The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Bands named after places ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non defining and overcat, per nom. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - overcategorization by name type. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 13th. Kbdank71 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:SRC network shows to Category:Télévision de Radio-Canada network shows

Nominator's rationale: SRC, or as expanded as Société Radio-Canada, is not the name of the network (which is supposed to be Télévision de Radio-Canada). Although SRC is used as the abbreviation (and thus..was also used as a brand for a short while), it doesn't mean we should use it here. ViperSnake151 20:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

As the original creator, I'm not opposed in principle to finding an alternate name for this if other editors would prefer a different name, but pertaining to this particular nomination I think it's necessary for us to avoid the accented character é — since category names don't redirect in the same "straight to the real page" way that article redirects do, simply creating a redirect from the unaccented title isn't a viable solution to the problem that this category name creates for people who don't know how to type the accented characters. Category:Radio-Canada network shows might be appropriate, although it too could be potentially mistaken for the radio networks. Favour a rename, if a suitable one can be found, but I don't think this particular rename is the right choice. Bearcat ( talk) 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Use Category:Télévision SRC shows instead. 70.55.86.100 ( talk) 08:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Songs about the Cold War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too broad a subject, with extremely vague and POV criteria for inclusion. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - this is an ill-defined and arbitrary grouping which would both be exceedingly long and extreme overcategorization. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I would have thought that this category would be possible to populate, but the present selection of songs shows that I might be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. And what, no 99 Luftballons? Otto4711 ( talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Generation X ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Generation Y ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Generation Z ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. The definition is much too vague. Upmerge only the epynomic articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: some of the about 10 other articles should be recategorized into appropriate fad categories, if not already there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete – Generation Z is quite splendidly ill-defined (and yet has 'defining traits'). Occuli ( talk) 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Ill-defined, when defined at all. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - Generation Z seems to be speculative nonsense, and may not even deserve an article, but none of them need categories. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Category:Gubernatorial titles
• Category:Heads of settlement

Suggest merging both to Category:Positions of subnational authority

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, the existing categories are unsuccessfully split between different tiers of sub-national administration, and one country is too different from another in size and organisation to have a consistent approach. This is a wider re-nomination following no consensus at CFD on October 9. Fayenatic (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge Category:Gubernatorial titles, in effect making the parent Titles of authorities at high administrative sublevel of government and leaving as its child Titles of authorities of local settlements. The existing category description defines it as for those offices which "could be rendered in English as Governor," which smacks of OCAT by name to me-- a Lieutenant Governor functions nothing like a Governor-General except in name. However, I would keep Category:Heads of settlement. While it may be difficult to distinguish a province from a department from an autonomous community, or a city from a town from a village, surely it is useful to distinguish the former group from the latter group. I looked at about two dozen articles and found little opportunity for overlap. - choster ( talk) 22:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The difficulty of having separate categories for two tiers of local government is that some titles have been used for town-roles and governor-roles at different times and places, e.g. Corregidor (position). Yes, such titles could be classified in both categories, but that's worse if one is a sub-cat of the other. I think I'd rather leave them as they are, and recategorise the articles that are currently in the head category. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: close. Category:Two-lane freeways in the United States now exists as a subcat. Kbdank71 14:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Two-lane freeways to Category:Two-lane freeways in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. All but one of these are in the US. That one road can be removed if this rename goes through. This better aligns this category with the limited access rename to break out these roads by country since the various names mean different things in different parts of the world. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Seems sensible. Johnbod ( talk) 00:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• keep and make a US subcategory. No reason to lose a place to put the non-US articles. The main article for this category (which I just found and placed into this cat) shows there are many non-US two-lane freeways that can/should be added here. Hmains ( talk) 03:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If this is the result, may I suggest that the category be moved so that the bots can do the work. At that point recreate the category and then move the single article back. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • it is easy to change the articles location by AWB or other methods. Not very many anyway. Hmains ( talk) 03:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• REname as a US category. I have removed the offending British item A601(M) motorway, a one-mile link road that hardly deserves an article. "freeway" is not a term in use in UK. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Editor is misinformed. Maybe half a dozen of these articles are for non-US freeways. So this A601(M) motorway article belong here also, as per the category name. Hmains ( talk) 03:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Given the changes to the category since nomination, misinformed is an understatement. Expressways and motorways and freeways are different. Having them all included as a two lane freeway when their logical parents are not makes no sense. Currently there are two roads not in the US listed. If both of the current remaining roads are in fact freeways, then it would make sense to create Category:Two-lane freeways in Australia and include those two roads. However one of the two articles makes no assertion that it is in fact a freeway. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
      • All this is very curious activity. Categories based on the names of the road as opposed to what it actually is. According to the first sentence of the article Freeway: "A freeway — also known as a highway, superhighway, autoroute, autobahn, autopista, autovía, autostrada, autosnelweg (Netherlands), dual carriageway, expressway, or motorway — is a type of road designed for safer high-speed operation of motor vehicles through the elimination of at-grade intersections." What could be more clear? What could drive the creation these separate categories based on the name of the road?
        • Because all expressways are not freeways. Is that clear? I should also add the the hidden comment at the start of the article clearly states that this is only for roads call freeways. Clearly excluding all of the other uses. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
          • A freeway is a freeway if it meets the definition of a freeway, not because it is named 'freeway' Accordingly, expressways, motorways, or whatever that meet the definition of a freeway (full limited access;no at grade crossings) needs to be included in the freeway category regardless what other categories they may be in. Hmains ( talk) 03:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep in light of recently created Category:Two-lane motorways and Category:Two-lane expressways.- choster ( talk) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Lists of film actors. Kbdank71 15:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Lists of female movie actors by name to Category:Lists of film actresses by name

