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 all. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to spell out the acronyms (to "the original series", "the next generation" and "deep space 9"). That would be clearer to people less knowledgeable about Star Trek. R adiant _>|< 22:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Make it so. - The Tom 05:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support. Go for it. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Access denied, but ... this should be consistent with naming conventions for Star Trek articles, episodes, and items; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek. Given the abundance of content and media, this will help to ensure that novice and expert Wikipedians use the same style/format for everything. E Pluribus Anthony 21:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Make it so. -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all as per nom. - TexasAndroid 14:42, 18 October 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 Merge. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Permanently near-empty, it serves mainly as a placeholder for Category:Star Trek episode lists. Merge into there. R adiant _>|< 22:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge as per nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. No argument. siafu 17:48, 17 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Redundant with better named " Category: Star Wars substances". Empty and waiting deletion - Dr Haggis - Talk 22:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:49, 17 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty duplicate of clearer category:Natives of Vienna. Delete CalJW 22:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge with categoryredirect notice. "Natives of" is unduly restrictive ("People from..." would be better), but I'm in favour of adjective use in nationality subcats unless its absolutely impossible (ie, the Democratic Republic of the Congo-type situation). "Viennese" is quite easy to figure out, listed on Wikipedia, and analagous to Category:Liverpudlians or Category:Parisians. The Tom 20:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Reverse merge would be a very bad idea as it covers everything in Vienna. Viennese what? Why not put Viennese music in it? Bhoeble 23:29, 19 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Marked for a speedy - but I can't see how it is (emptied by nom) -- Doc (?) 20:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete POV -- Doc (?) 20:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Can be speedied as we're not a bureaucracy and it's hopelessly POV, jguk 21:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not eligible for speedy. We shouldn't make up new criteria for speedy deletion on a case by case basis. CalJW 22:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Encephalon 06:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• If we delete all the heroic people, will we be left with only cowards? delete. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 07:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Highly POV. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete a nonsense idea. -- Ian ≡ talk 16:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wizzy… ☎ 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete definitely - tried reasoning with the originator of the cat so that he can put it for deletion, but failed. However, I appreciate his enthusiasm considering that he is young on Wikipedia but also wish that he displays more circumspection. -- Gurubrahma 05:20, 17 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

There are no other subcategories in Category:National parks and I don't think there ever will be. Therefore "National parks by country" is just an extra thing to click through. Merge into Category:National parks and then delete CalJW 20:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Not to look spiteful, but this nomination made me realize that Category:National parks by establishment year might be a useful distinction to add to the 'pedia. On that note, I'll oppose, but in the politest of voices. - The Tom 01:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't think it is very useful. Your new categories are actually organised by decade, which is not very precise, but slicing them up more doesn't seem like a useful project. Unless you can provide a good reason why lists would not be better for this purpose, I will nominate the categories for deletion. Lists will be quicker to navigate and unlike categories they can state the country and any other information which may seem essential. Also, the start you have made seems rather token, and I am not confident others will take to these categories with enthusiasm. CalJW 23:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. I agree with The Tom. There is no harm done by leaving this alone for now. Category:National parks also serves as a catch all for parks in countries that don't yet have a specific category. Vegaswikian 06:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It woould serve as a catch all in exactly the same way if the deletion went ahead. CalJW 21:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Hmm. I may be missing something, but I don't see how CalJW's suggestion is incompatible with The Tom's. If Category:National parks by country is deleted, all the "National parks of Country" cats will move into Category:National parks. Category:National parks by establishment year can be (and in fact, is) a subcat of Category:National parks. Is there a reason Category:National parks by country should exist, in this scheme? enceph alon 07:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Both per The Tom, and also noting that there are, in fact, other articles in Category:National parks (e.g. National park), and could be others (e.g. articles on government agencies or laws specifically pertaining to national parks) and no reason to upmerge. siafu 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • National park is the lead article either way. Articles on government agencies and laws related to individual countries. I did not say that there are no other articles, but I do not believe that any other categories are required. CalJW 21:10, 17 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Non-standard and simply a semi-duplicate of the standard category:Geography of Malaysia. All the contents are in the geography category already. Delete CalJW 20:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. *drew 03:04, 20 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty after 7 weeks. There is no mention of municipalities in Syria or Geography of Syria. Delete CalJW 19:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:15, 17 October 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 change to cats required. Naming conventions candidate. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Add "Aviation in foo" as the convention for subcats of Category:Aviation by country to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). No renaming necessary. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support, no objection. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:20, 20 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for these categories is currently specified as "Nationality x" format (22 of 29 are in this format). Rather than do these as speedy, I'm listing them here to confirm the convention. Alignment with this convention requires the following renames/merges. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:Architecture of Cambodia → Category:Cambodian architecture

