Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 25

September 25

Category:Villains turned heroes (fictional)

Terrible naming aside, it falls under overcategorization, and could easily be solved by throwing them into hero and villain categories. Apostrophe 20:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly agreed. Delete. --FuriousFreddy 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Reinyday, 01:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT' wasn't this deleted before? 132.205.45.148 18:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion log doesn't think so. -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps the title of the category was slightly different, but I seem to remember this being deleted. 132.205.45.110 16:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not very useful. — Phil Welch 18:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 23:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carina22 17:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British celebrities

This is not a proper category for British celebs who are actually barred from being here, according to the opening sentence and the way itr is being policed. It is a holding cat for those articles which cannot be categorised anywhere else. Go put the rubbish somewhere else and either delete or turn into a real category SqueakBox 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's purpose is clearly explained. Somewhere else would have to be category:British people and that should be as clear as possible. This is the wrong place for this nomination anyway. CalJW 18:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the wrong place? People can vot6e on the subject here, SqueakBox 18:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a category for British cerlebrituies I would be happy with it, but it is not. I would like it to be a category for celebrities, containing all British celebrities, and making that info easily accessible, instead of having to trawl through the rubbishy non celebs who populate it and then trawl through other categories looking for real British celebs. At the moment you can't find British celebs in Wikipedia, signifying a breakdown in the cat system, SqueakBox 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment filed in the wrong place - relisting here. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. However this is a highly problematic category type and their is clearly great reluctance to use it. Apart from Britain only Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada appear to have celebrity categories. The Hong Kong category is being used in the same way as the British one (entries only for people famous for unusual reasons, other types of celebrity linked in the blurb) while the other two contain the obvious subcategories. Putting mainstream celebrities directly into such categories is out of the question because they would become ludicrously large and the category would become useless as a means of giving a home to the oddballs, who would be lost amid a sea of actors and singers. If someone wants to add the singer, actor etc subcategories I won't object to thatCalJW 00:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Move the articles to Category:British people. It is standard to put people in the "Fooish people" category if they do not fall into any of the subcategories. -- Reinyday, 01:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep That simply reflects that fact that the category system is simply immature and incomplete. We should have more specific categories for everyone. Osomec 18:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per CalJW's comments this is a problematic category. However, it is clearly not a catch-all category but designed to be used for people famous for being famous. Such people constitute a class of person (alas) in modern (British) society and some of those currently in there (e.g. Victoria Hervey) fit this description. The non-existence of similar cats by other nationality may be a reflection on the greater seriousness of those societies :) Valiantis 15:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems point of view to me and hard to police. I can't quite see how anyone can meet the criteria, it being a paradox. Victoria Hervey is already well categorised as a socialite, which is perhaps what this category is attempting to categorise. However, perhaps, given Category:Internet personalities we could rename to Category:Media personalities? Steve block talk 18:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That much worse IMO. It is a modern term and invites people to add all sorts of people who have other categories - and it will be much harder to justify keeping them out than it is with the current form. CalJW 03:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. For this to function correctly, it needs remaking over. The information extracted by its current formulation is not encyclopaedic, and probably doens't even get mentioned in the preamble's words in the articles. A cat for Brit celebs is (barely) workable if careful thought is given to it, but not in its present form. However, a rename per Steve block is a weak second choice. -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is also Category:Canadian celebrities and Category:Hong Kong celebrities which are basically the same concept. It seems like overcat'ing, Steve block's rename isn't a bad idea. This should include the other two cats as well. ∞Who ?¿? 19:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
reclassify and delete. Category:British beauties and Category:British dandies will handle half of these, and I suspect the rest are similar lacks of imagination. (Anyone who thinks Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire was famous for being famous should read the article.) Septentrionalis 20:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Dandies might do, but "Beauties" is hopelessly pov. If you can think of more subcategories which aren't too pov, please go ahead and create them, rather than abusing the people who have done the previous spadework. By the way, I've read a book about Georgiana, and I think that apart from "Duchess", "celebrity" is the best term that can be used to classify her. CalJW 03:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and use more specific and meaningful categories instead. - Sean Curtin 04:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Has Sean Curtin tried to come up with "more specific and meaningful categories" for this ragbag? Carina22 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Film by director

