Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 25



Category:Miami culture

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Culture in Miami  --Kbdank71 14:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

miami culture


 * Rename - to from Category:Miami culture to Category:Culture of Miami PianoKeys 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are two common forms for such categories, "XYZ culture" and "Culture in XYZ". No reason has been given to change this one to "Culture of XYZ". Aviara 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Culture in Miami which appears to be the most common form and make this the standard for any culture by city category. I think we need some kind of standard.  Right now this is a mix of fooian culture, culture of foo and culture in foo.  I don't think I care what consensus supports, but we should have consensus to rename all of these to a single form.  Vegaswikian 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:NAME indicates Fooian culture at the country-level, as culture is of a people and not a political entity. This suggests Category:Miami culture is more in spirit with the tree.-choster 05:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you support making that the standard for city culture categories? Vegaswikian 06:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The category names in Category:Culture by city are not standardized. Any decision regarding this category by itself really does not accomplish anything for the category tree overall.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why my vote is to make whatever has consensus the standard. Vegaswikian 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Culture in Miami Alex Middleton 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Culture in Miami. There's no need to follow the national convention. Much culture found in major cities is of an international character, eg performances of foreign plays and music, and galleries full of foreign pictures. The "in" form reflects this slight distancing between city and culture. Piccadilly 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Euro-jazz musicians

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!"  10:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * euro-jazz musicians
 * Delete as the category is redundant and not a genre, but a national identifier. As the creator of the category I am requesting it's deletion following a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz with others. (Mind meal 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Delete per nom - there is no need for this category in the absence of an article Euro-jazz and given that the musicians in question will be adequately categorized by nationality anyway. Bencherlite 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the nomination was not complete; I have completed it. Xtifr tälk 09:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as the category is neither effective in describing a musical genre or clearly named in describing a regional geographical category. AllyD 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wikipedia articles with a wrong title

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete all. Wizardman 18:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title
 * wikipedia articles that should not have a capitalised title
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title because it is capitalised and underscores are substituted for spaces
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title due the correct title conflicting with an existing namespace
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title due to miscellaneous reasons
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title due to the capitalised word having a different meaning from the uncapitalised word
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title due to the correct title being too long
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title due to the omission of brackets
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title due to the omission of hashes
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title due to the omission of pipes
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title due to the substituting of characters not found in unicode
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title due to the substitution of superscript and/or subscript for regular letters
 * wikipedia articles with a wrong title due to underscores being substituted for spaces
 * wikipedia userpages that should not have a capitalised title
 * wikipedia userpages with a wrong title due to miscellaneous reasons


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete all This is categorization of non-content qualities in the main article. There are templates for most, if not all of these attributes (and these newly created category are being transcluded through the templates). However, the "whatlinkshere" feature can easily identify the articles containing the templates, replacing the purpose of the categories. These titles are ridiculously long, and fill up the categories box quickly. -Andrew c 20:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. "whatlinkshere" does the job fine. --21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom - wasn't this already discussed? These are useless maintenance templates because it's not possible to fix the situation.  The only effect I can see is for trivia, and to clutter up the category box below articles. Shalom Hello 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Aviara 23:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete --Tellerman
 * Delete all per above. Doczilla 07:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all They clutter up the category box and are useless for the reasons said above. G.A.S 09:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all as cat clutter. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Annoying wastes of bandwidth. Postlebury 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mexico and the United States

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!"  10:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mexico and the United States to Category:Mexican-American relations
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom for the sake of consistency and clarity. Shalom Hello 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As I noted at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 22, this formulation is not a standard, and the parent categories would also be in need of renaming. And not to be pedantic, but since the category is shared by the two countries, why Mexican-American and not American-Mexican?-choster 05:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty standard for other countries to have A-B relations (which is A and which is B is arbitrary), and the arbitrary choice between Mexico-US/US-Mexico already exists, why not Category:United States and Mexico? Tim! 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom-- Sef rin gle Talk 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom Cloachland 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Jamster ringtones

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Note that the ringtones currently included are all "original" to Jamba! the wub "?!"  10:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * jamster ringtones


