The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:United States television networks, proper name and standarization. <>Who ?¿? 8 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

• Rename per Who. - Splash 8 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)

• Rename -- /ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 23:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge -- Kbdank71 13:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Redundant with Category:MTV Networks and also a sub-cat of, as the latter provides a better category for the entire MTV networks, shows and articles. Should be merged and possibly a soft-redirect. <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

• Merge/delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate of Category:Hip hop. It had only a handful of articles which I moved as requested on the cat page. Nabla 2005-07-07 21:05:58 (UTC) Support — can this be done via the speedy mechanism? - Splash 8 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

• Merge/delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

This should be renamed to Category:Geologic time scale with an extra space. This is a borderline speedy as a typo, but I decided to list it here since many people probably do see both as valid. The version "time scale" with a space follows the conventions of the International Commission on Stratigraphy [1] (the body charged with defining the geologic time scale), and corresponds to the standard used formally and consistently for at least 2 decades. [2] [3] [4] [5]. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 20:13 (UTC)

• Rename. - Sean Curtin July 7, 2005 23:02 (UTC)
• Comment - at the risk of asking a silly question, shouldn't it be "Geological time scale"? The dictionaries I checked here only list geologic as a minor alternative spelling (those that listed it at all...). Grutness... wha? 8 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)
  • Comment. Googlefight: Geological, 23 - Geologic, 4 (million). - Nabla 2005-07-08 13:42:30 (UTC)
    • Shrug. The three most important works in this field over the last 30 years are all books with "geologic time scale" in the title (ICS 04, Harland 89, Harland 82). Why? I don't know, but I'd be inclinded to stick with "geologic". Admittedly though, the International Commission also uses "geological time scale" in some of their writings. Dragons flight July 9, 2005 05:47 (UTC)

I don't care either, I was simply pointing a possible guideline. I went to the ICS site. They belong to the 'International Union of Geological Sciences', and they have a link named ' Geological time scale' pointing to abook named 'Geologic time scale'!! If they don't know what to call it how can I? Nabla 13:42:24, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 13:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

This category was created as a result of a CFD. The name as stands is currently inappropriate. Many, if not most fraternities listed are international, having chapters in Canada. I personally know of one that is exclusively Canadian, Phi Kappa Pi. I suggest the category name Category:Fraternities and Sororities, this is also the name of the wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. Any other name that does not include a national name is appropriate however. It seems silly to separate fraternities into Canadian National, American National, Canadian-American International, and other Internatinal. -- metta, The Sunborn 7 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

• Object for systemic bias, because in other countries, the word 'fraternity' would mean a religious order, a sect, or a (semi-) secret society such as the Freemasons. Student societies outside America are not necessarily known as fraternities (especially if coed). I would find it more appropriate to add Category:Canada student societies etc - we split a lot of things by country. R adiant _>|< July 7, 2005 23:37 (UTC)
• Keep, but create Category:Student societies as a parent to this category for those societies that are not US-specific. - Sean Curtin July 7, 2005 23:02 (UTC)
  • There already is a Category:Student societies and it is already parent to this category. The problem is that the entirety of this category is Student Fraternities. Many of which are international in scope. Why don't we rename this category appropriately and re-create United States student societies if there is anything left that is not a fraternity? -- metta, The Sunborn 8 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

• Keep. Both this and Category:Student societies] are large, so merging does not seem appropriate unless there is lots of overlap (and I don't think there is from a glance). I'd suggest renaming to Category:Greek socieities except that they are not from Greece and Category:Greek lettered societies sounds stupid, and there's a few that arent anyway. If there's a few that are international, move them to the parent category. If most of them are, perhaps a new category name would be better, but I've not yet heard a good suggestion. -- ssd 8 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