Category:Powell and Pressburger films was recently renamed Category:Films directed by Powell and Pressburger as part of an umbrella discussion to standardize the directors cats. However a question has been raised about some of the articles where both directors were not acting as a director but one was a writer. The films are still considered films of "Powell and Pressburger". The question now is whether to rename the new cat. Possible choices given were: Category:Films by Powell and Pressburger, Category:Films made by Powell and Pressburger, Category:Films created by Powell and Pressburger, not to change or keep. ∞Who ?¿? 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support any of them, although I'm partial to "Films by Powell and Pressburger". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-25 18:46
I vote for "Films by Powell and Pressburger". CalJW 00:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with most of them where they had the joint title "Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger" but the earlier films like The Spy in Black, Contraband (film) & Forty-Ninth Parallel and the later films like They're a Weird Mob, Age of Consent (film) (which never seemed to make it into the Template:Powell and Pressburger) and The Boy Who Turned Yellow were most definitely NOT "Films directed by Powell and Pressburger". I'd vote for "Films by Powell and Pressburger". SteveCrook 03:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Films by... is the simplest and clearest. -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Films by..." siafu 00:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Films by Powell and Pressburger". Other similar duos are Joel and Ethan Coen, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer (Imagine Entertainment), James Ivory and Ismail Merchant (Merchant Ivory Productions), and the Wachowski brothers. It will probably apply to Hammer & Tongs as well, at some point. Director/producer partnerships seem to be the most common.

Subcategories of sports venues by country categories

To align with "Man-made objects" subrule of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), rename all "by country" subcats of

to "thing in country" format (and update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) accordingly). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose additional renaming: That's a lot of bot time, and it seems to me if you're going to bother recatting all those articles, we should be sure we like the names we're switching to. I am fine with changing the subcategories of Category:Football (soccer) venues by country from "Fooian venues" to "Venues in Foo", but the word "venues" or something else should be chosen as a standard. Currently you have: Category:Austrian football stadiums, Category:Canadian soccer venues, Category:Colombian football stadia, Category:Czech Republic football grounds, Category:Italian football venues, and Category:Puerto Rico soccer stadiums. Shouldn't we decide on a standard between football stadiums, football stadia, football venues, and football grounds? I personally like "football venues" because it is the phrase used by the parent category. -- Reinyday, 00:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- To be more explicit:
  - Category:American football venues: subcats to be "American football venues in <country>"
  - Category:Baseball venues: subcats to be "Baseball venues in <country>"
  - Category:Basketball venues: subcats to be "Basketball venues in <country>"
  - Category:Cricket grounds: subcats to be "Cricket grounds in <country>"
  - Category:Football (soccer) venues by country: subcats to be "Football (soccer) venues in <country>"
  - Category:Golf clubs and courses: subcats to be "Golf clubs and courses in <country>"
  - Category:Motor racing circuits: subcats to be "Car race tracks in <country>"
- -- Rick Block (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. I'm glad there is some fruit from cat titles' discussions. And venue is a good word to standardise to. -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. siafu 00:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athletes at the 2001 World Championships in Athletics

Delete. Overcategorization. Currently contains only one article. Punkmorten 15:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Category:Airports

To align with "Man-made objects" subrule of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), rename all subcats to "Airports in foo" form (and modify Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) accordingly). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. No argument. siafu 00:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Category:Forts by country

Forts have locations, not nationalities; in addition, control of a fort may change hand one or more times over the course of its history. Rename Category:American forts to Category:Forts in the United States, etc. Neutrality^talk 15:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is a request to move all subcats to [[:Category:Forts in <countryname>]] and list this convention in the newly official Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) (aligns with the "Man-made objects" subrule). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if so, please tag each category affected, to give due notice, or none of them will be changed. ∞Who?¿? 15:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this is necessary under the rules spelled out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). I think this needs to be discussed, let's move it to Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I object to any renaming without tagging. That doesn't even apply to speedies. CalJW 01:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I too object to any renaming without tagging. We have watchlists for a reason, and people will be able to rightly protest the rename if they weren't told 'their' category was under consideration. -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, and establish said rule. -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. No argument. siafu 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movies Rated PG

This looks like a biased category. This rating probably only applies to U.S. A movie may have various ratings in different countries. *drew 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Darwinek 14:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This rating is used in several countries, but usage obviously varies. CalJW 18:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Highly unmaintainable. "PG" is used in more countries than the US. --FuriousFreddy 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 00:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kazakh people to Category:Kazakhstani people

Tagged 24 Aug, but not listed here. ∞Who ?¿? 09:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Kazakh is far more common than Kazakhistani Aldux 12:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Look at the explanation from August 24. - Darwinek 14:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Kazakh is the ethnicity, Kazakhstani is the nationality. --Neutrality^talk 15:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Neutrality. -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would make sense to keep and rename to Category:Kazakhs. We have ethnic group categories for other countries, why are Kazakhs excluded? Really, given the ethnic diversity of modern Kazakhstan, both Category:Kazakhs and Category:Kazakhstani people could well exist, the former being a subcat of the latter. (note this isn't a vote, just a comment). siafu 00:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transportation in Tanzania

