Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 10

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | Log
< August 9 August 11 >

August 10

edit

Category:United States Merchant Marine Academy Notable Persons and Alumni

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Merchant Marine Academy Notable Persons and Alumni to Category:United States Merchant Marine Academy alumni Cat should be renamed for consistency with other subcats of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. --musicpvm 22:29, 10 August 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.

Category:Fictional unicorns

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional unicorns into Category:unicorns

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.

Category:Media groups of the University of Leicester

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media groups of the University of Leicester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.

Category:Rouge admins

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 (WP:DRV, here we come!) --Kbdank71 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Between the idea that WP:ROUGE is not a joke and the idea that one has to "read between the lines" (in other words, the jokes) is a very large freakin' shadow of cognitive dissonance. wikipediatrix 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the section could theoretically hold some sort of encyclopedic benefit such that it makes users realize that administrators aren't out to get them and that they have a sense of humor, too, but the category would be unnecessary. Perhaps if it was made into a Wikipedia namespace page that specifically outlines that administrators have a sense of humor too. Cowman109Talk 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cowman, and because I seriously doubt that if a user is so new that they believe admins are out to get them, they're probably not going to know about the Rogue Admins category. I didn't for a while; I initially thought it meant missing admins or something to that effect. Additionally, admins can express their sense of humor in other ways - putting themselves in the Crazy Wikipedians category, their user page, their signature, etc. Srose (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this category is very important to community-building, and has been around far too long for people to be deleting it withuot a reason other than "unencyclopedic", which is a weasel word. Rename Category:Wikipedia rouge admins to bring into closer conformity with other user cats. --M@rēino 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To elaborate upon my original labelling of the category as being unencylcopedic (which I don't think is a weasel word at all), the category does not help build the encyclopedia in any way. It is not a tool for identifying administrators (there is already a category for that) and the date created has little to do with its encyclopedic nature. It is purely used for humourous purposes, and is very similar to the recently deleted "Gangster Wikipedians" category. I hope this clears things up a bit hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate: this is a category for Wikipedia administrators who put policy before process, and are firm in enforcing policy (made clear in WP:ROUGE). What are the similarities with Gangster Wikipeidans? Just zis Guy you know? 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing, I'd be happy to elaborate. From my interpretation of the two categories (that is, the deleted "Gangster Wikipedians" and the "Rouge Admins" categories), both exist(ed) for purely humourous reasons, and as such do not belong in the encyclopedia-building environment that is Wikipedia. I believe precedence has been set many times over, most recently with the "Gangster Wikipedians" category. I spoke to one of the administrators that deleted the "Gangster Wikipedians" category and he agreed that this category should be deleted as well. The "Rouge Admins" category says nothing about putting policy before process. In fact, it states; We promise to block IPs for 61 years, block and protect the talk pages of editors we edit war with, and unprotect the main page on April Fool's day. Again, while this is obviously a joke, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It also has the potential to give off the wrong impression about administrators (not just the 38 in the category, but administrators at large) on Wikipedia for those who do not understand the underlying humour. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure you i was not voting to make a wikipoint. i was merely considering its neighbour in this CFD and reflecting that if we can can delete that (freshwater plants), but not rouge, then there is something wrong. As it happens, it seems that freshwater aquatic plants may get a reprieve. I'm still not convinced, however, that the joke category should be maintained. David D. (Talk) 22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I hate to appear humorless, but I think that joke categories are a little out of hand. It's not that I'm against having humor on Wikipedia; I just don't think that categories are a very good way of doing it (and to be honest, joke categories usually aren't all that funny). --Cswrye 22:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all joke categories should be deleted. --musicpvm 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the rename is trying to accomplish either. Wikipedia Rouge Admins does not make the category any more encyclopedic with the Wikipedia prefix. I understand what you're saying Lar, but that category doesn't mention or even allude to the points you're making. If there was a renaming of the category and an explanation that this group of administrators would be happy and readily available to help users with controversial issues, then I'd support a category like this, as it would serve as a great reference for users needing help. Also, if being in the category is not a joke, then why is everything a joke on the category page? hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JzG. Rougely,  RasputinAXP  c 06:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. We rouge admins will not be defeated! You suxx0r. —Nightstallion (?) 14:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is absolutely ridiculous... this CfD has turned into a three ring circus, and again, while I understand the humour of the category, it is still a serious discussion and we are building a serious encyclopedia. Lar has been the only one in favour of keeping the category to provide a reasoned explanation. If you wish to participate in the discussion, you're certainly welcome to and your reasoned input would be both helpful and appreciated, but mocking the CfD is not helpful in the least. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoopydink, you're the one who hasn't provided a reasoned explanation for your point of view. All you've done is call this category "unencyclopedic" (a weasel word) and compared it to "Gangster Wikipedians" (a polemic attack, since members of that category claimed to be felons).--M@rēino 02:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Wikipedia_talk:Rouge_admin#A_serious_postscript.3F, and give Hoopydink a break. This is a serious concept, wrapped in humor, just like many other things here. At least I think it's serious. We had one admin pull themselves out just now because they didn't think it's serious, which is OK by me... the point this category, and the associated page WP:ROUGE are making is that we should not let process stand in the way of doing the right thing. If that needs further elaboration so people realise it's a serious message, so be it, even if it wrecks the joke. I was proud to have been placed (by someone else, someone I respect highly) in the category, and consider it a singular honor. NOT every admin has earned the right to be in this category, frankly. Make jokes if you want but please don't attack others for not yet being clear on why this category is highly useful. (this isn't directed at Marieno, per se, just at the level of discourse I see here) ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete. Stupid, useless, elitist "insider" humor. Non-encyclopedic.Courtney Akins 04:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being a rouge admin is a state of mind and a matter of makeup, nothing to do with categories.