Category:Enlargement of international organizations[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:Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2013 (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.
Merge per nominator, but without prejudice to-creation if there are at least 5 articles to place in it. In the meantime, please re-create this categ as a {{category redirect}}, so that any ppl from this area can be correctly categorised. Note that Warley, Essex is not a one-horse village; is the UK HQ of the Ford Motor Company, and has had heavy military uses for over 200 years. It may well turn out to be capable of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 28 August 2013 (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: Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Eponymous categories are for subtopics and subarticles. This category is mostly a collection of articles related to George Soros rather than a collection of subtopics or subarticles. I only count two out of 23 articles that are actually a subarticle of George Soros: George Soros conspiracy theories and List of projects supported by George Soros. The rest are mostly family members or organizations he's involved with. Transcendence (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Having made a fortune by betting against sterling on the foreign exchange markets, Soros seems to have reinvented himself as a philanthropist. Being a mere member of organisations woiuld not be notable, I I think he is probably much more than just that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The key is that these things are all largely linked by George Soros and connected by him, it makes sense to have a category for it. I would have to say the previous keep vote does not address the specific issues at all. The question is not is Soros notable enough for an article, which he clearly is, but is a category worth having, which is a very different issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPL. Soros (or his money) is clearly a WP:DEFINING characteristic of most of the contents of this category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment George Soros himself is not a WP:DEFINING. Per WP:DEFINING, "if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.", and in this case Soros himself falls under WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. However, I have no objection to changing the category to something like Organizations Funded By George Soros. Transcendence (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2013 (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: Per WP:SMALL. Small town with just one entry. ...William 22:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator, but without prejudice to-creation if there are at least 5 articles to place in it. (Note that Annsville, New York has a population of 3,000, so it is small but not tiny. It may turn out to have had more notable residents). In the meantime, please re-create this categ as a {{category redirect}}, so that any ppl from this area can be correctly categorised. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is not worth keeping a category with only one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2013 (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:do not merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 18:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Per the withdrawn discussion below, deletion is probably not the best idea. So an upmerge is more appropriate. As noted below, navigation is provided by {{ABC Classic FM}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why merge? DexDor (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not defining for the selections. Deletion, as proposed below, would leave articles without a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. (re the discussion below) every article should be in a category (regardless of what templates are on it). DexDor (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a defining characteristic of the subjects of these articles. DexDor (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant; the Doctor Zhivago page isn't in this category. If you don't like the lists then improve them or AFD them (but several have already survived AFD). DexDor (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – As I wrote below: The 12 members of this category couldn't be more definingly categorised. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As long as we have these articles it makes sense to have them with this category as a parent. The contents of the countdowns should not be in this category, just articles about the countdowns themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2013 (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:No consensus. There appears to be a broad agreement that the current arrangement of gendered actor categories by state is non-ideal, but there is zero agreement as to what should be done about it. I suggest a better-advertised discussion for the whole group. --erachimatalk 06:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale We should either explicitly split this category by sex in a way that is entirely clear and open, or not divide it by sex at all. Since actors are almost always cast by sex in their roles, and since acting awards are in almost all cases divided by sex, I think the explicit division of the category works. However, there might be arguments the other way, and so if that is the case than we should just merge these two categories. This is a first nomination to see what the general feeling on the matter is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the merge; actors should not be divided by sex. The suggestion by JPL that actors/actresses may be cast by sex; they are also cast by age, weight, breast size, voice, "look", and "type" (whence, typecast) and countless other factors, none of which is defining in the sense that they act differently than those not in the category; we'd never have Category:Actors in their 40s, Category:Overweight actors, Category:Actors with Texan accents, Category:Actors who play movie villains, or any such; hence, whether a casting director is definitely looking for a female or male doesn't determine whether WP should categorize actor bios to help him/her. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. that question has been answered the other way after very long discussions which agreed that actots should be divided by gender. See for example Cfd 2013 January 16 and CFD 2012 November 22, both of which closed as "keep". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal: Merge both into Category:Actors and actresses from Pennsylvania - While I do support gendered categories for actors & actresses as a general proposition, I'm not so sure that's required at the State level. Using both terms in the category name makes it clear that both genders are included, since otherwise the word "actors" is likely to lead to the kind of confusion/uncertainty that we're endeavoring to avoid thru the use of explicitly gendered categories elsewhere. Cgingold (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with this. Pennsylvania is so large a category that splitting by gender makes sense, but what about some of the actors by city cats?