Category:Undrafted National Hockey League players[edit]
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, with no prejudice against renominating to consider renaming. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you're not drafted, but make it into the majors, it would seem to be a major aspect of a player's career. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a major element of a player's career.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The draft is, in fact, one of the most important parts of a player's career, and those that go undrafted yet still make the major leagues tend to be notable for such: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. Resolute 03:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. Also there are times during a games broadcast where the announcers will mention a guy who was not drafted, if for nothing more than to talk about the feel good story of a guy being overlooked and persevering to reach the highest level in hockey.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a highly notable thing in the world of ice hockey to make it into the NHL without actually being drafted. It is extremely rare and those that do it are often known by the fact that they were undrafted. Thus it defines who they are and is quite possibly the most defining aspect of their career. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that at least 400+ players have gone from being undrafted to the NHL tells us that it is not, in fact, extremely rare.--TM 12:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
400 players ever. The NHL has in the area of 800 players a year. And its been 47 years since the draft started. So you are looking in the area of 400 out of 40,000. Yes that is extremely rare. And even if it wasn't that rare, its a continuation of the various "Drafted by X" categories which are clearly defining as it shapes who the players end up playing for. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are greatly exaggerating the number of NHL players. According to hockeydb.com, there have 6,562 NHL players all time, not 40,000 since 1963. Given that the NHL has existed since 1917, I think your last comment, at least in regards to numbers, is pretty irrelevant. In reply to other comments, in the vast majority of cases, a player's draft status is not a defining characteristic of a career. If the player is an extremely high pick (like #1 overall), it is appropriate, but not being drafted is not a defining characteristic.--TM 14:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we will see what everyone else thinks. It is likely people are going to look up players who went into the NHL undrafted since it is something that is commented on very frequently in hockey. Thus it is something that makes common sense to categorize by. Other sports like baseball where being drafted means nothing because they draft 1000s a year and many players make it from outside the draft it might not be the case for, but in hockey being drafted or not drafted defines your career. For example for someone who was drafted to a team that had just won the cup, the likelihood of them playing a game in the NHL is lessened because the team already has championship calibre players, or if they are drafted to a team that is a bottom of the league team they are more likely to earn a spot on the team. In either situation their career has been defined by who they were drafted to, it has defined them by making it so they are a minor leaguer or major leaguer. For a player who goes undrafted completely it means their career will be defined by the effort and route they end up having to take to get to the NHL often starting at the lowest of the low pro leagues and working their way up. Something that doesn't happen to most people drafted who usually skip up to the higher minor leagues automatically. Being drafted or not drafted and by whom you are drafted can make or break your career. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is commented on, it is not defining. Even if we take the statistics for every player who has ever played in the NHL (and the draft didn't exist for the 1st 46 years of the league) AND we accept that only the players in this category have been undrafted (which is also unlikely), about 1 in 16 NHL players all time have been undrafted. Taken to present day, that means there are on average 2 players per NHL team who went undrafted. If there are approximately 60 current NHL players who went undrafted and made it, how is that considered so outstanding or "extremely rare"?--TM 15:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This certainly meets WP:N standards for notation, as this is a comparison often made in ice hockey circles comparing undrafted players to drafted players. In addition, a good number of these undrafted players have made the Hall of Fame, making this even more notable under WP:N. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 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:Undrafted National Basketball Association players[edit]
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, with no prejudice against renominating to consider renaming. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:50, 4 May 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:Undrafted National Football League players[edit]
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, with no prejudice against renominating to consider renaming. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:50, 4 May 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.
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. The creation of subcategories is better left to editorial discretion, with them being brought to CfD is anyone thinks it is necessary. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: College football bowl game has new sponsor. Rename category to match current name, consistent with other bowl game changed sponsors. Esprqii (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One wonders if we need to rename these to the stadium or some other name that we can use over time. We did this for auto races, why not for bowl games. The problem with these renames is that we are rewriting history since most of the games were played under different names. Articles can address this, categories can not. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Unfortunately the stadium tends to change as well. And even if you had a category for the stadium, some stadia have more than one bowl game associated with it and you're back to square one. We could keep the old Emerald Bowl category and make it a subcat of the new KFHB category. --Esprqii (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sponsor names change often due to naming rights contracts expiring and whatnot. If the bowl was historically the Emerald Bowl, it will likely still be referred to as such by fans, and the "classic" name is probably the best way to continue to refer to it. So I suppose Oppose renaming, Support making subcategory of Category:Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl is the way I'll go. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I share the concern that sponsor naming may change frequently, I don't think it's good practice to assume that people will continue to call the bowl by its old name for the forseeable future. For one thing, this is not an old established bowl like the Rose Bowl, but a fairly recent one. Seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL-ly to me to assume people won't jump on the Kraft Fight Hunger bandwagon. I think we need to use the proper naming. So, I think making Emerald Bowl a subcat of the current name makes more sense for this, and any other bowl category name changes. --Esprqii (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I'm not mistaken, this practice is already in place for certain types of categories (e.g., Albums by band). -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose making a category redirect, Support making a subcategory. The category redirect servers no purpose other then to mislead readers into believing that the games were played under the new name. That is revisionist history. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 8 May 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.