-gadfium 06:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What's all this about it being unencyclopedic? Is this a mandate to delete every category of Wikipedians? Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikipedia isn't a gulag. It doesn't have to be perfectly stark and utilitarian, and probably shouldn't.--70.240.15.231 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... so you think that administrators would openly claim that they would block IPs for 61 years if they weren't obviously joking? Pffh! Come on now, really!--70.240.15.231 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Just zis Guy. -- Szvest 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Keep, whoever nominated this is likely suffering from a brief bout of Wikipedia:Adminitis, and probably should go on wikiholiday to get some rest :-) Kim Bruning 22:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be happy to address that thinly veiled insinuation about my behaviour. In terms of the symptoms of "adminitis"; I've never taken Wikipedia seriously enough to ever become adversely affected by the website; I've been creating and expanding articles (mostly rugby union-related) at a nice little pace; I've never thought an administrator to be "more equal" than any other user and have always carried myself as such; I am not in the least bit depressed and firmly believe a website could not drive me even an inch in that direction; no biting, no trolling, no self-imporatance on my part either. Hence, I'll ask the user to retract his/her statement to reflect the category, not the nominator (as the nomination was clearly in good faith). As it stands, your remark does not add to the CfD in a positive manner. Kim Bruning, please address the category rather than making assumptions and insinuations towards the nominator. Thanks in advance hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa! <ducks and covers> Now is probably a bad time to point out that typically the inability to snicker and/or laugh at an accusation of adminitis is the first clue that something is amiss? ^^;; Kim Bruning 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    i agree with Hoopydink. If this CFD is so frivalous why does it have so many users who support its deletion? It seems like a valid CFD, even if it does not reach concensus. Ad hom arguments are really very weak, in fact, worthless. David D. (Talk) 23:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not frivolous, it's dead serious! The world will end unless we delete this category right now, if not yesterday! Have you never cared to dive into the mind of an adminitis sufferer? Those who return are considered with respect by their peers, if only because they think the returned have become insane!!! Kim Bruning 23:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the comment had been addressed to me on IRC or my talk page, I'm sure we would've shared a laugh. However, to make thinly veiled insinuations of an improper nomination as justification to either keep or oppose an XfD is improper and again, while I respect and appreciate your decision to participate in a voluntary CfD, please remove the comment directed at the nominator (I apologise if I'm taking this a bit more seriously than is my normal demeanor; another user used You suxx0r as an explanation and I've rather strong beliefs of how one should conduct oneself when faced with differing opinions. Chuckling inappropriate behaviour off and making a mockery on an XfD sets a bad example). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's excellent behaviour anywhere, anytime on wikipedia. If you can't have fun, what's the point? It's hard to assume good faith when you haven't had a rest. Take a break man! :-) Kim Bruning 23:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Would you have been happier if I'd gone all dark and moody and said "I Take A Dim View Of Those Who Are Out To Ruin Other Peoples' Small Pleasures"? That would be silly, and possibly a WP:BEANS violation besides, not to mention hypocritical. Kim Bruning[reply]
    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe that you are ineffectively attempting to use humour to make inappropriate comments directed at the nominiator (me). I'm obviously not out to ruin anyone's small pleasures, and I discussed my potential nomination of the category with an admin who placed himself in the category and he agreed that it should be deleted. This has been done with nothing but the best of faith, and I'll ask you again not to assume otherwise. As we seem to be quite off-topic, I'll ask that any further comments directed at me and not the category itself be posted on my talk page. Cheers and thanks in advance! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm trying to use humor to get you to lighten up a bit and see what you're saying in perspective! Nothing inappropriate intended. One of the symptoms of adminitis is that you don't realise when people are trying to be nice to you. ^^;; (hey, that's a new one... let me add that). Kim Bruning 00:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'll ask you to stay on point and deal with the issue at hand, which is a CfD. I do appreciate your trying to be nice (really, I do!), but I do think that I've things in a pretty clear perspective if I may say so. Again, I'll ask you to retract the bit of silliness about me as a person and reflect upon why you think this category should either be kept or deleted. I stand by by comments, however, which includes the part about continuing discussion on my talk page if it doesn't pertain to the actual category. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants." Most people appreciate humor that spices up a flat presentation of facts. Nothing wrong with presenting Wikipedia matters in a humorous way. Humor is used in most real world venues for a variety of reasons. Employee orientation, class lectures, parenting books, sermons...use humor to better reach the audience knowing that a constant stream of dry, bland content sucks. (No surprise that I agree with Chuckles Bites The Dust's #1 rank on TV Guide's The Greatest Episodes of All Time.) FloNight talk 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify. There's a lot of WP history behind this joke. FeloniousMonk 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. History is important, whether it's Wikipedia admin categories or election results, etc. This is part of Wikipedia's history and should be kept. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I don't like non-encyclopedia-related stuff like this, but purging humor isn't the place to start. Opabinia regalis 04:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ~ PseudoSudo 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 'Nuff said above. Misza13 T C 08:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this category predates WP:ROUGE by quite some time. It exists per the bread and circuses principle. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not divisive; humorous way of stating an admin puts policy above special pleading or other concerns. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think it's lame and not very original or funny, but if people find it useful to put themselves in there, it's no more harmful than any wikiproject member category. - Bobet 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Juvenile humour that undermines wikipedia's credibility. Merchbow 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Supposedly says admins will purposefully violate Wikipedia policy and associates them with an imfamous murdering terrorist organization. Presumably an attempt at humor; take it to uncyclopedia then. Sheesh. -- Infrogmation 16:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... a terrorist organization? I think what you just said says more about yourself than it does about the category.--70.240.15.231 03:58, 17 August 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.