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you want a manual split. I am semi-ok with that, but I have grave doubts it will get done. I have tried doing that with say Category:American television actors, but the progress on it is slow. Even say Category:American stage actors which has been tagged as a container category is not moving very fast towards being one. I was thinking it would be a lot faster to just rename, since the actress categories have more or less already been split off. On another matter, I was trying to be clear in saying this was a test nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very important to completely avoid using the stand-alone term "actors" in our category names because it is intrinsically ambiguous. So with that in mind, another possibility would be to rename this category as I proposed above to Category:Actors and actresses from Pennsylvania, to serve as the ungendered (or bi-gendered) parent cat for the two gendered subcats, Category:Male actors from Pennsylvania and Category:Actresses from Pennsylvania, if there is support for keeping them instead of upmerging. Cgingold (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The convention of Category:Actors and its hundreds of subcats is that "actors" is used in its gender-neutral sense. If there are gendered sub-categories those use "male actors" or "actresses"; but a categry of "actors" is consistently a gender-neutral one. If editors believe that the gender-neutral usage of "actor" is ambiguous in this context, then that applies to the whole of Category:Actors, not just to this one small subset of it. Either do a large group nomination of the high-level categories, or the leave them all alone ... but nowhere in any of the rationales above do I see any argument for making Pennsylvania an exception to such a widely-used naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Acting is one profession where gender is highly relevant. Support BHG. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking over actual use in our article, in almost all cases when the article says "Fred is an American actor" it is being used to say in part they are male, in almost all case we would find "Frederica is an American actress".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge I don't think we should split the state categories by gender. Yes gender is relevant, but we don't need to split by gender all the way down.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2013 (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:Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I don't believe that we consider radio station/network top 100 lists defining. Aren't these basically award categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - You might want to rethink & withdraw this one, VW. It's not an "award category" per se. Rather, it's for articles about "top 100 lists", which makes perfectly good sense. (Whether those articles merit inclusion on Wikipedia is another question entirely, beyond the purview of CFD.) Cgingold (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ony said it was like an award category which it is. How is the inclusion criteris The selection of works that was available in the survey was determined between 15 April and 26 April 2013 (with the public being able to add works to the list initiated by the station).[1] Voting (by the public) for the finalised list of works was held between 3 May and 17 May 2013, defining? How are these different then every other station countdown list? Also we tend not to categorize by arbitary numbers which 100 is. Why not 50 or 1,000? But again why is this defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not _categorizing_ by an arbitrary number. 19:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose – This category is the perfect navigational tool for 12 closely related lists which couldn't be better defined than by this category. It also provides (or it did, until the nominator removed them) a convenient place to categorise all its members. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Oppose). It's never right to delete a category that is the only category on most/all of the articles in it. DexDor (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2013 (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.
Keep Spellemannprisen, delete the others. As a Norwegian, I'd say that winning the Spellmannprisen is defining, as it is the most prestigious award for musicians in Norway (even though it has a lot of minor awards that "everyone" could win, e.g. the award for Blues, Dansband, Norwegian folk and Music for children). The other awards are only minor awards that aren't defining. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, Spellemannprisen is a Sector Award given by the Norwegian record companies organization. It is given for the albums of the year having the highest sales figures. It is well known because it is directly sent on Norwegian television. This is not the award that is most prestigious among the musicians, illustrated by the statuettes given by Spellemannprisen winners to the Garage (rock club) and used for different purposes like handle to the toilet doors. They find awards given by critics and music organizations, such as Norwegian Jazz Forum, most appealing. That is awards like the Buddyprisen given by NJF, the most important award for Norwegian Jazz Musicians. Yours Sincerely Knuand (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That this award is not the most prestigious award among musicians in Norway is your opinion, and not supported by any reliable sources. But if you keep telling the non-Norwegians in this discussion that Spellemannsprisen isn't the primary award in Norway, it'll be deleted along with the other nine categories. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Garage has been given four statuettes by different bands, of the 200-something statuettes that has been awarded since the start of the award in the 1970's. The BA-source you've found doesn't support any of your other conclusions like "This is not the award that is most prestigious among the musicians" and "They find awards given by critics and music organizations, such as Norwegian Jazz Forum, most appealing, but it states that Enslaved give the statuettes to the rock club because that is their favored venue. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How likely is it that many of the 200 prize winners would tell reliable sources that an award from their employer is not the most prestigious? Knuand (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mentoz. Keep Spellemannprisen, the others can probably be deleted (not familiar with all of them). Spellmmannprisen is a strong "trademark" in Norway, and a musician/singer who has won the prize will often be be introduced as "Spelemannspris winner so and so..." in articles. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those might be good arguments if an article about one of these awards was ever taken to AFD. However, this discussion should be about whether having received the award is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (for the purposes of categorization). DexDor (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these awards! How are you going to give credit in articles about norwegian jazzartists without any jazzprices? Norwegian jazzmusic is internationally recognised and these prices are often much more important and defining than the Spellemannsprisen which is a private iniative from the record business in Norway. When did you ever hear a jazzact at Spelemannsprisen? Best Regards User:isakstrand 20.40, UTC 27 August 2013 — isakstrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This discussion should be about whether having received the award is a WP:DEFINING characteristic (for the purposes of categorization); it's not about the content of the articles. DexDor (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is that an award category is a defining caracteristic giving credit to the receivers! Knuand (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All these awards violate our general rule against awards. There is no reason to think that any are exceptions, and we just should start scrapping a lot more award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are this "general rule against awards" ... ? Sincerely Knuand (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining' presumably, these people didn't become musicians because they won these prizes, but were recognized for something they had actually done beforehand (that's what may be defining). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Nicholson didn't become an actor because he won many prizes either ... Sincerely Knuand (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How come "Best Supporting Actor BAFTA Award winners", "Best Actor Academy Award winners", "Best Actor BAFTA Award winners", "Best Drama Actor Golden Globe (film) winners", "Best Musical or Comedy Actor Golden Globe (film) winners", "Best Supporting Actor Academy Award winners", "Best Supporting Actor Golden Globe (film) winners", "Cecil B. DeMille Award Golden Globe winners", "Grammy Award-winning artists" and "Kennedy Center honorees", are defining categories? Knuand (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:OC#AWARD. LIsts do the job much better than categories becuse they place the winners in date order. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are defining, having received the award is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person like Karin KrogReview by Thom Jurek: "By 1968, Norwegian jazz singer Karin Krog was already an international star. She had already won her country's most prestigious jazz award, the Buddy ...", Karin Krog: First Lady of Norwegian Jazz: "Karin was awarded the Buddy statuette, the Norwegian Jazz Federation's highest honour, as early as 1965, and has been part of the international jazz scene since ..." and Tingingsverket Karin Krog og John Surman: "Karin Krog har m.a. motteke Norsk Jazzforbunds «Buddy»-pris i 1985 og Oslo Jazzfestivals «Ella»-pris i 2008..." If these are not defining categories, what is a defining category? Yours Sincerely Knuand (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is only one example... All of these categories are "refered to by reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject", a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the recipient. Yours Knuand (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#AWARD: "Example: Category:MTV Movie Award winners, Category:Honorary citizens of Berlin, Category:People who have received honorary degrees from Harvard University", is a totally irrelevant list in a music award contekst! Knuand (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are receiving an "Oscar", a "Grammy" or a "Polar Bear" not defining? Knuand (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other stuff exists is a bad argument, especially since award categories are considered on their own merits. For the record, I would support deleting most of the other awards categories mentioned in the discussion. We have way too many award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are the problems with award categories? Knuand (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1-People are notable for being musicians, actors, politicians, etc., not really for winning awards, 2-people who win awards generally win lots of awards, so they lead to people being in lots of categories (see Winston Churchill).John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JPL - for more detail see my essay (particularly the "singer" paragraph). DexDor (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines"!! Knuand (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with JPL & DexDor!! Of course people get prices because they are clever or the best at something, it is in the nature of the case... But, at the same time people get attention when they get awards, and this in the next round gives them more opportunities to performe, and gives them more honor ... this is not so clear in my opinion! Regards, Knuand (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2013 (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:Georgia Music Hall of Fame inductees[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.
Response Then is your contention that we should categorize based on prominent awards? EGOT? Nobel? Pulitzer? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorizing by awards is against policy, but we allow exceptions for undefined rare cases. That means we debate each category on its particular merits, and the merits here are that we should delete. For the record I would support deleting the other mentioned category. However that is not the question before us. Award categories lead to people being in way too many categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#AWARD. I see no evidence that this regional award is significant enough to be an exception to the general presumption against award categs. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Yet another unnecessary award category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2013 (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.
Oppose:Most Turkish districts have categories in WP and the missing ones are to be completed in the future (There are over 900 of them and it needs time to complete all) . Bozcaada is a district and it also has a category. What is wrong with the category ? If there is a serious rationale to delete a category then nominator should delete at least 300 more district-in Turkey categories and God knows how many in the World ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A category with one member and zero parents is not a useful category. DexDor (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom to agree with the fact we use the English name in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well Tenedos is the historical name of an island and Bozcaada is the name of a Turkish district. How can we redirect the name of an administrative unit to an island ?Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge leaving a category redirect. There is an article in the category, with a hisotry section where Tenedos is the main article. This raises a problem, common in this part of the world: places have a Greek name and a Turkish one. We resolved this in one place by using the Greek name for the archaeological site and the Turkish one for the present village. Since Greek has been taught as a classical language in the west, and archaeology/history often refers to pre-Turkish periods, that policy is appropriate. However, for places now in Turkey, and dealing with the present or recent times, we need the the article to have the Turkish name. This requires the appropriate use of redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name here is the English name, based on the Greek name, but not the same. This has been discussed a lot on talk pages related to the article, and the clear consensus was to use Tenedos as the common English name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Contrary to John Pack Lambert's claim, there was no clear consensus on the name. Please check the archieves of the Talk: Tenedos. Anyway the discussion here is independent of the page. Bozcaada is a district and Tenedos is the historical name of an island. The situation is not different from Crete and Chania. Crete is an island and Chania is a city in the island and each has a cat of its own. Why can't we have the same here ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2013 (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:Moved to CFR-Speedy by nominator. Non-admin close by Cgingold (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's a European spelling but refers to US defense, which probably should have an "s". Many articles in the category have "defense" in their name, all spelled that way, and the category is also itself in a another category, Category:United States Department of Defense, which is also spelled that way. WPGA2345 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of change can be SPEEDIED. Just switch the CFR template to {{subst:Cfr-speedy}} and post it over on that page, instead of here. Cgingold (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't sure, since it seems like regional spelling issues can be contentious. WPGA2345 (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2013 (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.
