moving to this format and it is not confusing in the least. Sasquatch t|c 23:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what the proposal is, but the correct form is category:Charities based in Canada. Sumahoy 03:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the correct form. Ardenn 03:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per parent. Why confuse things when there is already a working format in place? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per parent category. — getcrunk what?! 18:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - already properly named j-beda 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - already properly named Calsicol 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. If Ardenn would like to tackle a review of the general naming convention in place here, that's one thing. Taking only the Canadian category out of the established convention is quite another. Bearcat 06:13, 5 July 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.
and
and
- 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 revised rename. Conscious 07:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need of putting "former" in the category. All other categories of Yugoslavia (like Category:Cinema of Yugoslavia do not have) and this is also the case of other former countries, like the Soviet Union. bogdan 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all three per nom. --Musicpvm 19:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Modify The correct form for the last two, as used for other people categories, is Yugoslav, not Yugoslavian. Sumahoy 03:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. bogdan 07:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Category:Yugoslavian musicians is a little presumptious. Category:Musicians of Yugoslavia would be little more acceptable, but I think it's fine as it is.65.95.237.76 04:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per modified nom. There is no reason not to follow the conventions. Osomec 21:33, 2 July 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.
- 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. Conscious 07:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was added to speedy by Rockero (removal of the capital A), but the name is awkward and confusing and should be corrected to the conventional form "Islam in". Osomec 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as above. Osomec 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 22:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Chicheley 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename --Chris S. 14:27, 12 July 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.
- 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This empty category has a duplicate scope of Category:Foundations of Venezuela. All other contents of Category:Foundations by country presently use the "of country" wording. Therefore, this category is proposed for deletion. Kurieeto 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 19:26, 30 June 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.
- 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. Conscious 07:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category. I based it on the 'West Asia' article and geography; I did not notice the West Asia article had re-directed me to the 'Southwest Asia' article. Southwest Asia is really what I meant to achieve here. Thanks Hmains 17:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the UN calls it West Asia.--M@rēino 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename Author request is a speedy criteria. --JeffW 07:43, 1 July 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.
- 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 merge to Devil. Conscious 07:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.--Rockero 17:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, merge into Category:Films featuring the Devil --Ardenn 20:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a VERY slippery slope. Take care, for the Devil and Satan could be seen as two different beings in some contexts. There are two articles Devil and Satan. The Devil could be one of many different entities. There is a list in the Devil article. Satan is a name of one view of the Devil, but may merit its own category if there are enough films which portray this entity. -Lady Aleena @ 18:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In which case, we should merge into Category:Films featuring the Devil, since it includes Category:Films featuring Satan ("Satan" being a subset of "Devil") Bluap 13:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Films featuring the Devil unless someone wants to make the distinction clear between the two. And Category:Films featuring Satan should still be a sub-cat of Category:Films featuring the Devil per Bluap. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this actually a sufficiently notable characteristic of these films to warrant categorization as such? Do we actually need this at all, under either name? Delete both, I'd say. Bearcat 02:52, 5 July 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.
- 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 Category redirect Stadia to Stadiums. --William Allen Simpson 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The plural of stadium is stadia. Robwingfield (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And therefore, logically, renaming of all sub-categories that use the "stadiums" form. Robwingfield (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Cambridge dictionary, dictionary.com, Wiktionary, and our own Wikipedia article consider either "stadiums" or "stadia" acceptable. --M@rēino 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But having both of these is not acceptable, so which one do you support? Osomec 18:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Stadiums. Both are correct, but Wikipedia prefers common names. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have said "stadia" is more common; I hardly ever hear "stadiums" used. Robwingfield (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Stadiums. English evolves, and stadiums is now the normal usage, so it is the correct usage. Osomec 18:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Stadiums. I created some of the categories which use "Stadia", but I regret it. They should be standardised to "Stadiums". Choalbaton 18:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Categoryredirect to Category:Stadium 132.205.45.148 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete category:Stadia. It is already a redirect, but that should go. Keep Category:Stadiums. Sumahoy 03:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. "Stadiums" is more understandable to the common layperson than "Stadia". Wikipedia should stick with English in its common usage, even if it is not most precise. --Elonka 18:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, "stadia" is in more common usage, hence why I suggested the rename. Robwingfield (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it is a US / UK thing? In the US, stadia is an obscure term. ProveIt (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps... I'm loath to admit it, but a simple Google search produces 2.65mill results for "stadia", and 15.3mil results for "stadiums". I guess I'll have to withdraw this one, even though it follows simple Latin grammar rules. I only hope Americans don't say "bacteriums" instead of "bacteria"! Robwingfield (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "bacteria" is safe, as is "media". No worries about it being changed to "mediums"! :) --Elonka 18:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps... I'm loath to admit it, but a simple Google search produces 2.65mill results for "stadia", and 15.3mil results for "stadiums". I guess I'll have to withdraw this one, even though it follows simple Latin