This is another transport(ation) category which wasn't actually amended after it was agreed to switch them to local usage. Tanzania is a former British colony so it uses Commonwealth English. The relevant ministry is called the Ministry of Communications and Transport. Rename category:Transport in Tanzania CalJW 08:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Establish a rule at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and make this a speedy. (And, rename per nom.) -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the vote, but I disapprove of the attempt to expand speedy category renaming, and there are some doubtful cases in this category so it is particularly inappropriate in this case. We can't just change all Commonwealth countries for example, because Canada and Ireland would be both wrong, though in opposite ways. CalJW 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant establish the agreement you refer to: "...to switch them to local usage", rather than to a particular 'orientation'. They're going to come here repeatedly, and get nodded through. Why not do it in two days (or on sight) rather than in 7? -Splash^talk 03:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sport shooters by discipline

Empty category, tagged 21 Sept, but not listed here. ∞Who ?¿? 08:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bhoeble 19:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No argument. siafu 00:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portland, Oregon Buildings

Empty category, tagged 21 Sept but not listed here. ∞Who ?¿? 08:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I am adding Category:Buildings of Portland, Oregon to this discussion. Propose merger of both of these to Category:Buildings in Portland, which is the standard naming used in Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state. ∞Who ?¿? 19:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles could be added to this category, in which case it wouldn't be empty:

Commonwealth Building (Portland, Oregon)

Portland Public Service Building

Fox Tower (Portland, Oregon)

1000 Broadway (Portland, Oregon)

Congress Center (Portland, Oregon)

Architecture in Portland, Oregon

Portland Public Service Building

Wells Fargo Center (Portland, Oregon)

US Bancorp Tower (Portland, Oregon)

Concordia University (Portland, Oregon)

Riverdale High School (Portland, Oregon)

I vote keep and add the appropriate articles. -Seth Mahoney 09:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state and some of the other states, there isn't a category title like this one. If anything propose creating Category:Buildings and structures in Oregon, and then rename this to be a sub-cat Category:Buildings in Portland and add those articles. ∞Who?¿? 09:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me. -Seth Mahoney 09:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The schools are cat'd seperately, I checked the other "structures.. by state" and they didnt' have them. Some of them are cat'd under "skyscrapers by state" so I just added that cat as a sub. ∞Who ?¿? 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Populate and keep as above. You can be bold about doing so, I think. -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant "as above" to be my suggestion? Which I just created the other cats, most other states have them and I'm sure there are plenty of other notable structures to add to them.. ∞Who ?¿? 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Who. The parent can include the articles in Bridges in Portland, Oregon. siafu 00:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theatre by nationality

Theatres don't have nationalities, people do. Rename Category:Theatre by country. It is already in category:Categories by country and the closest parallel, literature is "by country". CalJW 06:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 06:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency, per nominator LiniShu 02:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Establish a rule at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and make this a speedy. (And, rename per nom.) -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British theatre

Merge into the much better populated category:Theatre in the United Kingdom. CalJW 06:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nominator. --FuriousFreddy 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian crime figures

Conflicts with the format of the other 13 categories in category:Criminals by nationality. Rename Category:Australian criminals. CalJW 06:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

category:United States shopping malls

All of the other subcategories of category:Buildings and structures in the United States have the building type first except three government related ones and stubs, and it makes for a neater list to have them this way round. So let's rename this one category:Shopping malls in the United States. Two state subcats have been created so far and let's rename them in the same way:

CalJW 06:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 10:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Vegaswikian 08:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom. TexasAndroid 13:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian linguistics

Non-standard category. It contained 9 articles which I have moved to a new Category:Australian English. That naturally fits into category:Languages of Australia which is the standard form main category and is in the usual culture and society categories, rendering this one redundant. Delete CalJW 05:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ∞Who ?¿? 05:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal shows

All the articles are about shows in Australia. Category:Royal shows in Australia. CalJW 05:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, I guess there isn't any other country that does these? ∞Who?¿? 05:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still a Royal Agricultural Show in the UK I think but it doesn't have an article. Possibly one or two in New Zealand or Canada, but a holding category can be recreated if it is needed. CalJW 08:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings and structures in Australia

Following the recent mass renamings of country, US state and British county categories to the standard "Buildings and structures" form, the Australian categories should also be renamed "Buildings and structures in X":

I just creatd the Perth category myself, so that's correct already. CalJW 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. ∞Who ?¿? 05:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all: I created the Adelaide category in a moment of pretension, and neglected to rename it. I still think it more felicitous, but. :)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Institutions by country and the overall category

Following on from my nomination of category:Iranian institutions below I have decided to address the remainder of these now. "Institutions" is a poor name for a category in a national menu because people interpret it in totally inconsistent ways:

As being only for organisations with the word "institute" or "institution" in their name. Example: the Iranian category as nominated separately below. This is a random attribute and it is better to use the term "organisations" so that it is clear that all organisations may be included.
To mean institutions in the sense of "national institutions" as in "national icons". This was occurring in the British category before it was renamed category:British organisations and cleaned up.
To mean simply organisations. This is fine, but it is better to use the word organisations instead as it doesn't have these ambiguities.