Category:Architecture of Canada → Category:Canadian architecture

Category:Architecture of Denmark merge into Category:Danish architecture

Category:Architecture of France → Category:French architecture

Category:Architecture of New Zealand → Category:New Zealand architecture

Category:Architecture of Pakistan → Category:Pakistani architecture

Category:Architecture in Spain → Category:Spanish architecture

• Rename all CalJW 19:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename, though the only thing I can think of it affecting are embassies. - SimonP 14:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - Sorry, I know how painful it can be to find a consensus/standard on these sorts of things, but "French architecture" doesn't imply to me 'buildings in France', it implies to me 'buildings all over the world that were designed in the French style or by French architects'. The Statue of Liberty was designed by Eiffel - does that make it French architecture, or American? Same for Tokyo Tower, which is based on Eiffel's, just a different size and bright, gaudy red. Unless that's your intention, to have the categories be by style & school of architecture, not literal physical geography? LordAmeth 20:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Style and school does appear to be the intent...the physical location of buildings is covered by the "buildings and structures in..." category tree. These categories include both buildings in a style as well as the styles themselves, for instance, the article Hadrian's Wall under the Ancient Roman subcat of Italian architecture, despite it being in England. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Could this be under '(Ancient) Roman architecture' (style, or similar), not Italian per se, and still under Architecture in UK? E Pluribus Anthony 12:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the clarification. I should have realized that was the intent, and a most logical and useful intent it is. If I may, I should like to change my vote to Support. LordAmeth 00:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all > propose Architecture in x (and perhaps consolidated with "Buildings and structures in x") – (should be) consistent with similar topics (e.g., History of Canada, et al.) E Pluribus Anthony 22:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It is not less consistent than those. There are many other categories in the "nationality X" form. CalJW 09:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps this is something to work on, then. That is not the point: architecture can be cleaved according to nationality, location, style (e.g., Beaux Arts or 'Beaux Arts architecture'), etc, all not mutually exclusive. We should strive for consistency any which way (particularly if dealing with 'nationality') so that we (ultimately) don't have to contend with these sorts of changes/requests. :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, and also Rename Category:Architecture by country to Category:Architecture by nationality - The Tom 19:04, 17 October 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 all. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Category:Australian Aboriginal politics to Category:Indigenous Australian politics
• Category:Australian indigenous actors to Category:Indigenous Australian actors
• Category:Australian indigenous communities to Category:Indigenous Australian communities
• Category:Australian indigenous culture to Category:Indigenous Australian culture
• Category:Australian indigenous education to Category:Indigenous Australian education
• Category:Australian indigenous leaders to Category:Indigenous Australian leaders
• Category:Australian indigenous music to Category:Indigenous Australian music
• Category:Australian indigenous music groups to Category:Indigenous Australian music groups
• Category:Australian indigenous musicians to Category:Indigenous Australian musicians
• Category:Australian indigenous politicians to Category:Indigenous Australian politicians
• Category:Australian indigenous sports people to Category:Indigenous Australian sports people
• Category:Indigenous peoples of Tasmania to Category:Indigenous Tasmanians

See the discussion at WP:AWNB#Aboriginal/indigenous culture categories. JPD 17:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support rename.-- Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Definitely. Rename. enceph alon 06:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as proposed. Note the last one technically changes the meaning of the category (from peoples to individuals), but tthat is how the category has been used anyway. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 13:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

It's probably worth making clear that the first change is also a change in meaning to the meaning already in use, which is more appropriate. JPD 09:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- Ian ≡ talk 16:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename, as per proposal.-- cjllw | TALK 02:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:25, 17 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 03:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Accidently created without realising there was both a Players and a Managers Category. Plus, I forgot to punctuate F.C.. smurrayinchester^{( User), ( Talk)} 14:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The standard form Category:Chester City F.C. already exists CalJW 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:26, 17 October 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 as per nomination -- Kbdank71 15:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

For consistency with Category:Cycle racing by country and Category:American sports. Also, not all cycle racing is professional. Vclaw 13:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename (speedy per criteria #4). -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Rename but not eligible for speedy. It could easily have been the case that there was a separate category for amateur cycling. Another example of abuse of rule4 and another reason why it should be abolished. CalJW 09:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, but per #4 could be Category:Professional cycle racing in the United States. siafu 18:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename but use "bicycle road racing" / "road bicycling" instead. To avoid any collisions with motorcycles, BMX-cross, supercross, etc. 132.205.45.110 20:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment the category is not just for road bicycle racing. It also includes mountain bike racing, BMX racing, track cycling, tricycle racing etc, see Category:Cycle racing. I think it is clear that it refers to (mostly) pedal-powered (bi)cycles. If necessary cat:Road bicycle racing could be created as a sub cat of cat:cycle racing etc. -- Vclaw 21:58, 17 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