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 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.
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.
Support for consistency, and as the category is not intended to include the UK-wide parties operating in Cornwall the new title will be more accurate as well. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this be Cornish regional politial parties ? Or should regional parties that are not nationalistic be excluded? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're all nationalist parties. --Joowwww (talk) 10:01, 27 April 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.
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Really an article (and a very unbalanced one) posing as a category description; the only article contained in the category does not appear to be correctly categorized. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:11, 26 April 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:20th-century rulers of constituent or unrecognized states in Oceania[edit]
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - each of its articles is already better categorised in the more specific form 'President of Foo'. Occuli (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no longer part of a scheme and exceedingly bizarre on its own. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a candidate for the bizzare-category-names page, I'd think... - The Bushranger (talk) 02:32, 1 May 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.
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 delete (criteria G7 and C1). -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: not needed Gnevin (talk) 17:28, 26 April 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.
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 06:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, not per nom, but because "association football" is just as precise as "soccer", and arguably more proper. "Football" alone in an NZ context usually refers to rugby union. --Avenue (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Every other category of this type has been renamed after a very long process. New Zealand doesn't need special treatment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you're right. I thought this process was further along. Apparently we haven't yet reached the individual country name stage. My opinion still stands in general, but I don't know why we're dealing with individual countries one at a time. So I support a rename, but probably not like this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I'm actually of the opinion that we should eliminate the practice of using specialized, local terminology for "by country" categories rather than try to retain it. Why? Because a category about New Zealand is accessed by more than just people from New Zealand. Whenever possible, we should move to a universal standard in naming, and "association football" seems to have been accepted as that universal standard. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, for better consistency among soccer-by-country categories. Article titles would be a bit more difficult, since they're subject to WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename even COMMONNAME if it applied to categories would struggle to keep as the tide has turned in NZ. "Football", "Association Football" or "Football (soccer)" would all be preferable to current name. I'm happy with Category:Association football in New Zealand if that helps with consistancy--ClubOranjeT 07:42, 4 May 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.
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 06:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to replace the no longer used disambiguate 'football (soccer)'. 'Association football' is suggested as 'soccer', 'diski, and 'football' are used, depending on the individual, in the country to refer to the sport. That both 'football' and 'soccer' are valid formally is demonstrated in that the sport's governing body is the South African Football Association and the top league is the Premier Soccer League. (Subcats will be subsquently speedily renamed if this nomination succeeds.) Mayumashu (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Every other category of this type has been renamed after a very long process. South Africa doesn't need special treatment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you're right. I thought this process was further along. Apparently we haven't yet reached the individual country name stage. My opinion still stands in general, but I don't know why we're dealing with individual countries one at a time. So I support a rename, but probably not like this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I'm actually of the opinion that we should eliminate the practice of using specialized, local terminology for "by country" categories rather than try to retain it. Why? Because a category about South Africa is accessed by more than just people from South Africa. Whenever possible, we should move to a universal standard in naming, and "association football" seems to have been accepted as that universal standard. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:00, 27 April 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.
