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. Syrthiss 12:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Non-standard article which only contains Military of Rwanda, which has its own category. The other related category which should be created when there is something to put in it is category:Law enforcement in Rwanda. "Security forces" is not a standard category type. Delete. CalJW 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete per nom's arguments. Colon el Tom 12:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- JeffW 19:10, 5 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Consistency with other such categories under Category:Legislative Branch of the United States Government — Markles 22:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Sumahoy 17:12, 29 April 2006 (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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Category subject already exists at Category:Free daily newspapers. The text which had been at the top of the category has been moved to a separate article ( List of free daily newspapers) GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 17:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 16:01, 30 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Football is organised into a number of federations, which almost correspond with the continents, but not quite. For example Australia has just transferred from the Oceania federation to the Asian federation and Israel is in Asia but it belongs to UEFA. Rename. Bhoeble 21:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- necronudist 12:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Some European national football teams are not members of UEFA. There are 52 UEFA members and 79 articles in this category (67 if you ignore the women's teams). The cat includes countries like Greenland, Monaco, Chechnya and Catalonia - all non-UEFA members. To make the suggested move work, a new category would need to be created, along the lines of Category:Non-confederated national football teams. That would be a mess. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose renaming, but Israel should be moved out. Maybe we should have both systems. Choalbaton 00:53, 3 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

In keeping with our article for and the policy of the school. I was recently at a conference there and they were quite clear on their preference, which students, faculty, and Montreal media outlets abide by. All subcategories too, of course. Chick Bowen 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• support as the French naming is not the only official naming of the school but also apparently the more common one used by English speakers in Montreal and who have connection with the institution. its sub-cat Category:University of Montreal faculty should also be added here by the nominator Mayumashu 01:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• comment it should be the criteria, should it not, in naming pages on wikipedia that foreign language complete with non-English accent markings ( diacritics) be used as long as it is common amoung English speakers in the proper know (local or with connection to the entity in question) use the non-English name or any English contrivation. take the names of European cities (Rome, Cologne) or any number of countries (Japan, Korea, Mexico, Argentina) - their anglicized forms are standard with English speakers local or connected to the area (as well as English-speakers at large, which should be considered incidental however, i d argue) Mayumashu 01:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose No, English language articles and categories should be named in a version of English that is familiar to all English speakers, that is one without diacretics. Bhoeble 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment I don't suppose I could get you to rename those weird German articles that use non-English letters? 132.205.45.110 19:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Should be named in common English name among English-speakers in general; English-speakers attending the school, even if Mayamashu's claims could be substantiated, are irrelevant. Gene Nygaard 07:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• support While many Canadians refer to Montréal as Montreal, I have never heard Université de Montréal being referred to as "University of Montreal". Hasdrubal 22:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - This is en-wiki, not fr-wiki. -- Cyde Weys 19:22, 5 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Exams is a short form of examinations, and it's logical to use the more proper English. Esteffect 22:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

*Objection But it isn't eligible for speedy renaming. CalJW 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (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 to Cat:Lists of Muslims. Syrthiss 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Capitalization, although I'm not sure if Muslims-related is correct. -- JeffW 23:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 18:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• I suspect that either Category:Moslem-related lists Category:Muslim-related lists or Category:Islam-related lists would be far better, depending on the type of lists involved - is it just the people, or the religion in general? Grutness... wha? 05:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I think its people only, but I've put an invitation on the creators talk page to join us here. -- JeffW 13:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for inviting me. It is category of lists related to Muslims. Like some lists are already added. WE can change it to Category:Muslims-related lists. Islam related list will not be appropriate. -- Spasage 10:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I think Category:Muslim-related lists would be best. Muslim does not need to be plural. CG janitor 19:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Further comment - most categories related to Muslims use the form "Muslim xxx", which is why I suggested Muslim-related. And yes, if it's lists about the people themselves, Islam-related would be inappropriate. Grutness... wha? 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Muslim-related lists as "Muslim" is the adjective used in the category's population. David Kernow 08:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Chicheley below. David Kernow 20:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename' Category:Muslim-related lists as per David Kernow & CG janitor]] Valiantis 00:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename category:Lists of Muslims The articles are all lists of people. Chicheley 18:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Which already exists! Chicheley 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge (changed vote) to Category:Lists of Muslims of which this is a subcat as per Chicheley. Valiantis 22:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Lists of Muslims Hawkestone 18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Valienatis. -- JeffW 19:33, 1 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The term Disaster preparedness is the most commonly used one (e.g. this and this). In addition, 'preparation' implies that it is the disaster that is being prepared rather than the affected population. This also applies to the sub-categories. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Subcategories:

• Category:Disaster preparation by country
• Category:Disaster preparation in Canada
• Category:Disaster preparation in France
• Category:Disaster preparation in Germany
• Category:Disaster preparation in Puerto Rico
• Category:Disaster preparation in the United Kingdom
• Category:Disaster preparation in the United States

-- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• My reading is that "Disaster preparedness" is passive, whereas "Disaster preparation" is active; and in a general encyclopedic context, interpretating "Disaster preparation" to mean "preparing a disaster" should be (highly) unlikely. Regards, David Kernow 08:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: I see your point, but I would still argue that 'Preparedness' is the more commonly used term. See for instance FEMA, the IFRC, and the UN. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 10:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Looking again at the category and some of its contents, perhaps "Disaster preparedness" is a more fitting phrase. Anyone else?   David Kernow 11:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom (and the subcats by country too). Valiantis 00:59, 30 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

It will look better without brackets. Camestone 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename Camestone 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• OK It's a rename not a delete per se Pyrotec 18:35, 30 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Less POV and undermining to Catholics not in Communion with Rome. Carolynparrishfan 17:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support as it looks like the present list on the cat page in question contains just Roman Catholics Mayumashu 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is impossible to be a former Catholic, once you are baptised, you are Catholic and it can't be undone. You can stop practicing the religion, but you will always be a Catholic. 75.3.4.54 21:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• This is a useful category, so keep in some form or other. The only sensible alternative I can think of is Category:Former practicing Roman Catholics, which sounds a bit strange but should cover your objections. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 16:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support the RCC's position as reflected by anon editor is POV and needn't be catered to, and how do we know that someone is no longer a "practicing" Roman Catholic to add him/her to the list? Someone who renounces adherence to the Roman pope is quite different than someone who somehow doesn't "practice" Roman Catholicism - which likely would include anyone otherwise RCC but divorced, gay, using birth control, or to paraphrase a well-known parish priest: watching football on sunday rather than attending mass. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, too broad to be useful; it is difficult enough establishing if someone identifies with a particular religion, now we also need to judge whether s/he is sufficiently adherent? What is gained by grouping Martin Luther and John Walker Lindh? We can see where this leads by finding in the List of ex-Roman Catholics that Ann Coulter "is essentially a fundamentalist Christian"--something she has denied. If kept, how long before the argument whether Saint Peter belongs in Category:Former Jews? - choster 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Choster. -- JeffW 21:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Choster. Choalbaton 23:42, 5 May 2006 (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 nominated. Syrthiss 12:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

'Disaster' sounds too similar to category:Disasters. The fact that it covers subjects on the management and policy of disasters also makes the name unsuitable. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 16:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Disaster management...?   David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: That was actually my main preference as well. But it seems like Emergency management has a wider usage and that it is a more descriptive term. The Disaster management article currently points to the Emergency management article. Check the disaster management WikiProject for some of the discussion on this subject. I am however open to the use of Disaster management. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 10:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Instinctively, I think I'd say that a single event or cluster of events that killed and/or put people's lives in peril might be a "disaster" requiring "emergency" action, but that an "emergency" might not necessarily be or develop into a "disaster"... I'm not sure, though; perhaps hairs are being split. Anyone else?   David Kernow 11:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Support per my comments on the Disaster Management WikiProject talk page. I am also, however, open to discussion on the issue (as there were only two people who discussed the issue with any depth at the Disaster Management WikiProject). -- backburner001 02:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support Category:Emergency management per nom & backburner001. Her Pegship 03:27, 2 May 2006 (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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

delete emptied page left over from mass deletion of "professor" cat pages and there merge into "academic" ones Mayumashu 15:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Consistent naming of biological genus categories SP-KP 14:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete/merge per nom. David Kernow 08:26, 29 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Not just armies; fix the capitalization; and the proper adjective is conscript. Kirill Lok s h in 13:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 17:12, 29 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The modern country should take primacy in the category system, and the Ancient Greek category should be qualified. This is already what is done in most cases. Rename. Bhoeble 13:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- JeffW 21:22, 5 May 2006 (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 (dead cat) -- Cyde Weys 20:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Contains one article, a user's page. I don't pretend to understand the user-page nomenclature, so if someone has an alternate title, that's cool. I'm not suggesting deleting it, though, as others may wish to join.-- Mike Selinker 13:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• DELETE for same reason as Category:Gundam fans 132.205.45.110 18:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• If the fans are meant to be Wikipedians, rename to Category:Wikipedian fans of Cowboy Bebop or Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Cowboy Bebop or the like; otherwise delete. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 17:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Update. Since both are apparently now gone, I withdraw the nomination.-- Mike Selinker 03:52, 30 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The category at moment has a mix of fictional regiments and other units and is under Category:British Army regiments. With a rename it can cover articles other than only those which are regiments. GraemeLeggett 11:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (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, tho that was an interesting idea on how to handle it. Syrthiss 12:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

