Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 13

< December 12	December 14 >

December 13[edit]

Category:People from Nabus[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge to Category:People from Nablus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Should be a speedy, rename to Category:People from Nablus. Soman (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge per nom. The category with the proper spelling exists. Just move the one article in the "Nabus" category and then add {db-catempty} template after 4 days. Snocrates 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per above. "Nabus"? Everybody needs good Nabus... Grutness...wha? 23:34, 14 December 2007 (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 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:Malaysian people of World War II[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Malayan people of World War II. Malaysia did not exist as an entity at the time, but the term to be used was Malaya (This term excludes people from Borneo, but as far as I can see none of the current categorized articles relates to people from Sabah & Sarawak). Soman (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (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 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:Israeli people of World War II[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: See Pakistani people below. The State of Israel did not exist at the time of the war, and the relevant criteria is the nationality at the time of the war. Soman (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only two articles and they are adequately included in other World War II categories. Snocrates 21:35, 13 December 2007 (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 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:Pakistani people of World War II[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 16:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Indian people of World War II

Nominator's rationale: Pakistan was not created until 1947, and those persons were Indians at the time. The category should reflect their nationality at the time of the war. If that principle is tampered with, an SS soldier having fled to Uruguay after the war would get categorizied as 'Uruguayan people of World War II' or similar... (Moreover, categorizing these people as 'Pakistani military personnel' is clearly historical revisionism. Soman (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposed merge. India too was not created as an independent nation until 1947; during WWII current-day India and Pakistan were part of the British Raj or "British India". Merging both into a renamed category like Category:British India people of World War II as a subcategory of Category:People of British India would probably be more accurate. Snocrates 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see Snocrates point, however, I don't see the need of differentiating between the entity British India and the then colonies of other European countries. However, the main problem to me lies in the cat, Category:People of British India. I'd propose that that one be limited to the people tied to the administration of the colony. --Soman (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Snocrates writes 'India too was not created as an independent nation until 1947; during WWII current-day India and Pakistan were part of the British Raj or "British India".'. However, what was the common name for this entity at the time of the war? India. There is just as little need to differentiate between India as of 1942 and India as of 1948 as there is to differentiate between Cambodia 1942 and 1955. These were cases were colonies existed as political entities, although not fully independent and sovereign, and those entities gained political independence. Pakistan was created by secession from India, India did not disappear as a political entity with the formation of Pakistan. --Soman (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, again, also we don't differentiate between Soviet Estonians and Estonians as two different nationalities. Political entities change status and borders, the question is whether there is a clear red line of contituity in the identity. (I would, for example, urge against categorizing Romans as Italians, etc) --Soman (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Indian people of World War II per nominator. Shyamsunder 08:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)}}}[reply]
Merge with Indians. Soman has logically outlined this. There was no "Pakistan" so there were no WW2 Pakistanis. There was however some entity called India, encompassing all of the Republic of India.Baka man 23:43, 14 December 2007 (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 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 resistance members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Soviet partisans. Kbdank71 16:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Soviet resistance members. Russian SFSR was one of the soviet republics at the time, no need to say 'Russian and', since all Russians were also Soviets at the time. Soman (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with principle; rename to Category:Soviet partisans since main article is at Soviet partisans. Snocrates 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Snoc Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2007 (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 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:Syphon Filter characters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was upmerge. Kbdank71 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Characters have been merged into a list, so there is no need for the category any more. Upmerge the list into Category:Syphon Filter. Pagra shtak 19:55, 13 December 2007 (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 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:School districts New Hampshire[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category appears to be the result of a typing error. The category "School districts in New Hampshire" already exists. Ken Gallager (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2007 (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 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:Africa Wrestling Alliance venues[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nearly all sports arenas have hosted wrestling events at some point, it doesn't make sense to categorize them this way. See also the November 18th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arenas would be listed in hundreds of categories if we categorized like this, especially some of the bigger and more well known ones. VegaDark (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2007 (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 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:Marketing research[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 16:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Market research, see previous discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, and my comments last time:Marketing research explains that Market research is the broader term, and the contents of this category cover both. In addition "market research" is the term used in Britain for what (if the article is to be believed) is called "marketing research" in the US (though the accuracy of this is much debated on the talk page). Thanks to Proveit - I'd forgotten this one! Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2007 (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 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:MetLife[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:MetLife to Category:Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Snocrates 04:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2007 (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 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:CIBC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CIBC to Category:Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