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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: oddly rejected as a speedy rename despite the article page being at Association football in Australia and the disambiguator 'Football (soccer)' having been done away with. At any rate, the sport has been traditionally refered to as soccer in Australia (hence the nickname 'Socceroos') but is refered to as 'football' by most enthusiasts of the sport there now (hence the FA being Football Federation Australia). Using the former name of the sport, as for other places where either name can be used such as Ireland (Category:Association football in Ireland), appropriately avoids ambiguity. (Will speedy rename subcats subsequently.) Mayumashu (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. While "football" may be used by enthusiasts, "soccer" is still the mainstream Australian term for Association football. In the wider community, "football" may refer to any of the four major football codes (AFL, RL, RU, soccer), depending on the context. Category:Association football in Australia would not be understood by a very broad range of the Wikipedia readership in Australia. WWGB (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Every other category of this type has been renamed after a very long process. Australia doesn't need special treatment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you're right. I thought this process was further along. Apparently we haven't yet reached the individual country name stage. My opinion still stands in general, but I don't know why we're dealing with individual countries one at a time. So I support a rename, but probably not like this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. The wide ranging discussion on the naming of this sport has already taken place at Talk:Association football (see archive pages) and this proposal merely brings categories into line with this existing consensus. Even if you disagree with the result, the consultation on the name has already taken place. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Yes, even the WPAustralia descendant project - Wikipedia:WikiProject Association Football in Australia got renamed on 7 October 2009. However, the talk pages are still showing up in Category:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia articles, because the assessment categories haven't been changed yet from "football (soccer) in Australia articles" to "Association football in Australia articles". Though, I do have one question, is "football" supposed to be capitalized or not? As in: "Association Football in Australia" or is it "Association football in Australia". Don't know why the project has "Football" capitalized. --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Even the Football Federation Australia changed its name in 2005 from Australian Soccer Association, and previously in 2003 from Soccer Australia. Also, I think getting rid of the disambiguating "(soccer)" in the category name is somewhat the goal, isn't it? --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Brings the category in line with the majority of major pages associated with the sport in Australia, for consistency purposes. Camw (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename as proposed We should be using common names as per convention and, while the soccer "enthusiasts" might like to call it association football, even Association football says that soccer is the common name. This is especially true in Australia where, as has previously been stated, football refers to several different codes. "Soccer" needs to be in the category name somewhere to make the name understandable to the majority of readers. If there is a rename it should be to Category:Association football (soccer) in Australia. Also as previously suggested, "football" should not be capitalised. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would be an improvement over the current name and I would support it, as nominator. Actually, I like this as an appropriate naming for cats for N.Z., S.A., Canada, and U.S. and other countries within their 'soccer spheres'. Mayumashu (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename Its common name is soccer, the diehards would call it football, so I support the present compromise. Most people in Australia don't even know it means "association football". User:Orderinchaos 10:29 pm, Today (UTC+8)
Oppose rename Common name is soccer - in Australia it depends where you are as to what the word 'football' means - it has many meanings - the combination of the two words association and football would be meaningless to the average reader from Australia, for a startUser:SatuSuro 10:37 pm, Today (UTC+8)
Rename. I'm actually of the opinion that we should eliminate the practice of using specialized, local terminology for "by country" categories rather than try to retain it. Why? Because a category about Australia is accessed by more than just people from Australia. Whenever possible, we should move to a universal standard in naming, and "association football" seems to have been accepted as that universal standard. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:Common name is the argument of the opposers here, but that policy refers to article pages, not category pages. As discussion here (at WP:Cats for discussion) has brought up numerous times, category pages are named with more explicit explanation incorporated within their naming and in doing so do not abide by WP:Common name. In addition, Category:Football in England should be Assocation football in England because of the same rationale. Mayumashu (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with the proposal, but if it has to be done for Australia, it has to be done for the likes of England and the USA as well. From that point of view, a joint nomination would make more sense. WFCforLife (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if the sport is primarily called "soccer" in Australia, that should be the term used in WP, but that should not lead to parents being renamed. Local usage is always to be preferred, despite this being "untidy". Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 10 May 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.
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: Both categories would include the same pages, thus either a merge or deletion makes sense Immunize (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – speedily as it is empty (and has never had any contents in its short life) and as there is nothing to merge. Occuli (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as R'n'B had previously tagged the category.[6] Nothing to merge as category is and always has been empty. I believe david1955 mistakenly created this as singular at 06:06, 23 April 2010, realized it should be pleural, and created Category:Cerebrovascular diseases 2 minutes later at 06:08, 23 April 2010. I'm not sure why this needed to be taken to CfD. --Scott Alter 16:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete If statement that the creator created the other category minutes later. Keep and merge otherwise. Immunize (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Immunize, just wondering what you are trying to achieve and what you want to be merged. "Keep" normally means "do not delete," which I'm sure you no not really mean. (We don't need Category:Cerebrovascular disease and Category:Cerebrovascular diseases.) The category is and always has been empty. And when categories are merged, the former is then deleted. Also, you can look at the categories' histories to see that they were created 2 minutes apart. --Scott Alter 20:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Occuli. ---kilbad (talk) 00:18, 27 April 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.
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: Speedy to DAB MoS. Also can the child categories here be done Gnevin (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per contents. Occuli (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename There are manuals of style out there, that are quite famous, and have nothing to do with WP:MOS. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: agree with above, so there is no confusion with "Chicago Manual of Style", etc. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Manual of Style" could include any MoS including Chicago et al --Jubilee♫clipman 02:27, 28 April 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:Comics articles that need real world chronology[edit]
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (which I presume is the nominator's intent) - the category is no longer needed and its functions are repeated elsewhere. AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:13, 26 April 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.
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: Per main article. There is no reason for them to have two different names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I agree that "gender-neutral" is the more commonly used term, and probably the better category name, by far. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:30, 27 April 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.