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to Category:Jamba!. The category doesn't just contain ringtones, but it does seem to contain articles all related to the parent company. The articles are related, and I'm not sure where the articles would end up if this category was deleted (but then again, I wouldn't entirely mind if some of these articles were deleted as well). I wouldn't mind deleting this cat, but I put forth this new name for everyone's consideration.-Andrew c 17:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & as bad precedent next we'll have Category:Muzaked songs. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Jamba! per User:Andrew c Luckystars 17:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Current single

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * current single


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Comment - Also note the incorrectly-created redirect Category:Current singles, which should be deleted with this category. Dr. Submillimeter 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both. No living/dead categories for songs.--Mike Selinker 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both. NO "current" categories. Doczilla 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete current categories should have something to do with electricity or water flow or not be here at all. Carlossuarez46 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Too unlikely to be maintained accurately. Alex Middleton 20:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Leaders by coup

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Leaders who took power by coup  --Kbdank71 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Past leaders by coup and Category:Leaders by coup to ?
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge into a single category named something like Category:Coup leaders or, to restrict it to those who were successful, Category:Leaders who took power by coup. Otto4711 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Otto. Several former leaders are in the "current" category. I think it is already intended to be only for successful coups, so Category:Leaders who took power by coup is probably best. Johnbod 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about using leaders in the title. They are usually called dictators, but using that in the title seems overly restrictive.  While not a great choice, would Category:Individuals who took power by coup be an improvement?  To imply that these dictators are leaders almost seems to be a POV issue.  Many of these could just as easily be in Category:Tyrants who took power by coup.  I don't have an objection to merging and even if a better name is nor selected, a Merge to Category:Leaders by coup, or whatever consensus seems to be deciding, should happen to eliminate the past category. Vegaswikian 22:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I prefer using "leaders" to "dictators" and "tyrants", as "leaders" has a more neutral tone. I also prefer using "leaders" to "individuals", as the people who take power during coups usually go on to become the leaders.  This is instead a problem with the English used to create the category name; it just looks poorly written.  Dr. Submillimeter 00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Leaders who took power by coup per Otto, although I have my doubts about whether we can objectively determine what a coup is at the edges (Pinochet, easy; Augustus? murkier still; Fujimori was elected under the country's laws perhaps he overstepped his mandate by coup but he wasn't put there by coup; and Hitler was put in one position by popular vote and took over all power through some manoeuvers that would not be inconsistent with a coup) and I guess that follow-on leaders don't belong in this category, barring a second coup or counter-coup: so Lenin (maybe) in but Stalin definitely not. Carlossuarez46 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Leaders who took power by coup per Otto, or delete. Dominictimms 17:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Past Olympic sports

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 15:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Past Olympic sports to Category:Former Olympic sports
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename as per nom. Lugnuts 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Xn4 00:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Definitely not defunct. Johnbod 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Past characters

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Past Coronation Street characters to Category:Coronation Street characters
 * Suggest merging Category:Past Emmerdale characters to Category:Emmerdale characters
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * merge. No living/dead categories for fictional characters.--Mike Selinker 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. All fiction is identified in present tense.Doczilla 07:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Past

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * past


 * passed events


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Comment - Also note the discussion on Template:Past at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25. Dr. Submillimeter 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both - far too broad to be useful and virtually unmaintainable should someone decide to get the bright idea to populate it with every article for any event that happened before now...or before now...or before now... Otto4711 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per both above. Never were the contents of a category such a let-down. Johnbod 16:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. Potentially huge, and far too broad to be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as overly broad and unnecessary, and before it leads someone to create the even worse 'Category:Future events'... Terraxos 03:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per above. Doczilla 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both A merit-free random addition to the category system. Piccadilly 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Neverland Express Musicians

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * neverland express musicians
 * Rename to Category:Neverland Express members, convention of Category:Musicians by band. -- Prove It (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename.--Mike Selinker 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename. Should have checked naming convention before creating. Evil Nickname 09:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not needed; all should be linked from the band's article. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They are, and also, wouldn't that invalidate all other "musicians by band" list then as well? Evil Nickname 08:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Child prodigies