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Film" is the accepted usage rather than "movie", and my suggestion about "actresses" v. "female actors" may be seen below. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Support Other lists use similar terminology. Jinnai ( talk) 14:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - See the rationale in Angelina Jolie. Actors is a broad term used by the Screen Actors Guild, while female/male certainly distinguishes the gender. Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article for Actress, it redirects to Actor. If there are inconsistencies in other categories, I suggest they be merged. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Category:Lists of female film actors by name just sounds too clunky, I'm afraid. Johnbod ( talk) 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Lists of film actors by name. Is there a good reason to split this by gender? If so, then I won't oppose adding "female" to the name. "Actress" isn't to be used per consistant prior consensus. - jc37 16:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

In the face of these entirely reasonable comments, I revise my proposal to merge Category:Lists of female movie actors by name to Category:Lists of film actors. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Lists of actors. Kbdank71 15:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Lists of female actors to Category:Lists of actresses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Currently there is inconsistency amid the actor categories as to the use of the term "actress" v. "female actor". I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I'm hoping to start a discussion that will solidify the use of one or the other. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Support Other lists use similar terminology. Jinnai ( talk) 14:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - See the rationale in Angelina Jolie. Actors is a broad term used by the Screen Actors Guild, while female/male certainly distinguishes the gender. Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article for Actress, it redirects to Actor. If there are inconsistencies in other categories, I suggest they be merged. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, as above. Johnbod ( talk) 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - per repeated previous consensus. If anything, this cat and Category:Lists of male actors should be upmerged to Category:Lists of actors. - jc37 16:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

In the face of these entirely reasonable comments, I revise my proposal to merge Category:Lists of female actors to Category:Lists of actors. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support it's the proper English term, though there is no unambiguous male-actor term. 70.55.86.100 ( talk) 08:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Generation X members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete See " #Category:Generation Y members" below. No reason to distinguish them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Generation X is far too vague about inclusion. Occuli ( talk) 13:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Vague, pointless. No need for this category, which would grow to encompass a disparate amount of people. Tarc ( talk) 15:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Has nothing of a significance to have its own category. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per above, arbitrary overcategorization. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Pointless and unhelpful. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- an ill-defined term. Categories need a sharp boundary as to what is or is not included, but generations do not have sharp boundaries. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Generation Y members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Superflous category. Erzsébet Báthory_{( talk| contr.)} 12:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Other than issues with the idea that a person has 'membership' like it's an organisation, this category seems too broad to have any real worth or use and the criteria far inclusion too vague. It's essentially just a category of 'people born between 1980 and 1994', two pretty arbitrary dates. --neon white talk 12:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Generation Y is of interest but does not constitute a basis for a category (it would be enormous if fully populated). Occuli ( talk) 13:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Vague, pointless. No need for this category, which would grow to encompass a disparate amount of people. Tarc ( talk) 15:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This is such an arbitrary categorization that it is nearly painful. As an aside, someone clearly has taken Ron Jeremy to the fountain of youth. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Pointless and unhelpful. What comes after Generation Z anyway? Do we go back to A again? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- an ill-defined term. Categories need a sharp boundary as to what is or is not included, but generations do not have sharp boundaries. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. There's no "consensus" here to rename, but there's also not anyone speaking out against the proposed change. So we'll make the change, but these renamed categories can be renominated for discussion by anyone as desired. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Thoracic limb anatomy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Using Category:Upper limb anatomy instead, to correct name, as thorax does not include limbs. Zigger «º» 09:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Four related categories are now proposed for renaming:

• Category:Pelvic limb anatomy → Category:Lower limb anatomy
• Category:Bones of pelvic limb → Category:Bones of the lower limb
• Category:Bones of thoracic limb → Category:Bones of the upper limb
• Category:Muscles of the pelvic limb → Category:Muscles of the lower limb
• Category:Muscles of the thoracic limb seems to already be Category:Muscles of the upper limb

-- Zigger «º» 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment – User:Zigger has pre-emptively (eg this diff, 3 Nov) moved everything out of Category:Thoracic limb anatomy (which went nicely with Category:Pelvic limb anatomy) and into Category:Upper limb anatomy (Google seems well aware of the term "thoracic limb"). Occuli ( talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the brevity of my original comment. IIRC, most articles were already in "Upper limb anatomy", and I only moved the few remaining and the few sub-categories. I understand the use of the term thoracic limb, but find upper limb simpler and less ambiguous. The relevant article is titled Upper limb, which is probably where I should have started the discussion. I'll be proposing a matching rename for the "pelvic limb" categories to "lower limb", as I agree they must be consistent. -- Zigger «º» 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Incidentally neither name makes it clear what family of creatures we are categorising. Google tells me there are 'equine thoracic limbs' – these would probably not be termed 'upper'. Occuli ( talk) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The category under discussion is one of a very large number to do with human anatomy whose titles currently reflect neither anatomy nor the species. Forelimb or foreleg are probably the equivalent terms for animals. -- Zigger «º» 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment — I've now created the pages Thoracic limb and Pelvic limb, as disambiguations. No other pages linked to these articles. -- Zigger «º» 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 15:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Super heavyweight professional wrestlers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty Darrenhusted ( talk) 09:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment. Aren't there any? -- Eliyak  T· C 13:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment – there was one – diff. I have no basis for a view on whether this was a valid categorisation. Occuli ( talk) 14:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Twins (band) members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#SMALL This is a category which, by definition, will never have more than a two members - especially seeing that the group is now defunct. Ohconfucius ( talk) 07:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep – part of the established Category:Musicians by band. If there is a ruling or precedent somewhere about duos, then I could be swayed. (A category for some duos seems superfluous, eg the Carpenters, Simon and Garfunkel, the Everly Brothers.) It is a defining characteristic for each of the duo. Occuli ( talk) 13:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor, Catalan-speaking countries are cited as categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, so it would appear logical that if the Beatles' wives don't warrant a category, neither do the two 'twins, notwithstanding their being part of an accepted sub-categorization scheme (which I also happen to believe is nonsense given these examples, in WP:OC#SMALL) Ohconfucius ( talk) 02:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - yes, it is part of a scheme, but it's rather silly on its face to have a members category for a group of two. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Otto. Part of a larger scheme, and I can understand its use in a duo (such as Sugarland, which began as a trio), but for crying out loud, they're freaking twins. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Cookies (group) members. Kbdank71 15:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Cookies members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a category which, by definition, will forever have fewer than ten members - especially seeing that the group is now defunct. Ohconfucius ( talk) 07:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep As long as the category has 3 or more members, it's fine. I'm sure there's some policy on this, but I can't find it at the moment. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep but Rename to Category:Cookies (group) members per Cookies (group) and per Vegasw below – part of the established Category:Musicians by band, most of which will have fewer than 10 members (excepting 10,000 Maniacs). Occuli ( talk) 13:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

And Broken Social Scene... Bearcat ( talk) 22:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename if kept to Category:Cookies (group) members to match the main article. When I first saw this I wondered why we needed to list members for cookies. Then I said it must be for the cookies on my computer. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Shouldn't it be Cookies (band)? Most band articles use (band) as the qualifier. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I don't care which is used. Anyone want to move the main article to eliminate any issues? Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Cookies (band) members and move parent article.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 04:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.