In any case, there are twice as many "organisations" categories and two thirds of the countries with an "institutions" category already have an organisations category as well, which just creates duplication, confusion and more inconsistency. I would like to see all of them merged or renamed. I have removed those items which are not "organisations", but that only amounted to three or four and they are all in appropriate subject area categories in their national menus.

Category:Danish institutions merge into category:Danish organizations and delete
Category:Finnish institutions rename category:Finnish organisations
Category:German institutions rename category:German organisations
Category:Hong Kong institutions merge into category:Hong Kong organisations and delete
Category:Hungarian institutions rename category:Hungarian organisations
Category:Irish institutions rename category:Irish organisations
Category:Japanese institutions merge into category:Japanese organizations and delete
Category:Mexican institutions merge into category:Mexican organizations and delete
Category:Polish institutions merge into category:Polish organizations and delete
Category:Singaporean institutions merge into category:Singaporean organisations and delete

As can be observed from this selection of countries the four largest developed English speaking countries are all managing without an "institutions" category, so surely other countries don't need them either. Please also note that these categories have seen little use - they contain just a few percent of the entries they could contain - so this does not reverse a large amount of categorising effort. I prefer the "s" spelling, but that's a separate and smaller issue, so let's put it to one side for now please.

It follows on from this that we can also delete Category:Institutions by country, but it might come back. However, the overall category:Institutions category seems to me to be an unnecessary subcategory of category:Organizations. There is little consistency as to which types of organisation have been placed in it, and which (far more) have not. So if we delete both, hopefully neither will come back:

delete category:Institutions by country.
merge category:Institutions into category:Organizations and then delete.

CalJW 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While adding the deletion notices I found a non-standard variant/duplicate. category:Associations in Ireland should be merged into category:Irish organisations when it has been created by renaming. CalJW 02:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea that organizations as such should be in the relevant organization category. If there are still things to put into the institutions categories, they should stay, otherwise they can be deleted. If the institutions categories stick around they should contain the relevant organization categories. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/rename all as proposed. Osomec 18:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What the nominator said, but why do some have 'z' and some 's'? I thought we were consistent within articles, so we should probably be consistent within a set of categories. -Splash^talk 19:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's leave that for another time please. Nominations that try to address more than one issue have a nasty habit of ending up with "unresolved" status even if there is a clear preference on one issue. CalJW 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

category:Iranian institutions

This nomination follows on from the recent renaming of British institutions as category:British organisations, and my nomination for deletion of category:Swedish institutions on 20 September, which looks likely to succeed. This category is being used in a different way from either of those and this inevitable difference of interpretation of "institutions" is one of the main reasons why I believe institutions by country categories to be best avoided. In this case it has literally been used as a category for organisations with the word institute/institution in their name. The usage of these terms is arbitary, especially when we are dealing with bodies originally named in other languages. I have already added the three articles to category:Science and technology in Iran. I would like to see this renamed category:Organisations in Iran, so that it becomes clear that all organisations can be placed in it. I doubt really that either organisations or institutions categories are needed at the national level as I am standardising the national menus in such a way that there is a subject area category for any conceivable article, but if we delete both forms they are bound to keep coming back, so I think we should maintain the "organisations" categories. CalJW 01:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same opinion as in vote above: move all articles about organizations to the organizations category, if nothing remains in the institutions category then delete it. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But there isn't an organisations category and there won't be any articles in this one when the three in it have been moved. CalJW 03:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most likely true...but people have a few days yet though to add an Iranian institution that's not an organization. Also, voting this way now makes clear that I have no prejudice against recreation of the category later. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It's just a muddle as stated. Osomec 18:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs by the Supremes -> Category:The Supremes songs

Standardization. --FuriousFreddy 00:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency. ∞Who ?¿? 05:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename since categories in the Category:Songs by artist have songs at the end of the name. -- Thorpe ^talk 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question — should there be an apostrophe in the new name, or is "The Supremes" being used adjectivally? -Splash^talk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Neutrality^talk 01:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]