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.
Rename per nom. --
Europe22 (
talk) 18:30, 2 September 2010 (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:Transport
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:Merge. I don't recall seeing any discussion to rename this category. So creating the target and moving everything is an out of process move. Transportation is the correct term in the US and other countries. Yes, this produces some differences, but this is not the Commonwealthpedia.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge and undo all the out-of-process edits on this topic by
User:TruckCard (who should bring it to cfd, or desist). My understanding is that the status quo prevails in these matters, with local variations at the local subcat level: ie it is transportation.
Occuli (
talk) 23:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support all renames of top level categories to use 'transportation' per the long established
Category:Transportation (created in 2004).
Occuli (
talk) 11:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
And so long established is the use of "transport". And it is more widespread.
TruckCard (
talk) 13:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
The cfd process is quite clear. It is out-of-process to create new categories and move articles into them leaving previous ones empty. Making the old categories into redirects is merely a ruse to avoid the process. (I take it that there is no consensus anywhere for this move, otherwise TruckCard would be linking to it rather than blustering.)
Occuli (
talk) 11:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm also adding the new categories that are being made to reinforce the pointy nature of these changes.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
It's not a threat, it's an enforcement of our no personal attacks policy and to remind you to
assume good faith. I've breached no policy, so I have no idea what you'll attempt to get me blocked for. Good luck with that. Keep on topic and attempt to understand the nominator's rationale and ask for further clarification if needed. Accusing someone of being disruptive or trolling is not going to get anyone anywhere. —
ξxplicit 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
You say it is not a threat. But it looks like one to me. For that YOU could get blocked. I see NO rationale. Vegaswikian provided "but this is not the Commonwealthpedia" - this is no rationale. We can write down a lot what this is not. Rationals must be positive. I provided one: less confusion.
TruckCard (
talk) 01:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming. Actually, the "transport" form is much more widespread than the U.S. "transportation". CFD is not certainly a place to deal with U.S.-UK naming controversies. -
Darwinek (
talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Cfd is exactly the place to consider the renaming of categories. (I am in the UK, where it is transport.) There may well be a case for renaming everything to 'transport' (as the article is
transport) but it should be made in a nom at cfd.
Occuli (
talk) 17:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The place to "consider" is my head. No CFD needed! And CFD reads "Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed. " Darwinek and me like to organise content. Please FOCUS! What is the rationale for having inconsistency? I see none. If editors would want to discuss every comma - WP wouldn't be where it is now. The issue was already raised in
2006. Intelligent people outside WP may just think - what the heck did it take them four years to clean this up?
WP:3P.
TruckCard (
talk) 23:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Compromise. As someone who hates it when there are two different spellings of something in category tree, I'd have agreed with TruckCard had he actually cared whether my opinion (and those of everyone here) mattered. TruckCard appears to be a new user (the account is just a few days old), so I'd say some pause is worth taking. If TruckCard (and Darwinek, apparently) agree to stop renaming these categories long enough for the process to play out and consensus to be reached (one way or another), then I say let's have the discussion (FYI, I'll be voting for "Transport"). However, if they don't agree to letting the discussion happen and accepting the result, I will recommend all their edits be reverted (or perhaps revert them myself) and, if warranted, I'll recommend that a temporary block be issued. That's my attempt at a compromise. Everyone okay with that?--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 14:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Whoa, me apparently? When did I renamed a "transport(ation)" category for the last time? You should do some research on my previous edits before making this statement/accusation. -
Darwinek (
talk) 16:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)reply
No problem, Mike. ;) -
Darwinek (
talk) 20:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Mike, did you read
WP:3P? Did you see Vegaswikian to propose some renames, those for newly created categories, apparently only to make a
WP:POINT? I am very open to hear any rationale. But those two accounts above only oppose on grounds that they were not asked first. This is about the 2nd P in
WP:3P. They violate WP:3P, since the 1st takes precedence.