• How about rename to Category:United States student fraternities etc?- Splash 8 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)
  • I would have no objection to Category:United States student fraternities and sororities except that it's rather long. Note that this doesn't obviate the need for Category:United States student societies, since there are a number of stud.socs that aren't frats. R adiant _>|< July 8, 2005 14:12 (UTC)
    • It is a bit long, but we could keep it a little shorter by having one (sub-)cat for frats and one for sororities. Procedurally, what would this kind of change mean from the POV of this CfD? Keep-and-create-sub-cats? - Splash 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
      • No, we could not. This cat was created in the first place because splitting student clubs by gender is systemic bias, and we should avoid that. R adiant _>|< 14:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hmm, I'm not sure that having both can be biased - having one or the other, yes, but both? Anyway, I only suggested it to keep the names shorter; I'd be happy enough with the longer name. - Splash 15:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC) reply
        • I do not believe in this particular case splitting by gender represents bias, at least for the "nationals," as it reflects the system as it exists. The major interfraternal organizations are the NIC, NPC, and NPHC; the NPH is exclusively comprised of female-only organizations (its website is even npcwomen.org), whereas the NIC is overwhelmingly for male-only organizations, with some coed members (NPHC is for historically African-American Greek organizations). The bylaws of NIC and NPC ensure that their separate philosophies and governance structures are preserved on local campuses (which is why most campuses have IFCs and PCs/ISCs instead of IGCs). Membership rules and social regulations for instance are broadly different for fraternities and sororities throughout North America. Indeed, the single sex restriction is specifically exempted from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. - choster 03:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I'm wary of changing it back to fraternities because as was pointed out, a fraternity doesn't mean the same thing the world over. A student society is a student society, no matter where you are. -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

• That was why I suggested keeping the words "United States" in the title. That along with the word student is specific enough, no? I'm from the other United States, so I could be wrong.- Splash 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

• What if we create Category:Post-secondary Fraternities and Category:Post-secondary Sororities, both of which would fall under student societies? That separates them from other fraternal orders, provides the useful distinction between Fraternities and Sororities, and also gets around all this nation-specific stuff that fragments the categorization scheme. To adress an objection that I can already forsee, "Female Fraternities" would fall under sororities because they are in all but name, and coed fraternities (e.g. Alpha Delta Phi) could be classified under both. - Lommer | ^talk 8 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to splitting this by gender - systemic bias. What does 'post-secondary' mean? R adiant _>|< 14:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and create sub-cats under Category:Student societies for the other nations with the same "societies". I object to using "Fraternities" and "Soroities", as "Societies" can mean any of them, including other non-greek socs. It does not matter if the "society" is international, it can be listed under each nation specific sub. <>Who ?¿? 21:54, 9 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep but place the Greek organizations under Category:North American fraternities and sororities. The North American fraternity system is a distinct type of organization; fraternities and sororities in the United States and Canada have a different origin and distinctive characteristics from analogous student societies in the Netherlands, Germany, etc. In that sense, "North American fraternities and sororities" represents a type, not a geographic designation (like "American football" or "Canadian bacon")—if Sigma Chi or Delta Gamma chartered a chapter in Australia or South Africa, it would be a "North American" fraternity and sorority. Similarly, I could accept Category:Greek letter organizations; even though Triangle and Acacia are not strictly "Greek letter" their heritage is of the Phi Beta Kappa and the Union Triad just the same; they are in the "Greek letter" tradition. The problems here would be organizations which are so named but lie outside the four major post-Phi Beta Kappa traditions. Incidentally, I'd say we ought to have categories for those types, namely honor (e.g. Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Sigma Pi), professional (primarily PFA members such as Alpha Chi Sigma), service (e.g. Alpha Phi Omega, Sigma Theta Epsilon), and general/"social" (most of what are popularly known as fraternities and sororities).- choster 03:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • You know, that subcatting by type sounds useful - I know from experience that a service frat is way different from a party frat. I believe a good distinction would be two classifications (within student socs). One by country. And one by function. Thus PBK, to name an example, would be in United States student societies and Honor student societies. R adiant _>|< 14:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I might agree with that. Can someone confirm that Honor societies is a sufficiently widespread term that we would not be obfuscating our meaning? Like I said, I'm from the other side of the pond to this topic so I could just be ignorant. - Splash 15:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Honor fraternities are a subset of honor societies. "Honor society" is generally understood both at the secondary and tertiary levels, and includes both open and closed membership organizations. - choster 01:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you for the clarification. - Splash 03:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:U.S. state case law, Category:U.S. state constitutions, Category:U.S. counties, Category:U.S. State court systems, Category:U.S. state flags, Category:State governors of the U.S., Category:U.S. state histories, Category:U.S. Interstate Highway system, Category:Landmarks of the U.S. by state, Category:State law in the U.S., Category:Law schools in the U.S., Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state, Category:Music of U.S. subdivisions, Category:National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S., Category:U.S. state parks, Category:People by U.S. state, Category:U.S. politicians by state, Category:Politics of the U.S. by state, Category:Lists of U.S. state prisons, Category:U.S. state capitals, Category:State supreme court judges in the U.S., Category:U.S. state insignia, Category:Universities and colleges in the U.S.