Category:Directors of CIBC to Category:Directors of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Nominator's rationale: Rename both. To match main article, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Snocrates 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2007 (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 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:AIG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:AIG to Category:American International Group

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, American International Group. Snocrates 04:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I thought it was "Answers in Genesis"!. --Bduke (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2007 (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 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:WPP[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WPP to Category:WPP Group

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, WPP Group. Snocrates 03:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2007 (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 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:SAP[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was relisted on dec 21. Kbdank71 16:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SAP to Category:SAP AG

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, SAP AG. Snocrates 03:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the whole - article is only so named for disam purposes, which is not a problem here. Everyone just uses SAP, & SAP AG is bound to confuse far more people than it helps. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, SAP is an ambiguous TLA. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"SAP (computing)" or something would be preferable. It is a big brand worldwide (just using SAP) & AG means nothing to most people outside Europe if not Germany Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (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 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:SC Johnson brands[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SC Johnson brands to Category:S. C. Johnson & Son brands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To mirror parent, Category:S. C. Johnson & Son. Main article is S. C. Johnson & Son. Snocrates 03:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Images of rabbis[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete to restore previous category structure. This is overcategorization. There is no reason to have an "images" category for every subcategory, since images can be categorized into regular categories as well. Though the 76 images in Category:Images of rabbis could be sorted into these categories, what would be the benefit of doing so? Someone looking for an image of a rabbi likely either does not know where the rabbi practiced, or else is not particular about that detail. --Eliyak T·C 03:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, firstly because WP:NOT#PAPER, and because having created these categories only a few days ago, and still working on filling them with the hundreds of photos of Haredi and Hasidic rabbis that have been posted (much more than 76 images) and this is only a beginning since categorization of images is new and is bound to increase by leaps and bounds as more images are constantly being added (hence the need for more specific categories.) This is no different than would be expected of organizing any photo album, and certainly as it applies to an encyclopedia as vast as Wikipedia has become. Each one of these image categories matches a pre-existing similar category so everything would remain streamlined. So that:

Category:Images of Orthodox rabbis matches and belongs to Category:Orthodox rabbis (a parent category)

Category:Images of Haredi rabbis matches and belongs to Category:Haredi rabbis (another parent category)

Category:Images of Haredi rabbis in Europe matches and belongs to Category:Haredi rabbis in Europe (valid sub-category)

Category:Images of Haredi rabbis in Israel matches and belongs to Category:Haredi rabbis in Israel (valid sub-category)

Category:Images of Haredi rabbis in the United States matches and belongs to Category:Haredi rabbis in the United States (valid sub-category)

This all seems so clear and logical that the nominator's concerns seem hard to fathom. Does he really intend that every brand of rabbis will fit neatly into only "one category of 'rabbi' images"? It is impossible to see how all denominations and types of rabbis should be squeezed into "one size fits all rabbis' images category" when reality, and the constantly multiplying images say otherwise. By the way, it is all very well to nominate this group for merging or deletion, but a close examination shows that Haredi rabbis make up the majority of the rabbinical photos (and Haredim are based in either Israel, America or Europe) and one wonders if there is an attempt to somehow move against that by just calling them "rabbis" -- will they also be in the category with Reform and Conservative female rabbis? That is why it is important to have clear and distinct categories not just for articles but for images intrinsically connected to them as well. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am only against the creation of categories that create hardships for users instead of helping them. Firstly, the myriad images claimed by IZAK are not forthcoming. Where are they? The splitting of a category should be justified by its actual contents, not its theoretical contents.