There's probably an article on homosexual culture somewhere, do we really need a category on it? And is homophobia really an integral part of homosexual culture? Trip: The Light Fantastic 13:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• This is a duplicate category (see Category:LGBT culture), and wasn't really an appropriate addition to two of the three articles it was added to in the first place. And it was never filed as a subcategory of anything LGBT-related, which is the only reason it sat around for so long without anyone noticing. Consider it speedied. Bearcat 16:51, 15 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 03:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Apart from the fact that the name is not very good, this category serves little purpose other than as a needless element of bureaucracy, is severely incomplete, and serves as a rather poor substitute for the existing deletion logs. Delete. R adiant _>|< 13:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Del. Hmm. A mainspace category that internally references a Wikipedia process. enceph alon 06:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. How would we add articles that don't exist (have been deleted) anyway? siafu 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, by all means. Though I presume we would add the articles about those articles, not the articles themselves. Palmiro | Talk 17:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep: it contains the articles (well, actually the associated talk pages) which have survived a previous attempt at deletion and is therefore useful for later reference. It is automatically added as a side-effect of transcluding the appropriate notice following closure of an unsuccessful deletion attempt: see the category description for details. As for namespace, I was not aware that there was more than one Category namespace: maybe we should propose another namespace, with the same functionality, purely for holding non-main-namespace articles? Or would you prefer simply to rename it to emphasise that it is a maintenance category rather than an informational one? — Phil | Talk 13:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If nothing else, this can only hold articles that were previously AfD'd and not deleted. It cannot ever serve its intended purpose and is redundant any number of ways with existing provisions. - Splash ^talk 02:03, 23 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 03:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Too broad, so as to be basically useless, and bad grammar. Charles Matthews 12:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Seems to be a misunderstanding of the use of "Theory" in some article titles. JPD 17:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per JPD, but if kept would prefer "Theories in Mathematics", and would need clear description to avoid including general fields of study (e.g. Number Theory) instead of actual theories. siafu 18:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The distinction isn't clear. Just about anything in mathematics is a 'theory'; it's more a question of how you present an area, than anything else. Charles Matthews

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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 03:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• For obvious reasons -- Doc (?) 09:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, certainly. enceph alon 09:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• So obvious it should be speedied, jguk 09:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I would speedy it if it were allowed. Famous should not be used in article or category titles. ∞ Who ?¿? 10:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Impossible to define or to draw the line between notable and famous. Shanes 10:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Wizzy… ☎ 11:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete ASAP -- Ian ≡ talk 16:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete definitely - tried reasoning with the originator of the cat so that he can put it for deletion, but failed. -- Gurubrahma 05:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unequivocally! E Pluribus Anthony 02:19, 18 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 03:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

All stations there belong to Seoul Metropolitan Subway. Puzzlet Chung 03:45, 15 October 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 Reverse merge. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 03:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, more correct name at Category:Confectionary magnates. MeltBanana 00:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reverse delete see Category:Confectionery and Confectionery. Both spelled the same as empty category. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename in light of TimPopes research. I guess I should have dug further. Thanks though, now I know the difference in the two names. Although it should be put on the category, so it doesn't come back later :) ∞ Who ?¿? 13:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• OK - I'm confused. Tim's research supported your original reverse delete vote (as a magnate in "candies and other confections considered as a group") - so why'd you change it? Grutness... wha? 00:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Because I need glasses, good ones. not the blue swirly ones I'm currenlty wearing :) «» Who ?¿? ^meta 07:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Full ahead reverse as per Who. Grutness... wha? 01:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Er well maybe, though many dictionaries distinguish between the two. MeltBanana 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• I agree really, but we have to go with the spelling currently in use. ∞ Who ?¿? 10:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment dictionary .com has
• confectionary

1. A confectioner's shop; a confectionery.
2. Sweet preparations; confections.
3. Obsolete. A confectioner.

• confectionery

1. Candies and other confections considered as a group.
2. The skill or occupation of a confectioner.
3. A confectioner's shop.

the latter seems closest to the meaning we seek -- TimPope 10:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge per Who, but I'm not really sure we really want to use the word "magnate". siafu 20:34, 17 October 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.