• For consistency, rename all of them to Category:United States -thing- by state. R adiant _>|< July 7, 2005 09:22 (UTC)
• Rename as per nominator. (not to include Thing Adams :) ) <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

See rename comments below. <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

• Rename all as suggested. -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)
• Rename, but without the "by state" since that will lead to horrific things like Category:United States state case law by state and Category:United states state constitutions by state. i.e. just expand the abbreviation U.S. → to United States. - Splash 7 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)
  • What if we just left it as is, substituting United States for US? IE, if it already has "by state", it'll continue to have it. If not, it won't be added. -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that's what I meant. Taking it any further would be over-enforcing consistency. - Splash 7 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
  • Thats a valid point, rename w/o "by state" as per Splash <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)
    • Of course, 'state by state' is redundant :) I'm sure common sense can find a reasonable wording for most of these, e.g. United States people/governors/music/court systems by state, but United States state capitals (rather than 'capitals by state' since the US only has one capital). Etc. R adiant _>|< July 8, 2005 09:29 (UTC)

I agree, just had to be clear, as it would be sad to redo the Cfr on a minor mistake, which would be my luck if I happened to do the moves. <>Who ?¿? 8 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

• Rename all. - Sean Curtin July 7, 2005 22:59 (UTC)
• Keep all. This nomination was obviously a half-baked idea in the first place. Renominate on a less inclusive basis if desired. Gene Nygaard 8 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)
  • Would you prefer if I listed them each separately, and asked for identical votes on all of them? If so, why? The intent is clear. R adiant _>|< July 8, 2005 14:14 (UTC)
    • Nah, it's clear enough. I think Gene is just being himself.  :) -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)
  • Just to be explicit about this, here's what I think they should be called, in the same order as the nomination: Category:United States case law by state, Category:United States state constitutions, Category:United States counties by state, Category:United States court systems by state, Category:United States state flags, Category:United States governors by state, Category:United States state histories, Category:United States interstate highway system by state, Category:United States landmarks by state, Category:United States law by state, Category:United States law schools by state, Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives by state, Category:Music of U.S. subdivisionssee below, Category:United States National Wildlife Refuges by state, Category:United States state parks, Category:United States people by state, Category:United States politicians by state, Category:United States politics by state, Category:Lists of United States state prisons, Category:United States state capitals, Category:United States state supreme court justices by state, Category:United States state insignia, Category:United States universities and colleges by state As for the music by subdivisions, well...I dunno. Maybe it needs splitting up a bit or merging somewhere. And the Category:United States law by state I think barely avoids any ambiguity in meaning between federal/state and has a clean-enough phrasing.- Splash 8 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

• This is quite clear. Not sure about "Music...subdivisions", maybe Category:United States music by region (too broad?). Support all other explicits. <>Who ?¿? 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

• Keep all. I don't see what is wrong with U.S. --- it's a standard abbreviation, it's reasonably easy to type, it makes the category titles less unwieldy. Doesn't seem broken: don't fix it. -- hike395 July 9, 2005 05:00 (UTC)

See Prefer spelled-out phrases to acronyms, as well as other areas on Wiki Naming conventions. Also to standardize. <>Who ?¿? 9 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)

Conventions that are made for article names? -- User:Docu

Conventions that are widely followed in category names, too. Take a look around this page and its history; there are plenty of example of renames specifically to expand acronyms. - Splash 9 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)

• Keep. Agree with hike395. Maurreen 9 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
• Keep all. Insufficiently detailed proposal, if they are just renamed as suggested, we will end up with odd category category names such as Category:United States state parks and Category:United States universities and colleges by state. -- User:Docu

What's odd about the two you suggest? As for the lack of detail, the bunch of names I have proposed (in red) above is completely detailed and contains am explicit proposal for each and every category listed, apart from the one about music because I don't know what 'subdivisions' of the United States are really called.. - Splash 9 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)

• Rename all -- /ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 23:09, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all Easier to digest and won't confuse anyone. CalJW 09:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 13:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Most states simply have a category for cities, but about ten of them have a separate category for villages. Since the distinction between village and city is vague at best, those cats should be merged. R adiant _>|< July 7, 2005 09:22 (UTC)