grammar rules. I only hope Americans don't say "bacteriums" instead of "bacteria"! Robwingfield (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it is a US / UK thing? In the US, stadia is an obscure term. ProveIt (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, "stadia" is in more common usage, hence why I suggested the rename. Robwingfield (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose keep Stadiums as the primary name; keep redirect to it from Stadia. Never have I seen or heard 'Stadia' in US English. Thanks Hmains 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason, I'm afraid. This is English Wikipedia, not American English or British English. Robwingfield (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't much care which one is which, but given the usage issue it's pretty clear that having one as the primary category and the other as a redirect to the primary category is very much the correct way to go here. Either keep as is, or merge the other way — I don't really care, but either way don't delete the redirect. Or maybe merge them both into a new category that avoids the issue of the conflicting plurals entirely, by using a different word for them altogether. Bearcat 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Stadiums. I checked the BBC site and it used stadiums 6 times as often as stadia. Therefore "Stadia" isn't British English, it's just old-fashioned English. There is a separate Latin Wikipedia for those who prefer Latin to English. Golfcam 03:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're mistaken there. Unfortunately, British English is suffering from American creep due to films, television, etc. As such, many people are starting to use incorrect forms of spelling and grammar, and pronouncing words like schedule as "skedyule" rather than "shedyule". The BBC isn't the bastion of the English language it once was. From personal experience in England, stadia is used more, and is the correct form. However, I've already conceded that maybe worldwide, stadiums is used more than stadia, but to say that stadia is Latin but not English is grossly incorrect. Robwingfield (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- English changes and the current form is determined by usage, not by the dictats of grammarians. If you don't like it, you will have to lump it, as you are certainly campaigning for a lost cause. Chicheley 07:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're mistaken there. Unfortunately, British English is suffering from American creep due to films, television, etc. As such, many people are starting to use incorrect forms of spelling and grammar, and pronouncing words like schedule as "skedyule" rather than "shedyule". The BBC isn't the bastion of the English language it once was. From personal experience in England, stadia is used more, and is the correct form. However, I've already conceded that maybe worldwide, stadiums is used more than stadia, but to say that stadia is Latin but not English is grossly incorrect. Robwingfield (talk) 09:53, 6 July 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:United States Court of Appeals cases to Category:United States court of appeals cases
[edit]- 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for capitalization consistency. Recently, I proposed renaming Category:United States district court cases → Category:United States District Court cases but the result was keep. I'm just trying to get some consistency. —Markles 10:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I'm really sorry that I missed the first debate; I would have voted to rename the district court category. the USDC and USCA are always, always, always capitalized. --M@rēino 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Mareino. -Lady Aleena @ 16:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose; See www.fedcir.gov -- ProveIt (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per all above. Ardenn 20:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose always capitalized.--Joe Jklin (T C) 20:17, 2 July 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.
- 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 merge. Conscious 07:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category contains an article about a seed bank, but it could also be about the origins of the Italian state. Merge into the conventional category. Honbicot 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to avoid confusion.--M@rēino 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per above. David Kernow 22:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. Chicheley 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Mareino. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Golfcam 03:04, 6 July 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.
- 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
intelligences preferable to intellects in this context. Tim! 07:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. -Lady Aleena @ 07:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. — TKD::Talk 09:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 17:09, 7 July 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.
- 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have rather too much scope, I just don't see the point. Tim! 06:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -Lady Aleena @ 07:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Honbicot 07:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 09:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, could also be POV. --Musicpvm 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Joe Jklin (T C) 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it. Categories for fictional characters classified by unambiguous characteristics like what country they come from are controversial enough; there's really no place for something like this. Bearcat 02:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. MakeRocketGoNow 17:09, 7 July 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.
- 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. Conscious 07:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation, i.e. to remove sense of "legendary" when applied to living people. modern-day sense of "legendary" as "highly accomplished", "admirable", "world famous", etc. David Kernow 00:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC), amended 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both as nom. David Kernow 00:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose both. I think the replacements I gave below are preferable. Appleseed (Talk) 03:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean here...? If so, in what way are they preferable? Thanks, David Kernow 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose both. I agree with Appleseed. Honbicot 07:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both per nom. (I don't see any suggestions) -Lady Aleena @ 07:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose both per cat contents; no reason to suppose that these were living people. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have rephrased rationale without reference to living people, so please reconsider. Thanks, David Kernow 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both. Like Lady Aleena, I don't see any "replacements" by Appleseed. I don't understand Angus's vote; why does it matter whether they were real people whose legends were embellished or purely the creation of legends?--M@rēino 15:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The proposed forms are awkward. Osomec 18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Any suggestions as to names avoiding modern-day sense of "legendary" per rephrased rationale above? Thanks, David Kernow 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both per nom. (I couldn't figure out what Appleseed was talking about, either). --Elonka 18:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]