TruckCard (
talk) 21:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I can quote too: "But because Wikipedia is such a large place, a number of processes have been created. The whole point of all of these processes is to get feedback and outside opinions." Did you read that?--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Where is the feedback? They can put it here. The point is, the other bring ONLY up process reasons.
TruckCard (
talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Update: I attempted to reach out to
User:TruckCard on his
talk page. That attempt failed. Since I don't want to support this behavior, I'm changing my vote to Speedily revert all out-of-process changes. If the behavior continues, I support initiating a block.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 14:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Why you say the attempt failed?. I didn't do any change of the form (transportation->transport) after your last edit on my talk. And why do you violate
WP:3P? Why do you base your content vote on user behavior? Keep the product in mind!
TruckCard (
talk) 10:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I'll keep quiet on this subject until the
WP:ANI notice you filed about me ends with some conclusion.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge TruckCard has basically attempted to rename these categories without discussion. This CFD is simply a method of putting things back how they had been for the majority of the history of the encyclopedia. In most situations, including this one, we need to follow process in accordance with policy, because we can't generally get a good product if we just randomly rename things without discussion.
Nyttend (
talk) 11:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Random rename? It was random before. I made it none-random.
TruckCard (
talk) 12:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, by ignoring all of our standards and then claiming that you were being bossed around.
Nyttend (
talk) 14:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
You are ignoring the product.
WP:3P - the product matters:
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:Diamonds Are Forever (film)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. —
ξxplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Didn't we decide that we were going to manage these categories since listing every location is not notable for it's appearance in the film? There are many building in NYC or LA that have literally appeared in 100's of movies. I suppose we might ctageorize the characters in some way, so deletion is only the nomination. Don't know where we will end up.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete – the sort of random hotch potch which gives eponymous categories a bad name.
Occuli (
talk) 23:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
If there is support for this one, there are a bunch more. I seem to remember something similar in the past. If someone can find it, maybe we can speedy some of the group.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - small category with no growth potential. Unnecessary for the material, some of which is miscategorized to begin with per the recent deletion of the Bond locations category. All the material is linked through the article on the film and each other.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 20:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - unnecessary for navigation, given that most of these articles are linked to each other, and there aren't enough directly relevant to the film to justify a category.
Robofish (
talk) 13:11, 3 September 2010 (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:Songs written by Liam Howlett
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:WithdrawnTen Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention) 18:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Only one entry, not likely to expand. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention) 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. There are now 20 entries, and probably more to add. Also I thought that single entries were acceptable for large category schemes like songs by artist and songs by songwriter (providing article on artist/songwriter exists), if this has changed I'd like somebody to point me to the where I can update myself with the relevant information!
Richhoncho (
talk) 18:25, 29 August 2010 (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:Canadian BDS Airplay number-one singles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. —
ξxplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Chart is unverifiable; none of the articles in this category use a source for the BDS airplay chart, and a search for verification of chart positions turned up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention) 17:40, 29 August 2010 (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:NFL Europa
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. —
ξxplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (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:Classified documents
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. —
ξxplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. From the introduction, documents that were once classified, but have become known or partially known to the public. The current name would imply that all previously classified documents belong in here. The proposed name is just one to get the discussion started. I don't like it, but I could not come up with a better suggestion.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not entirely sure I understand your concern, VW. Regardless of how these documents have become known to the public they are still correctly described as "classified documents". Are you saying that we need to make a distinction between these classified documents and other formerly classified documents that have subsequently been declassified? We could always create a separate category for "declassified documents", if there is in fact a need for such a category.
