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 all except the stricken out ones.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
this recent nomination, I'd suggest standardizing to the rapidly-taking-hold "Works based on" structure. The Middle-earth one is a little odd, but I don't know any other term for "Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, et al."--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support phrasing but oppose collapsing "...by medium" and "...by play" into one category. It's just easier if all the "based on Hamlet," "based on Taming of the Shrew," etc. categories are in a container category separate from the container category of "operas based on Shakespeare," "ballets based on Shakespeare," etc. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Yeah, okay. I haven't had a chance to analyze the subcategories of
Category:Works based on other authors. I'll take a look at those and maybe propose those under a separate nomination. Till then, I've revised that part of the nomination as you suggest, with no prejudice against re-renaming or merging those two categories if it comes to that.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:50, 20 October 2011 (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.
Category:Daylight saving time in the United Kingdom
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The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn by nom.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Please disregard - nomination withdrawn (see below). Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(
talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC) WP:OC#NARROW and
WP:SMALLCAT would seem to apply, especially since all content related to UK daylight saving time is present in
British Summer Time (any other articles would likely be too broad for inclusion in such a specific category;
Western European Summer Time is debatable). Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(
talk) 19:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify the reasons for this: I believe the category is far too narrow. I hadn't considered laws etc which might have their own articles (this was brought up on my talk page by the cat's creator), but as far as I can tell all of those which are relevant are simply covered in the
BST article. It may well fall under
WP:SMALLCAT's "accepted sub-categorization scheme" exemption, but IMHO I would say that it is (currently) of too narrow a scope. There is nothing to stop the BST page from being included in the "by country" cat in the same way as "Daylight saving time in Bangladesh" is; It needn't be a sub-cat. If such articles are created in future, I can see such a cat being useful, but currently I don't see the need (especially when one of the included articles was an overview article about Western European Daylight Saving Time in general). Incidentally, many of the other cats within the "sub-categorization scheme" also seem to be too narrow (Cube, Israel and Mexico), as they only link to a main page, so doing the same with them as with Bangladesh would seem appropriate. Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(
talk) 20:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Actually, looking at it again, it would appear I was just a little too hasty. It is now populated with various links to laws (which, while redirects, may well be fleshed out in future) and a link to a famous advocate of BST. I am unsure of the policy concerning redirects within categories (especially when they go to a page also within the category) but that's a separate issue. Consider my nomination withdrawn. Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(
talk) 20:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I am cleaning up all the DST content. The category helps to collect articles and redirects with possibilities to become articles. The United Kingdom has, AFAICS more DST history than Israel or Bangladesh. Articles and redirects that I found:
If there would be no "by country" categories, the Category:Daylight saving time would be have too many items and articles like
Standard Time Act would only reveal after reading to which country they belong.TZ master (
talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (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. "Deorbited" has its weaknesses, and there's no proof that a less wordy version is forthcoming. So leaving it the way it is seems the best course.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Less wordy, and it's better to use terms used in the industry.
emerson7 18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Question doesn't "deorbited" imply active removal from orbit, as opposed to natural decay?
Mangoe (
talk) 19:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Even if it does imply that, it doesn't preclude someone else creating a more specific sub-cat or two, if really needed. Support per nom and
Deorbit#Deorbit_and_re-entry.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
The thing is that probably 95% if not more of the entries were not de-orbited, but simply came down on their own. I'm not immediately adverse to creating a subcat for those that were deliberately brought down, but it's not an accurate term otherwise.
Mangoe (
talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
according to
tfd, 'deorbit' is simply 'to go, or cause to go out of orbit.' --
emerson7 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
That's not typically how it's used, though. Googling doesn't show consistent usage but most hits show people talking about deliberately bringing a satellite or spacecraft down. I see that EA and NASA use "decay" while Gunter's site typically says "reentry". I suppose we could use
Category:Satellites decayed from Earth orbit.
Mangoe (
talk) 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
the verb 'deorbit'--and the category--is all-inclusive. your suggestion is not. --
emerson7 00:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't really like the word "Deorbited" either, it is kind of confusing. How about something like "Artificial satellites no longer orbiting Earth"? I know it's not any shorter, but it's more clear IMO. I think "Earth artificial satellites which have reentered" is much worse than the existing category name (no offense to the person who suggested that).
MsBatfish (
talk) 09:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose, as stated above "deorbited" only applies to a minority of cases. That said, I don't really see what useful purpose this category serves since virtually all spacecraft will at some point or another cease to be in Earth orbit. Admittedly in some cases this may take several millenia, but since it will just continue to accumulate spacecraft over time, I think a better categorisation system is needed. --GW… 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, I've always wondered about that too; it seems to me to me that the useful distinction is between those that are active and those that are not.
