The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - there is no Category:Albums by recording venue structure, for good reason, since the recording location is rarely, if ever, defining of the album itself (see Chronological list of recordings made at Abbey Road Studios for the approach taken for a much more notable recording studio). Such a structure would add further category clutter to album articles, particularly as some albums are recorded in multiple locations depending on artiste availability. Indigo Ranch is, at the time of writing, a redlink, so the information can't be added to that article. BencherliteTalk 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to me that this sort of info is better suited to a list. If there was an article about the studio I would suggest adding it.... oh, well. Cgingold (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 18:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Reverse Merge per Hmains. Assuming that they are all from the city and not somewhere else. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Barcelona is one of the great Iberian cities. The fact that other places may have borred its name is no reason to add "Spain" as if Spain were the 57th US State. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per lots and lots of precedence. --Kbdank71 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete as eponymous overcategorization - just the main article and album/singles sub-cats; the material is sufficiently linked through the main article The Script (band). Note: category had two songs and an album in it that were already in the singles/album sub-categories, which I removed from the head category for being duplicative categorization prior to this nomination. BencherliteTalk 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Russian ambassadors to the United States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Kbdank71 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whilst Russian ambassadors is obvious these are 'of Russia', Russian can also denote ethnicity, and to keep this category inline with its parent, Category:Ambassadors of Russia, it should probably be renamed. РоссавиаДиалог 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename The current name matches a naming pattern and no confusion ensues unless this were renamed. Then the confusion is, 'why is this one different?' with no explanation. Hmains (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to the United States, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to the United States. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. --РоссавиаДиалог 19:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Russian ambassadors to the United Kingdom[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Kbdank71 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whilst Russian ambassadors is obvious these are 'of Russia', Russian can also denote ethnicity, and to keep this category inline with its parent, Category:Ambassadors of Russia, it should probably be renamed. РоссавиаДиалог 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename The current name matches a naming pattern and no confusion ensues unless this were renamed. Then the confusion is, 'why is this one different?' with no explanation. Hmains (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it is. There is no ambiguity and category names should where possible be brief. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 'Russian ambassadors to the United States' above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to the United Kingdom, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to the United Kingdom. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. --РоссавиаДиалог 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Kbdank71 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whilst Russian ambassadors is obvious these are 'of Russia', Russian can also denote ethnicity, and to keep this category inline with its parent, Category:Ambassadors of Russia, it should probably be renamed. РоссавиаДиалог 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename The current name matches a naming pattern and no confusion ensues unless this were renamed. Then the confusion is, 'why is this one different?' with no explanation. Hmains (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it is. There is no ambiguity and category names should where possible be brief. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 'Russian ambassadors to the United States' above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to Ukraine, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to Ukraine. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. --РоссавиаДиалог 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Kbdank71 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whilst Russian ambassadors is obvious these are 'of Russia', Russian can also denote ethnicity, and to keep this category inline with its parent, Category:Ambassadors of Russia, it should probably be renamed. РоссавиаДиалог 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename The current name matches a naming pattern and no confusion ensues unless this were renamed. Then the confusion is, 'why is this one different?' with no explanation. Hmains (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it is. There is no ambiguity and category names should where possible be brief. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 'Russian ambassadors to the United States' above. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of Russia and Category:Ambassadors to Israel, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of Russia to Israel. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Russian actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Russian ambassador but Ambassador of Russia, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. Additionally, in terms of briefness, the suggested category rename is 1 character more than the current category. --РоссавиаДиалог 19:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Russian and Soviet ambassadors to the United Nations[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
do not rename The current name matches a naming pattern (with one unneedful exception) and no confusion ensues unless this were renamed. Then, the confusion is, 'why is this one different?' with no explanation. Hmains (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is placed in Category:Ambassadors of the Soviet Union and Category:Ambassadors to the United Nations, joining the two would give you Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to the United Nations. There is a difference with these categories, in relation to say Category:Soviet actors, because in diplomatic terms the titles aren't Soviet ambassador but Ambassador of the Soviet Union, as it isn't their nationality or ethnicity which is the qualifier, but the State which they are representing. Take Philipp von Brunnow, that's a German name if ever I saw one, and yes, he was German, not Russian, yet he was an Ambassador of Russia. --РоссавиаДиалог 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:articlify per nom to get it out of category space; RM for a better name. Kbdank71 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misplaced article in category space. BencherliteTalk 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert per nom. "Ancient" seems wrong, as some go up to the C18 at least, though some are BCE. Pre-modern sub-Saharan African kingdoms is a bit of a mouthful, but seems to cover the ground. There would be a case for merging into History of Africa, which covers these pretty briskly. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move the text to an article (as nom), which should then perhaps be the main article for this category. However, the content seems to relate to certain kingdoms of west Africa; the suggested article name thus needs to be reconsidered. Then rename to Category:Ancient African kingdoms to fit convention. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 18:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete as eponymous overcategorization - the material is sufficiently linked through the main article Jordin Sparks and {{Jordin Sparks}}. Note: category had two songs in it that were already in the songs sub-category, which I removed from the head category for being duplicative categorization prior to this nomination. BencherliteTalk 17:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 18:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as simple and obvious spelling error. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete; empty. Kbdank71 18:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agreed. I don't think this one is out of line in principle, just that there are no articles in it at present (by consent of the creator who added a number to it) and none that I know of that would pass WP:OCAT#OPINION. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the creator wants to delete it, he should use the speedy template for that purpose - see the instructions page. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose I could have suggested that to him/her rather than doing it myself. In any case, this now qualifies for speedy delete for having been empty for 4+ days. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People associated with York and Yorkshire[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created, 4 entries, redundant to C:People from Yorkshire Deiztalk 14:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The connection of 50% of the articles (the Eccles) is not apparent from their articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The other 2 persons were already in 'People from York', either directly or via subcats. One Eccles is Baronness of Moulton in Yorkshire, the other is her husband so I have put these in 'People from Yorkshire'. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. (I actually find it kind of weird that the article is named "Carl Linnaeus" instead of "Carolus Linnaeus", but that's neither here nor there for this CfD and has probably been gone over on the article talk page a number of times.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Caps per WP:NAME and removed hyphens per use in the reliable sources cited in the main article. Both of these match the recently renamed main article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Does a band really need their own category, containing nothing but said band's article, songs, and a link to a related guitar? I thought that was what "See also" sections were for. Vianello (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please explain what happened to Category:Burden Brothers, which has been dispatched into oblivion since I wrote my comment? Cgingold (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedily deleted as the recreation of deleted content. BencherliteTalk 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eponymous overcategorization, main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the material. Otto4711 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the children of one of the Brothers shouldn't be categorized under the band's category, and the guitar is mentioned in the article about the band and vice versa. Overcategorization by name, per multiple precedents. BencherliteTalk 08:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added Edan Everly specifically because he has performed with them; I left out his sister because there was nothing in the article to suggest that she has performed with them. Cgingold (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the purpose of a category is to collect related articles together, and this collects together the items contained in the subcategories. By all means rename to 'Items related to The Everly Brothers' (as 'eponymous' categories seem to be allowed only to a few Greats, chosen in what appears to me to be a wholly arbitrary fashion). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategories gather the articles in the subcategories. The parent category isn't needed to gather them again. The main article also gathers the material through links to the contents of the subcategories so again the parent category is not needed. This material is not so complex that an eponymous category is warranted for it. Otto4711 (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are 441 such categories named after musicians; there is no justificaton stated why this one should be targeted for deletion. Hmains (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse for keeping this category. There used to be over 600 such categories, until a third of them were deleted as unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment so far, no valid reason has been advanced as to why this category should be deleted. One editor said one could find the subcats by looking in the main article. This is factually untrue. The article does not reference these categories. Hmains (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of the subcategories is linked through the main article, which lists the band's albums and songs. Otto4711 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The three articles in this category seem like they need this ubercategory.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the contents are interlinked through the main article and are adequately categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Overcategorization and extensive precedence. --Kbdank71 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm all in favor of these categories as containers for "X albums," "X songs," and "X members," etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No, "by" is more accurate. To show more clearly: "Templates of airlines by country".
The problem is that from what I can tell, "templates" is usually the "last word" in such names. So, if so, then Category:Airlines by country templates would seem to be the correct name.
And, if I had to choose, I'm also am not a fan of the quotes in the name, for various reasons. - jc37 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever closes this can place a "reverse merge" request on the working page, if they determine that that's consensus. (Which it now looks to be.) - jc37 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
DeleteCategory:Allman Brothers as eponymous overcategorization. The main article and the exhaustive template serve for navigation. Rename remaining categories per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete head category as overcategorization per name per multiple precedents and since the main article/template serve for navigational purposes. Rename the other two to match the main article. BencherliteTalk 06:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re:delete There are six pages in the main category in addition to three subcategories; that doesn't seem superfluous to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALl of the material is extensively interlinked through the text of the various articles as well as the extensive template. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename all per nom. There are 441 similar categories named after musicians and no reason whatsoever to target this one for deletion. Hmains (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse for keeping this category. There used to be over 600 such categories, until a third of them were deleted as unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment so far, no valid reason has been advanced as to why this category should be deleted. One editor said one could find the subcats by looking in the main article or template. This is factually untrue. The article does not reference these categories. Hmains (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of the subcategories is linked through the main article, which lists the band's albums and songs. Otto4711 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this and subcategories. Though no consensus exists on deletion, I think we can agree that the name should be "The Allman Brothers Band" in all cases.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