Cgingold (
talk) 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Yea, there are at least 3 types of classified documents. Those that are classified, that that were declassified (does the amount of redaction in the document affect this) and those are are classified but have been leaked. There is also another type here that would be more difficult to document where they have been stolen. The introduction restricts this to only those that have been leaked so the title should make this clear. At some point in the future, this could be recreated as a parent category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The point I'm trying to make is that there are really only TWO basic "kinds" of classified documents: those that remain "classified", and those that have been officially "declassified". The fact that a particular document has been leaked to the public has no bearing on its ongoing status as a "classified document". It remains "classified" until such time as it has been declassified. I don't think there is any real need for a category for articles about classified documents whose contents are completely unknown to the public because they have not been either leaked or declassified, since by definition it would be impossible to write anything of substance about such documents. Am I missing something?
Cgingold (
talk) 22:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I would certainly agree with you that the intro is badly written and should be junked. No doubt there are a number of articles that ought to be removed as well -- the one you picked out being a case in point. This is just another example of a perfectly valid category which has been mis-applied by fuzzy-minded editors.
Cgingold (
talk) 23:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per Cgingold. I can't see the proposed rename helping; much too specific. It could of course be set up as a sub-cat.
Johnbod (
talk) 12:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep, perhaps As mentioned above, the bigger problem with this category is that it is being used to hold lots of things that aren't documents in any manner. Beyond that, I'm not sure that "classified" is the right word, nor does "leaked" seem to fit the bill either, as both are too narrow. I'm doubtful that there is any useful difference to be made between documents kept secret under a formal system of classification and those which are simply kept secret; likewise, I'm not sure that there is a reason to differentiate "leaks" from other revelations of governmental secrets. If there is, however, then this category should not be renamed. In any case it needs to be vigorously weeded.
Mangoe (
talk) 12:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree there are technically only two different types. The recent Wikileaks controversy dispelled rumors that leaked classified was no longer classified.
See here for more. The Navy report cited in that article though used the term "publicized classified information." I think "Classified documents" is misleading for a reader and navigation, maybe "publicized classified information" or "compromised classified information". It still cites that the information was/is classified but it puts what type of articles are in the category into better context.--
NortyNort(Holla) 13:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
As I recall from the good old days, one type of classified document is 'unclassified'. Also remember the another issue, what might be unclassified in the US, could be a state secret in China.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Unclassified is a classification, like confidential, secret and top secret. So I guess if it is unclassified, it has been declassified or was never classified to begin with. A newspaper is unclassified per the government. I see what you are saying about what is classified in different countries. I am not sure how that would play into the category name though.--
NortyNort(Holla) 09:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
There are a number of category members referring to foreign documents/situations where American notions of secrecy classification may not apply.
Mangoe (
talk) 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't think this category needs to be broken down further by classified/declassified, or by how the documents became public; that would probably be more trouble than it's worth.
Robofish (
talk) 13:14, 3 September 2010 (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:Redaction
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:Merge. Small category with little likelihood for expansion unless we want to list all documents that have redacted content.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. I really don't see any possible need for this category.
Cgingold (
talk) 22:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete outright "Redaction" is a general term and does not apply only to secret documents. We are better off without the category.
Mangoe (
talk) 12:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - no need to merge such a small and unnecessary category.
Robofish (
talk) 13:05, 3 September 2010 (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:Official documents
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.
Ruslik_
Zero 12:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. What is an official document? Tax forms? Drivers license? A company ID card? A plane ticket? As this now exists, it is pretty much add what you want. I'm not sure what the best direction is here. Keeping with an introduction that has objective inclusion criteria is possible.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep "Official" clearly implies issue by some organ of government, so yes, yes, no, no to the examples above. Plus the UN, Catholic Church etc. There are a lot of different types of official documents in the world, but is there really a problem here?
Johnbod (
talk) 02:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
So any document issued by any level of government is official and should be included here? I guess I'm still troubled by the lack of defined inclusion criteria. How are reports official documents? Arrest warrants? You included the UN which is not a government but it can apparently issue official documents. The UN is an
international organization which is not quite the same as an organ of government. So can every international organization issue official documents? Is every piece of paper issued by any organ of government an official document?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, and yes. The UN is an IGO established by international treaty - did you read
international organization? It usefully distinguishes between IGOs and NGOs. Pretty much so, yes.