List Categories

edit
Category:List of freshwater aquarium plant species
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 Category:Aquatic plants and subcategorize if needed. the wub "?!" 09:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete; merge members into Category:Aquatic plants. --M@rēino 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Rename per David D. --M@rēino 21:12, 10 August 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.
Category:List of Disney anthology series episodes to Category:Disney anthology television series
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:40, 21 August 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.
Category:List Of Exile Creatures
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:41, 21 August 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.
Category:List of farms in Norway to Category:Farms in Norway
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:42, 21 August 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.
Category:List of farms in Oppland to Category:Farms in Oppland
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:43, 21 August 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.
Category:List of noted film director collaborations to Category:Lists of noted film director collaborations
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:44, 21 August 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.

Category:Piano rockers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piano rockers to Category:Rock pianists

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.

Category:Print media in Belize

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Belizean media, see Category:Italian media or Category:American media for examples. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:08, 10 August 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.

Category:Incubator tests

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. the wub "?!" 09:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikimedia Incubator languages. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:48, 10 August 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.

Artists by record label

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

The result of the debate was rename all except KLF Communications. the wub "?!" 16:04, 21 August 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 Triangle, North Carolina

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, "The Triangle" is a denonym, and as I have no problem with calling the metro that in the article, the category should be renamed to its formal name. User:Arual 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. The Triangle is a nickname, not a demonym, and the category name should align with its main article. If there's consensus to change the article name, then we should rename the category. - EurekaLott 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. User:Arual 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Triangle is a common name, known all over the state and arguably all over the country. It is not the Raleigh-Durham metro area, except in official terms... in this case, this official term is almost never used, therefore, both cats should remain as is. Wikipedia encourages common language as long as its not too informal, which this is not; "The Triangle" is an extremely common term for Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill (and arguably Cary instead of Chapel Hill), just like the Piedmont Triad. --TinMan 04:38, 14 August 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.

What's Good For You

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 not a category --Kbdank71 19:06, 21 August 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.

Former buildings and structures

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 18:58, 21 August 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.

Category:Notable aircraft to Category:Aircraft with historical significance

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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, ha ha, just kidding, rename to category:Individual aircraft --Kbdank71 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Any opinion on which of the three names would be 'better'? Vegaswikian 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable aircraft" is redundant as non-notable aircraft should not be in Wikipedia. "historical significance" would exclude current aircraft. if you mean "historic significance", this is too specific as some aircraft may be notable for other reasons (John Travolta's jet maybe?). Individual aircraft is best, as a straight subcat of Category:Aircraft, and explain on both pages that one is for types/designs of aircraft, the other for specific instances. Of course, it's tricky if there is only one instance of a given model, as with Hughes H-4 Hercules say; but that's fine-tuning that can be debated once the name is settled. jnestorius(talk) 01:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To closer. The name needs to be changed. I'd rather have any of the suggested names used then the current one. Consider this comment to support the naming choice of the closer. Please do not close as no consensus! Vegaswikian 18:32, 16 August 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.

Category:List of Canadian companies

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Companies of Canada, member of Category:Companies by country. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:33, 10 August 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.

Category:Companies listed on the National Stock Exchange

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Companies listed on the National Stock Exchange of India, since it is for the National Stock Exchange of India, and not the National Stock Exchange of Chicago. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:34, 10 August 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_10&oldid=1144867322"