• Delete (not merge because villages are communities in rural areas while cities are urban areas) Peregrine _AY 7 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)
• Keep. The distinction is vague, I'll agree, but it is there. -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a separation based on a formal designation—if state law calls a municipality a "village," it's a "village," not a "city." The class of municipality determines the powers of the local government, and also is reflected in its official name (e.g., "Village of New Rome," "City of Columbus"). Postdlf 7 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
• Keep having been in places with actual "villages" and/or "townships", I have to agree, they are a seperate entity of a city, much like a sub-urb sometimes, but often not. (Wasn't New Rome dissolved in 2003 tho, or just the police department?) <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)
• Keep. Categories for deletion has established silly rules about distinguishing in category names by somebody's notion of the "official" names of types of municipalities. Therefore, Wikipedia has some "villages" of over 100,000 people, as well as dozens of "cities" with fewer than 50 people. Gene Nygaard 8 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)
• Strong keep. "Village" or "City" etc. status marks a profound difference in the legal status of communites in the U.S. and their degree of self-government (though laws are of course different in deifferent states).-- Pharos 9 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given by others. Maurreen 9 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)
• Keep as per Pharos; but be sure the member are categorized right. Septentrionalis 22:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep You should know that Village, City, Town, Township and Boro (or Borough) are significantly distinct legal entities, although the exact meaning varies from state to state, and not all exist in all states. As one who has been involved in local govertment (in NJ/US) the distinction can be very important indeed. However, for nongovernmental purposes, a super-category Municipalities of foo or places in foo might be useful. DES 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Suggest listify. This category contains a mixture of articles on songs and artists, and a list of them would be far more comprehensive and could list such things as release year and highest chart position. Note that we have lists of one-hit wonders for other countries, but only a category for the US. Would that count as systemic bias? R adiant _>|< July 7, 2005 09:22 (UTC)

• Delete. BTW, we do have a US one-hit wonder list. -- FuriousFreddy 7 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
• Delete as per FuriousFreddy. -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)
• Listify per nomination, seeing as we already have the list. - Splash 7 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)
• Keep Why should there not be a category, as well as a list? By the way, the category only contains artists, and no songs. Carolaman 7 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)
• Delete. A one-hit wonder in one country could be immensely popular in another. Putting the likes of Robbie Williams into a subcategory of Category:One-hit wonders seems a bit ridiculous to me. - Sean Curtin July 7, 2005 22:57 (UTC)
• Comment I almost say listify, but if the artist actually has an article, it is very likely that they are only notable for being a "one-hit wonder", so it would be logical to cat them by it. I also think that it meets the both criterion.

• Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
• If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

<>Who ?¿? 8 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Only one article (two if you count the one I redirected). tregoweth July 7, 2005 05:36 (UTC)

• Delete, too narrow. R adiant _>|< July 7, 2005 09:14 (UTC)
• Delete I know there are a few of these films, but do they even need their own cat (assuming someone actually makes articles for all of them)? The Land Before Time should just be placed in it's parent. <>Who ?¿? 8 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicates Category:Shows on Adult Swim; a category about Adult Swim itself seems unnecessary at this time. tregoweth July 7, 2005 04:54 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant. R adiant _>|< July 7, 2005 09:14 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Seperately, whats up with Category:Cartoon Network, was it previously deleted, or just not added. <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Seperate issue, created Category:Cartoon Network, previously populated but non-existant. <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Seperately, all I could find was a list: List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

No articles; all incorporated municipalities in Nebraska are either in Category:Cities in Nebraska or Category:Villages in Nebraska -- Swid 7 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)

• Delete, and merge the other two. The distinction between city, town and village is vague at best. R adiant _>|< July 7, 2005 09:14 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps we should try to get a larger discussion going to merge all of these into a category of "Cities, towns, and villages in Foo-town". -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)
• Delete towns, keep villages assuming it is an official designation of Nebraska. I think this has been discussed to death somewhere, and the empty category is just a missed left-over. -- ssd 8 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Should be Category:Comedy computer and video games, Category:Fantasy computer and video games, Category:Horror computer and video games, Category:Science fiction computer and video games. - Sean Curtin July 7, 2005 01:59 (UTC)

• Rename as per nominator. <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)
• Rename. -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Should be Category:Superhero computer and video games, Category:Computer and video games based on DC Comics, and Category:Computer and video games based on Marvel Comics, respectively. - Sean Curtin July 7, 2005 01:53 (UTC)

• Rename as per nominator, as creator of two, acknowledge naming mistake. <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 10:11 (UTC)
• Rename. -- Kbdank71 7 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Misspelt (proper spelling is Bogotá); Category:Bogotá already existed, so I merged the former into the latter. -- Fibonacci 7 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.