Mangoe (
talk) 11:39, 22 October 2011 (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.
Category:Electronic sports players by nationality
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:Keep.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There are very few Electronic sports players who pass the GNG at this point, Having so many categories for so few players is a bit much.
Ridernyc (
talk) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is how we categorize athletes, by nationality and sport.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. This division seems reasonable at this stage. It's not like we only have a handful of one-article by-nationality categories. There's 33 in the American category and 23 in the South Korean category alone.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Makes perfect sense to reuse the "by sport"/"by nationality" structure used elsewhere even with slightly smaller cats. (Actually "small" is inaccurate: I'm blown away by the number of people in these categories.)
Pichpich (
talk) 05:08, 30 October 2011 (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.
Category:Ed, Edd n Eddy
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.
Weak keep Eight articles seems justifiable to me. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 17:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Looks reasonable to me.
Pichpich (
talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (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.
Category:Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends
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.
Delete, possibly turn into a navbox. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 17:26, 19 October 2011 (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.
Category:Dexter's Laboratory
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 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.
Category:Indian men journalists
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:Cat gender, the distinction isn't relevant
Muhandes (
talk) 07:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This was created by a fairly new editor who doesn't seem to be well-versed as yet on categorization precedents.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:19, 19 October 2011 (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.
Category:Skyscraper hotels
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:Keep all.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename - I created the top category and concur with this, sounds good. —
Hex(❝?!❞) 01:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose the term used in the articles on this subjects is Skyscraper hotels and not vice versa, as I understand it. Hotels is the noun and skyscraper is the adjective.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 18:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose: per TonyTheTiger above. --
emerson7 01:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose on the same rationale as the previous opposers. "Skyscraper hotel" is the term.
MsBatfish (
talk) 09:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I thought it was the other way around, that hotel was the adjective. Perhaps my work on Residential skyscraper cats has influenced me unduly. At the very least, they are both nouns, really, and I admit each has an equal claim to going first.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Hotel skyscraper" is weird. "Skyscraper hotel" is more natural.
65.94.77.11 (
talk) 05:39, 22 October 2011 (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.
Category:Courage the Cowardly Dog
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:deleted via G7.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:36, 20 October 2011 (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 all except the stricken out ones.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
this recent nomination, I'd suggest standardizing to the rapidly-taking-hold "Works based on" structure. The Middle-earth one is a little odd, but I don't know any other term for "Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, et al."--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support phrasing but oppose collapsing "...by medium" and "...by play" into one category. It's just easier if all the "based on Hamlet," "based on Taming of the Shrew," etc. categories are in a container category separate from the container category of "operas based on Shakespeare," "ballets based on Shakespeare," etc. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Yeah, okay. I haven't had a chance to analyze the subcategories of
Category:Works based on other authors. I'll take a look at those and maybe propose those under a separate nomination. Till then, I've revised that part of the nomination as you suggest, with no prejudice against re-renaming or merging those two categories if it comes to that.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:50, 20 October 2011 (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.
Category:Daylight saving time in the United Kingdom
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:Withdrawn by nom.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Please disregard - nomination withdrawn (see below). Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(
talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC) WP:OC#NARROW and
WP:SMALLCAT would seem to apply, especially since all content related to UK daylight saving time is present in
British Summer Time (any other articles would likely be too broad for inclusion in such a specific category;
Western European Summer Time is debatable). Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(
talk) 19:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify the reasons for this: I believe the category is far too narrow. I hadn't considered laws etc which might have their own articles (this was brought up on my talk page by the cat's creator), but as far as I can tell all of those which are relevant are simply covered in the
BST article. It may well fall under
WP:SMALLCAT's "accepted sub-categorization scheme" exemption, but IMHO I would say that it is (currently) of too narrow a scope. There is nothing to stop the BST page from being included in the "by country" cat in the same way as "Daylight saving time in Bangladesh" is; It needn't be a sub-cat. If such articles are created in future, I can see such a cat being useful, but currently I don't see the need (especially when one of the included articles was an overview article about Western European Daylight Saving Time in general). Incidentally, many of the other cats within the "sub-categorization scheme" also seem to be too narrow (Cube, Israel and Mexico), as they only link to a main page, so doing the same with them as with Bangladesh would seem appropriate. Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(
talk) 20:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Actually, looking at it again, it would appear I was just a little too hasty. It is now populated with various links to laws (which, while redirects, may well be fleshed out in future) and a link to a famous advocate of BST. I am unsure of the policy concerning redirects within categories (especially when they go to a page also within the category) but that's a separate issue. Consider my nomination withdrawn. Alphathon/'æɫfə.θɒn/(
talk) 20:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I am cleaning up all the DST content. The category helps to collect articles and redirects with possibilities to become articles. The United Kingdom has, AFAICS more DST history than Israel or Bangladesh. Articles and redirects that I found:
If there would be no "by country" categories, the Category:Daylight saving time would be have too many items and articles like
Standard Time Act would only reveal after reading to which country they belong.TZ master (
talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (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. "Deorbited" has its weaknesses, and there's no proof that a less wordy version is forthcoming. So leaving it the way it is seems the best course.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Less wordy, and it's better to use terms used in the industry.