Johnbod (
talk) 12:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete, or at least rename to limit. This also includes
Category:Political charters, which are only documents of particular political parties or movements. It seems far too broad to me—it includes governments, intergovernmental organizations, political movements, and churches? If we want a category for official government documents, then it should be named
Category:Official government documents. But I see no reason to group all of these together like this. I agree with Vegaswikian that even limiting it just to government documents has the potential to be way overbroad.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Please explain this "overbroad". I don't understand it at all. Just because most of the categories we deal with here are microscopic, there is no need for all to be.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Overbroad in that it covers government documents, intergovernmental organization documents, church documents, documents created by political movements. At some point it becomes grab-bag, and I think it's well beyond that. Could it include "official documents" of a corporation or business partnership? I don't see why not. There is little utility in grouping government documents with church and business and political documents.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Most of
Category:Political charters are in fact treaties, laws, declarations of independence (a subcat), international conventions and medieval charters (of towns) etc, but to my mind it is that category which is overbroad & confused, rather than this one. Most of it, excluding modern party manifestos etc, might be better upmerged to this one. Obviously this category includes a very wide range of stuff, but grouping together all these disparate elements is precisely what makes it useful to my mind. This is a category consisting mainly of other categories, which would be hard to find together otherwise. You surely do not actually want the category deleted; you mean upmerge to
Category:Documents? I don't see what that will accomplish; this fits pretty well in the other main subcats there.
Johnbod (
talk) 11:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Having looked through the contents of this category, I'm really not sure what links it all together, or makes the contents 'official'. Its contents should probably all be merged into
Category:Documents, or put into clearer subcategories like
Category:Government documents.
Robofish (
talk) 13:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Almost everything in the category is an "official government document", or one of an inter-governmental organization. What exactly are you not clear about? It would be much better to remove a few categories than just chuck the lot into
Category:documents, messing that up. Personally I don't mind the Catholic church category, as many of these are treaties, and the church was for much of its history as "official" as governments, but these could easily be moved under the general "documents" category. Some other categories are rather misleadingly named - "personal documents" for example - these are nearly all passports, identity cards and driving licenses etc. I'm rather bewildered by the difficulty people seem to be having here, and some of the claims being made.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and/or Rename - On the whole, I'm in agreement with Johnbod's views, although I'm still considering whether to tweak the name slightly and whether to keep the Catholic church category parented here.
Cgingold (
talk) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (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.
Electricity
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. —
ξxplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (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:Green energy certification schemes
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. —
ξxplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Green" is a less formal and poorly defined compared to "Sustainable". --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 04:41, 29 August 2010 (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:Manicouagan hydroelectric project
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. —
ξxplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The power stations on the Outardes River of the Outardes portion of the project now have articles. The project is also know as the Manicouagan-Outardes hydroelectric project as well.
NortyNort(Holla) 03:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Beagel (
talk) 08:50, 29 August 2010 (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:American German language newspapers
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. —
ξxplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge to match common format and remove possible miscategorizations.
TM 02:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
do not upmerge, rename if necessary Any upmerge would lose the fact that these newspapers are published in the United States, which is the primary purpose of grouping these articles together.
Hmains (
talk) 02:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Who said anything about upmerging? I wasn't thinking and used the upmerge template rather than the rename template, but the proposal clearly says it is a name change.--
TM 14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, consistent with other sub-cats.
Cgingold (
talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
ok rename per nom to match the other categories.
Hmains (
talk) 02:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, fits pattern. --
Soman (
talk) 03:13, 6 September 2010 (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:African Methodist Episcopal Churches
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:speedy rename per speedy criteria C2A and per category creator's consent.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:01, 30 August 2010 (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:Songs written by JB Rudd
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. —
ξxplicit 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and established precedent.
Robofish (
talk) 12:56, 3 September 2010 (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.
