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

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 14:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Needs to be in plural form.-- Hooperbloob 00:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cfr'ed Yukon Territory, but for the "the". Burgundavia ( ✈ take a flight?) 20:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Disagree. The discussion that just closed had consensus on Category:Airports of Yukon because the name used officially is Yukon, not the Yukon. -- Azkar 21:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Disagree, same reason. -- Kbdank71 13:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Disagree: we already reached a consensus on "Airports of Yukon" -- David 13:33, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
• Agree, as a Yukoner, I must say that the preferred usage in the Yukon and in the English language is to use the article, despite the "official" name used in the Yukon Act which only dates to 2002 -- Luigizanasi 20:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • At the risk of reopening the first discussion, do people still consider the full name to be "the Yukon Territory"? David 20:58, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
    • Since I did not participate in the discussion because I was not aware of it going on, I guess I'm allowed to put my 2 cents in now. Most people don't think of the full name, but probably would agree. We do use "the Yukon" and have to strain to omit the article, and when referring to the government, we usually say "YTG" (without an article), the acronym for "Yukon Territorial Government". I would argue that the majority of Yukoners favour "the Yukon" and many feel strongly about it (as I do), although there is a minority that believes we should drop the "the" so we can be just like everyone else. There is no consensus in the Yukon either, although the debate has been muted in the last few years.
    • One way around the debate is to use "Yukon" as an adjective, (e.g. "Yukon airports"). This avoids controversy & meets Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. Of course, it also means that the Yukon categories do not match the form of the other territories/provinces' categories. Luigizanasi 04:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 14:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This category was recently listed for deletion (see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 20#Category:Wikipedia historical pages). The result of the discussion was to keep the category. There was some interest expressed in renaming the category, and I am nominating this in order to resolve that, one way or the other. I recommend Category:Wikipedia archives. I feel this name is appropriate to describe both a collection of archives (as seven out of the twelve subcats are "Foo archive" already), as well as an individual repository of historical items. -- Azkar 18:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with Category:Wikipedia archives. -- Kbdank71 18:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree as well. R adiant _* 19:04, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trivial nonsense Hall Monitor 18:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty, was marked as cfd hours after creation by User:Mayumashu, the creator. -- Kbdank71 18:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty, was marked as cfd hours after creation by User:Mayumashu, the creator. -- Kbdank71 18:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 14:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since 'free' software can mean either 'gratis' software or 'libre' (usually open source) software, this category should be renamed to reflect which it actually is. It seems to be mostly the latter, but includes a few mismatches. R adiant _* 12:18, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We previously decided to help empty Category:Stub and point Template:Stub to Category:Stubs. The stub sorting project has reached the bottom of the barrel, so now's a good time to make this change. It might also be a good time to unprotect the stub template, since it's no longer in widespread use (and thus does not cause excessive server load when it is changed). (It's probably about time for a facelift.) -- Beland 01:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yay for WSS! Rename. R adiant _* 08:04, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename - it even qualifies for speedy renaming, btw. --  grm_wnr Esc 12:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hear, hear! Rename and unprotect. Wipe 13:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename! Joyous 23:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename joyously! Grutness... wha? 02:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename, of course! -- Azkar 02:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename immediately Saga City 00:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename, and cheer!. Alai 03:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment/Question - If this category is renamed to "Uncategorized stubs" per its discussion page (though I dont see that indicated here). With the same tag {{stub}} result in getting the article placed in the right location? I ask because a large number of users are not going to go to the effort of looking at all the stub categories and finding the right one, so people need a default. Dalf | Talk 08:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The proposal, as I understand it, is to move (and redirect) to " Category:Stubs" (rather than " Category:Uncategorized stubs". If that's the case, the actual template won't be affected at all, simply the target category -- i.e., people will still type the same thing to "stub" something. Alai 18:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely just to Category:Stubs. All the stub categories are subcategories of Category:Stub, so it would be silly to label it "uncategorised". Grutness... wha? 00:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. NatusRoma 13:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename!! Everyone's been so busy Lectonar 06:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{ Important-stub}} has been deprecated and is in the holding cell awaiting deletion on tfd, so this category is basically also deprecated (it only contains links to lists of template messages and the like). The template duplicated the work of {{ expansion}}, which puts articles into Category: Articles to be expanded. Grutness... wha? 01:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. On a side note, shouldn't it have been "Important stubs", anyway? -- Azkar 01:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You're probably right there - my guess is that it was created at about the same time as the category listed above!. Grutness... wha? 02:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. R adiant _* 08:04, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep...needed catorgory, but needs improvement. Coolgamer 16:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Read my initial comment. The template is gone because there is another almost identical template - which feeds into Category:Articles to be expanded. We don't need both. Grutness... wha? 23:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Use topical stub message plus {{ expansion}} instead. --  grm_wnr Esc 10:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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.