emerson7 18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Question doesn't "deorbited" imply active removal from orbit, as opposed to natural decay?
Mangoe (
talk) 19:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Even if it does imply that, it doesn't preclude someone else creating a more specific sub-cat or two, if really needed. Support per nom and
Deorbit#Deorbit_and_re-entry.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
The thing is that probably 95% if not more of the entries were not de-orbited, but simply came down on their own. I'm not immediately adverse to creating a subcat for those that were deliberately brought down, but it's not an accurate term otherwise.
Mangoe (
talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
according to
tfd, 'deorbit' is simply 'to go, or cause to go out of orbit.' --
emerson7 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
That's not typically how it's used, though. Googling doesn't show consistent usage but most hits show people talking about deliberately bringing a satellite or spacecraft down. I see that EA and NASA use "decay" while Gunter's site typically says "reentry". I suppose we could use
Category:Satellites decayed from Earth orbit.
Mangoe (
talk) 21:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
the verb 'deorbit'--and the category--is all-inclusive. your suggestion is not. --
emerson7 00:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't really like the word "Deorbited" either, it is kind of confusing. How about something like "Artificial satellites no longer orbiting Earth"? I know it's not any shorter, but it's more clear IMO. I think "Earth artificial satellites which have reentered" is much worse than the existing category name (no offense to the person who suggested that).
MsBatfish (
talk) 09:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose, as stated above "deorbited" only applies to a minority of cases. That said, I don't really see what useful purpose this category serves since virtually all spacecraft will at some point or another cease to be in Earth orbit. Admittedly in some cases this may take several millenia, but since it will just continue to accumulate spacecraft over time, I think a better categorisation system is needed. --GW… 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, I've always wondered about that too; it seems to me to me that the useful distinction is between those that are active and those that are not.
Mangoe (
talk) 11:39, 22 October 2011 (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.
Category:Electronic sports players by nationality
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:Keep.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There are very few Electronic sports players who pass the GNG at this point, Having so many categories for so few players is a bit much.
Ridernyc (
talk) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is how we categorize athletes, by nationality and sport.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. This division seems reasonable at this stage. It's not like we only have a handful of one-article by-nationality categories. There's 33 in the American category and 23 in the South Korean category alone.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Makes perfect sense to reuse the "by sport"/"by nationality" structure used elsewhere even with slightly smaller cats. (Actually "small" is inaccurate: I'm blown away by the number of people in these categories.)
Pichpich (
talk) 05:08, 30 October 2011 (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.
Category:Ed, Edd n Eddy
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.
Weak keep Eight articles seems justifiable to me. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 17:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Looks reasonable to me.
Pichpich (
talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (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.
Category:Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends
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.
Delete, possibly turn into a navbox. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 17:26, 19 October 2011 (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.
Category:Dexter's Laboratory
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 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.
Category:Indian men journalists
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:Cat gender, the distinction isn't relevant
Muhandes (
talk) 07:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This was created by a fairly new editor who doesn't seem to be well-versed as yet on categorization precedents.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:19, 19 October 2011 (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.
Category:Skyscraper hotels
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:Keep all.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename - I created the top category and concur with this, sounds good. —
Hex(❝?!❞) 01:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose the term used in the articles on this subjects is Skyscraper hotels and not vice versa, as I understand it. Hotels is the noun and skyscraper is the adjective.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 18:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose: per TonyTheTiger above. --
emerson7 01:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose on the same rationale as the previous opposers. "Skyscraper hotel" is the term.
MsBatfish (
talk) 09:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I thought it was the other way around, that hotel was the adjective. Perhaps my work on Residential skyscraper cats has influenced me unduly. At the very least, they are both nouns, really, and I admit each has an equal claim to going first.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Hotel skyscraper" is weird. "Skyscraper hotel" is more natural.
65.94.77.11 (
talk) 05:39, 22 October 2011 (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.
Category:Courage the Cowardly Dog
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:deleted via G7.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:36, 20 October 2011 (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.