Secondly, dividing rabbis by location is not a helpful division. Location is not what primarily distinguishes rabbis from each other, but rather ideology. (Categories by location would make sense in a location-based scheme, where "Images of religious figures in the United States," etc. were parent categories. These do not exist.) So what splitting in this way accomplishes is to divide the images of rabbis into essentially arbitrary groups which do not really have much cohesiveness at all.

Categorizing rabbis by ideology (ie Orthodox, Reform, Conservative) is clearly the first logical step. (Next, Orthodox rabbis could be further broken down into Modern Orthodox, Hasidic, and even by Hasidic sect.) This would indeed create useful divisions of the contents here. But again, such a division should be justified by an abundance of content. Basically, I do not want to see a situation in which the large numbers of images fail to materialize, leaving the categories somewhat like those messy phone trees which are impossible to get to the bottom of. --Eliyak T·C 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to one of IZAK's points, it is in no way the case that every category justifies an "images" subcategory. The images, if they are few, could simply be sorted into the regular category. --Eliyak T·C 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliyak: There are absolutely no "hardships" being created here. This is simple categorization at work, as it applies to images. There is also nothing wrong with categorizing by geographic location, in this case it's actually according to the three major centers: Europe, Israel and the USA, where almost all Haredi and Orthodox Jews reside, so I cannot imagine why that should be so tough to accept. Finally, there are plenty of images, give me a little time, I will gather them up. You can help too. You also overlook, that if these categories get deleted, then the images can rightly be placed on the regular category pages and that will just clog them up, and I want to avoid that, which was one of my considerations in creating separate categories for images within them to create more orderliness on the category pages themselves. Think it over. IZAK (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I've been adding images for a few hours now and there's lots more to go. As I type these words, SO FAR, there are already 51 pics in Category:Images of Haredi rabbis in Israel; 31 pics in category:Images of Haredi rabbis in the United States; 37 pics in Category:Images of Haredi rabbis in Europe. This is just the start and the growing numbers in them will be much larger than that. Even as things stand now, these image categories qualify as valid categories because they contain many more images than lots of other image categories. It is requested that this nomination be withdrawn to allow the process of organization and more accurate categorization to proceed unhindred without these unhelpful delaying tactics. As it is, the pre-existing Category:Images of Hasidic rebbes contains 110 pics at this point and should also be split up by the criteria of Europe/Israel/United States to mmake it manageable. I have also created Category:Images of rosh yeshivas which has 34 pics thus far and with lots more to add, as well as starting Category:Images of Sephardi rabbis with only 3 so far. I cannot burn ten candles at both ends all the time, so it will take time to keep on filling up the categories, but the fact remains that the images are there and await correct categorization. I am trying to whittle down the general Category:Images of rabbis into more exact categorizations. Please withdraw the nomination because we cannot have literally hundreds of images of "rabbis" on one page, it just won't fly. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:because of IZAK's rationale--Java7837 (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (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 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:NXP[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NXP to Category:NXP Semiconductors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, NXP Semiconductors. (It's the name of a corporation, hence the capital "S".) Snocrates 03:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2007 (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 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:Lilly[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lilly to Category:Eli Lilly and Company

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, Eli Lilly and Company. Snocrates 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2007 (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 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:Grupo Telefónica[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Grupo Telefónica to Category:Telefónica

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, Telefónica. Snocrates 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2007 (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 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:Grupo Iberia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Iberia Group. Kbdank71 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Grupo Iberia to Category:Iberia Airlines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, Iberia Airlines. Snocrates 03:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose and rename to Category:Iberia Group. This is the name of the parent company for Iberia Airlines. The problem here is that we don't yet have an article for the parent company. The lack of that article is not a reason to misname the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can see now that that is right. It should be renamed to the English Category:Iberia Group. Snocrates 05:30, 21 December 2007 (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 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:Grupo ACS[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only main article, Grupo ACS. Snocrates 03:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless populated within time limit. A category with one item is pointless. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2007 (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 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:Acerinox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only main article, Acerinox. Snocrates 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.