Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 March 8 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2006_March_8

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. -- TexasAndroid 14:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to remove the abbreviation and put into a more standard style. Carina22 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Undecided: proposed change sounds wise, but there are no "Pensions in XXXcountry"-style categories. There is a category Category:Retirement in Canada, and the parent category is "Retirement", so would "Retirement in The United Kingdom" not be a better name? BrownHairedGirl
• Rename as proposed. Retirement is not just about pensions, but for the major English speaking countries at least there should be enough articles about pensions to justify a category. CalJW 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. To me, "UK Pensions" suggests a category populated only by different types of pension available to UK citizens, whereas the category as it presently stands also contains articles relating to pensions in the UK. David Kernow 16:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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 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. -- TexasAndroid 14:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Match template name. There was an existing CfR on the page for another name last month (and a mess of template redirects near that date that were just cleaned up today), and it must have dropped off the screen without removal by the closer. --William Allen Simpson 14:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Is the proposed name grammatical? I'm not sure, but it doesn't sound right. Perhaps the last word should be pluralised. Carina22 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, the other such related categories (languages, names, spellings, etc.) are all plural. I've updated the request to match. --William Allen Simpson 13:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : Seems tricky to concoct a name for this category that is brief yet sufficiently informative. How about Category:Redirects due to capitalisation...?  David Kernow 11:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the other related categories are "Redirects from" (having been renamed last year), and this is the only remaining category that hasn't been fixed. The word "alternative" was rejected on the others because of negative connotations. The whole point is to match the template. --William Allen Simpson 13:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okay. In that case:

• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 14:28, 12 March 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 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 consensus for rename, but no consensus on *what* to rename to...so keep unless you contact me with a final decision. Syrthiss 15:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existing title is awkward, odd, and non-standard, the standard term being "comic novel". Category:Comedy books should also be changed to Category:Comic novels, except that there's an obvious ambiguity; perhaps Category:Humorous books? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

undecided - I can see the need I just don't like the ambiguity issue. The Comic Novel sounds just so like a modern "Graphic novel" or a "Comic" i.e. lightweight. Still I know that the term you propose is the normal one. so consider this a neutral vote. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 13:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have added a heading that uses the normal "Novels" appendage that I think is again more normal and better. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 13:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: the ambiguity that User:Kevinalewis mentions is inherent in the language; that's just what humourous novels are called. --Saforrest 14:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Comedic novels; Category:Comedic books. Surely that works? The Tom 23:11, 13 March 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 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 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was unsigned, but support anyway. Carina22 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it.--Dangerous-Boy 00:48, 9 March 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 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 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing change for consistency with other clubs that have multiple sports. Real Madrid now has a category for its basketball players at Category:Real Madrid basketball players (FYI: I created it). I also created a category for FC Barcelona's basketball players at Category:FC Barcelona basketball players, and the footballers' category for Barça has always been at Category:FC Barcelona footballers. — Dale Arnett 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 16:13, 9 March 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 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 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's too early to predict just who exactly will run for President in 2008 (as none of the subjects in the cat have stated an ambition to run), and according to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

• Delete. Save for a later date when we know who will run. Эйрон Кинни (t) 05:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speculative as currently constituted; otherwise a duplicate of Category:United States presidential election, 2008. -choster 12:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Choster. ×Meegs 12:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not now, in future. --Terence Ong 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is still too early.--Jusjih 08:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but only because it is Category:United States presidential election, 2008. It may be "too early" to know much of what the 2008 campaign will involve, but there has been enough discussion thus far to justify a category. --Saforrest 14:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is still too early and the category is redundant and superfluous. --Blue387 04:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Saforrest. BD2412 T 14:37, 16 March 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 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 speedy rename. EurekaLott 06:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In line with other categories in Category:Encyclopedias. --Yuje 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename. Capitalization fix. EurekaLott 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, captilisation error. --Terence Ong 13:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename (there is a separate section for these at the top of the page). Carina22 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename as per the above. David Kernow 16:12, 9 March 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 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. -- TexasAndroid 14:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To standardize capitaliztion and qualify "statements" according to description given on category page. David Kernow 03:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. David Kernow 03:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (proposer)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carina22 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. BrownHairedGirl 04:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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.