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * child prodigies
 * Delete, as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - Defining someone as a "child prodigy" is too subjective. Dr. Submillimeter 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per both above. Johnbod 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete subjective cat. Doczilla 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete subjective. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Postlebury 14:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: it would make sense for historical child prodigies. Pavel Vozenilek 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it would, in a professionally edited encyclopedia, where the criteria could be agreed and easily enforced. In wikipedia it is too prone to misuse to be retained. Piccadilly 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is sadly true. Pavel Vozenilek 12:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Piccadilly 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:James Bond music

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus  --Kbdank71 15:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * james bond music


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Keep - Having the "music" category for the "album" and "songs" subcategories is better than placing the "album" and "songs" categories in the main James Bond category. Dr. Submillimeter 14:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it better to maintain an otherwise virtually empty container category that is small and unlikely to grow? Otto4711 16:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Although category might be "small and unlikely to grow" it effectively organizes articles in a common sense and user-friendly way that is helpful. Benjiboi 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but see the thing is, it isn't actually organizing articles. It's redundant to the albums category, because everything in it is an album. Otto4711 03:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just move all of the album articles to the album category. The solution to badly-used categories is not necessarily deletion.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but in this instance all of the album articles are already in both the albums cat and the music cat. Again, this is sitting as an intermediate layer of categorization between the songs and albums subcats and the parent Bond cat. There is no navigational benefit in the layer. Otto4711 17:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that under the parent James Bond, there should be James Bond Music under which is Albums and Songs. That seems simple enough to me. Benjiboi 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Under the current set-up, a reader starting from Category:James Bond wanting to read about Goldfinger (song) has to navigate through Category:James Bond music to get to Category:James Bond songs. In the absence of this category the reader gets directly from James Bond to James Bond songs. The category is a barrier to nevigation that serves no organizational purpose. Otto4711 19:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess we can agree to disagree, any user searching through the category for an article will find the example you state without an undue amount of extra effort whereas reducing the categorization, I feel, will make it harder for users. Benjiboi 20:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete which songs have appeared in which movies is a nightmare for the category system. A reference in the movie's article and another in the song's suffices. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The idea that this is a "barrier to navigation" is entirely wrong. Following Otto's argument all categories below Category:Categories are "barriers to navigation" as they force people to make extra clicks. We have subcategories so that people can find things even if they don't know what they are called, or how to spell them, or even that they exist. People who already know about Goldfinger (song) can use the search box. Alex Middleton 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, my argument can't logically be extended to all categories. It's specific to this category, which serves no organizational purpose. Otto4711 12:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Otto's argument is not specific to this category and it is no better here than it would be in any of the thousands of other cases to which it might be applied. Cloachland 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument is specific to this category and the vague "this could apply elsewhere" argument means nothing in the absence of a specific application to this category. Otto4711 01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. We don't need a cat of "music" to house "albums" and "songs" which could just both be direct sub-cats of "James Bond".  The articles are either improperly duplicated in this category from the album category or, as Otto says, the "James Bond music" article can live in the main category.  Therefore this level of category is redundant.  Bencherlite 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:The Karate Kid music

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete  --Kbdank71 15:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the karate kid music


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete as non-defining and/or trivia per many precedents. Doczilla 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Warfare by genre

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Warfare by genre to Category:Warfare by type
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge per nom. Mowsbury 11:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom Johnbod 14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Could this category have been more influenced by video games than by history books? Alex Middleton 21:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge nothing more to be said. Carom 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Cal Bears basketball
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated  --Kbdank71 15:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Cal Bears basketball to Category:California Golden Bears basketball
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * Comment. Either the current state or this is fine with me, but your nomination should probably also include Category:Cal Bears football and its subcategories.--Mike Selinker 15:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't even notice them. Thanks for pointing that out.  --fuzzy510 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename I think the full "California Golden Bears" name is more intuitive for most editors, and, dare I say it, more encyclopedic in tone. Shalom Hello 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.