rather recently, initialism-use in the category page naming of there sub-cats was done away with. however, other prominent ones such as used to name Category:NASCAR, Category:British MPs, Category:LGBT and others cannot be reasonably done away with because of the length of the spelled-out names involved. instead of setting an arbitrary number of words as too many to spell-out, or prominence of the acronym (again POV), why not have uniformity by making all supra-cat spelled out, or in the case of NASCAR or LGBT, where the article page is also thus named, having the initialism spelled out at the head of the cat page, then having all their sub-cats abbreviated. conversely, the article page on the NBA is entitle "National Basketball Association" and then so should the supra cat page. i ll put the list up for these groups of cat pages for this nomination with the goal in mind of establishing a non-arbitrary convention that can be universally applied Mayumashu 11:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:National Hockey League players to Category:NHL players
• Category:National Hockey League teams to Category:NHL teams
• Category:National Basketball Association players to Category:NBA players
• Category:National Basketball Association coaches to Category:NBA coaches
• Category:National Basketball Association Draft to Category:NBA drafts
• Category:National Basketball Association awards to Category:NBA awards
• Category:Major league baseball players by team to Category:MLB players by team, and
• Category:NASCAR keep as is
• Category:LGBT keep as is
• Category:National Hockey League keep as is
• Category:National Basketball Association keep as is
• Category:Major League Baseball keep as is

Rename I will complete the list and tag all pages in a day Mayumashu 11:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose All this idea does is transfer the arbitariness to page naming. The prominence of acronyms can be determined by googling, but even those which are very prominent should only be kept in special cases. Bhoeble 13:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

true, page naming is arbitrary, isn t it. but does this mean we should name Category:NASCAR Category:National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing? (not that we easily could because the users who are in the wikiproject for NASCAR would vote it down). the question is where do we draw the line? (perhaps three words or less?). the suggestion here though is that sub-category pages don t need to have these spelled-out names where they link directly to their spelled out supra-cat page Mayumashu 14:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose per Bhoeble. — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 15:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I've started a discussion about changing the conventions for category names to allow for not spelling out acronyms in all cases here -- JeffW 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose We've made progress on the abbreviations, let's not go into reverse. Sumahoy 17:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose I'm in favour of not spelling out every single acronym but the deciding factor should be if the acronym (not abbreviation) is the normal "word" rather than the spelt-out version. ( NASCAR is a good example of this). The proposal here would mean that while the "head" category was spelt-out the subcats would contain abbreviations and it would be the subcats that would appear at the bottom of the article pages. This is where most people see cat titles so the cats that are actually seen by readers remain as opaque as before. Valiantis 01:07, 30 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The second category is what is really meant by the first category. JeffW 05:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 13:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

So I'm starting a personal attempt to get all songs fully categorized by artist, and I keep running into this (in my opinion) horrible division of song titles into two categories per artist, "Foo songs" and "Foo singles." Now, I understand those are different, but many articles that are classified in "songs" talk about B-sides, and many articles that are categorized in "singles" just talk about the song. Worse yet, for single-oriented acts like Weezer, nearly all their songs are in both categories, and those categories are categories of each other (this comes from the fact that most noteworthy pop songs are singles). So do we think that this "singles by artist" categorization should survive? I say no. Let's get the songs all in one category per artist. If this nomination passes, I'll likely list all the rest of the subcategories of category:Singles by artist.-- Mike Selinker 03:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I should be clear that I'm not arguing against the singles infobox and template, which I think are great. Just the split into two categories.-- Mike Selinker 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Support for the merger. I have been considering exactly this proposal for a long time. I see very little upside to having two parallel schemes, and think that the distinction between singles and non-singles is unnecessary. Since songs is the broader categorization, and the extra breadth is needed to classify numerous songs articles, I would like to see the singles hierarchy be the one dismantled and merged. × Meegs 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment There's an issuse here, in that single means more than one thing. There is single as in album/EP/single; and single as a featured track/song. Closer to God shows this distinction, because the title track doesn't have the same name as the release. The article Single (music) is about the release rather than the song. We need somewhere for albums, EPs and singles, and somewhere else for songs. Quite a lot of articles won't make the distinction, since the relevent information has a lot of overlap. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 15:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Sure, but that's what Meegs and I see as the problem. Most articles are entirely overlap. Closer to God is a very rare instance where the single title isn't the song title, and this architecture seems to be required only because of the very rare instances.-- Mike Selinker 14:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • What I was trying to say was, we need two sets of categories: one for the songs, and one for the releases. 'Singles' isn't a useful name because of the double-meaning. I guess this is what you're trying to avoid, because of the overlap in many articles. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 11:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, that is what we'd like to avoid. Besides "Closer", I expect we have very few, if any, articles written _distinctly about releases, not songs. Maintaining and propagating this dual-category system across all artists is not worth it. I think the cats will be better maintained (and ultimately more complete) if all attention is focused on a single hierarchy. × Meegs 12:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • If there really are few articles about a single's release but not song, then fine. Useful beats neat. It makes me a little uneasy knowing that there's a gap in the system, but I can't think of a better way without doubling up in many cases. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 02:24, 6 May 2006 (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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate of Category:Aliso Viejo, California. Vegaswikian 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Sumahoy 17:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 16:02, 30 April 2006 (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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 01:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Badjon? Do we now cat all spouses? Vegaswikian 02:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 10:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.-- ᎠᏢ 4 62090 ^Contribs 16:47, 6 May 2006 (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.