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 15:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truly barebones; only two articles included. --Apostrophe 17:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only two articles, with no obvious future additions. – Seancdaug 00:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely useless. dunerat 08:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)dunerat[reply]
• Delete unnecessary --TimPope 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What are Moogles anyway? --Nlu 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Moogle --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless somebody creates a lot of notable moogle articles real quick. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to adopt the naming standard "Parks in <country>" (although I would have no objection to "Parks of <country>" either). Most subcats already meet that standard; changes required for the list below. Radiant_>|< 17:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Belgian parks
• Category:Brisbane parks and gardens (see below as well)
• Category:Hong Kong parks
• Category:Melbourne parks and gardens (see below as well)
• Category:Parks of Thailand
• Category:Sydney parks
• Category:United States parks

• Support Vegaswikian 03:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose removing "gardens" where it may be justified by local usage. Four out of five Australian categories use "parks and gardens". I think we should be sensitive to local usage in this slighly tricky subject area (see comments on nomination below). But amend all to "in" form in any case. CalJW 07:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you agree that "Brisbane/Melbourne parks and gardens" should still be moved to "parks and gardens of Brisbane/Melbourne"? Just to get the country naming stuff straight. We can discuss the difference between parks, gardens and open spaces below. Radiant_>|< 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Parks and gardens in..." would be more natural English. CalJW 03:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Vizcarra 12:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 as nominated, create "Gardens in..." as necessary --Kbdank71 15:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most subcats refer to 'parks'. Some refer to gardens. Given the synonymity of the two, I'd prefer renaming the lot to refer to 'parks' for consistency. I would have no objection to renaming them all to 'parks and gardens', though. Radiant_>|< 17:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Adelaide parks and gardens
• Category:Botanical gardens in Australia
• Category:Brisbane parks and gardens (see above as well)
• Category:Gardens in Australia
• Category:Parks and commons of the United Kingdom
• Category:Melbourne parks and gardens (see above as well)

*Partial Support I think that all of the gardens are really botanical gardens and should be named as "Botanical gardens in Foo". No opinion on the Australia parks and gardens. Vegaswikian 03:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I would like to see the word "botanical" removed from all local gardens categories as it imposes a needless restriction. In the UK only a minority of the gardens with articles are botanical, and the use of "botanical" in the US state categories means that some articles are left stranded in the national category. CalJW 07:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings us to List of botanical gardens in the United States which states This list of botanical gardens in the United States is intended to include all significant botanical gardens and arboretums in the United States of America. It also seems to include plain gardens. So that do lists like these also need to be cleaned up to avoid confusion? Vegaswikian 21:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This just seems to ignore the meanings of words. A garden is not a park! Category:Gardens is separate. There is a reasons for the UK name, but I recently had the London category broadened further further to "parks and open spaces" and I am planning to do the same for the other subcategories. I am an advocate of standardisation, but that shouldn't mean giving the same names to categories with different content. CalJW 07:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how about "parks and gardens in <foo>" just like we have "buildings and structures" or "cities and villages"? R;adiant 09:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. In most countries the distinction between a park and a garden is clear. Gardens are primarily horticultural and one often has to pay to visit them. Parks are places of public recreation, and are usually free. Combining the parks and gardens categories for a country like England would make no sense at all. The way to deal with the small amount of overlap is to place a few (a very few) items in both. The harder issue is the vagueness of the word "park". National parks are obviously parks for example, but they aren't the main thing that these categories are for. However they can be a subcategory, as can things like State parks. The problem is with things that are not thought of as parks, such as commons. "Open spaces" is probably the only term which embraces everything, eg urban woodlands can be added to it as well. I am going to do a renaming proposal to amend the other UK categories to "Parks and open spaces in" and perhaps we could use that form across the board. However it may be that we should restrict it to the UK and note it as a local usage difference. CalJW 22:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that is a good point. I believe, then, that all the above should be renamed to "Parks in ..." and that for countries where it's necessary, an additional "Gardens in ..." should be created. I have no objection to your "open spaces" proposal. Radiant_>|< 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 15:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created in one fell swoop over a year ago and promptly abandoned, with no further maintenance. There is no useful explanation as to the meaning or intent of the categorization; apparently it was intended as some internal housekeeping for a project page (not really a valid use for a category in the first place) but is now just clutter. Jgm 16:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are quite a few things in this category and it's unclear that no change in content of a category invalidates its function. Many categories lack explanatory text on their usage. Categories are in fact appropriate for internal maintenance functions; the question is whether they should be titled with "Wikipedia" in the name or not. I'm putting a word at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias to ask the WikiProject participants to weigh in on this as the category appears to be a product of that WikiProject. Courtland 00:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I withdraw my statement that this is an inappropriate use for categories. I still contend there must be some way to find out what the definition/purpose of a category is; that is, if the intention is to request CSB help for a particular page it should be renamed to so indicate (and I'd expect some movement of the content as pages are added/improved) -- as it stands this could easily be a list of a particular person's pet (or pet peeve) articles. Jgm 16:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the category itself is fine, but:
  1. I'd like to see clarity that this (and any sub-categories) belong on talk pages, not articles.
  2. I'd be a lot more comfortable if someone would step up and say they would maintain the use of this category. In principle, it should be useful in just the same way as categories that say some page is part of any other given project. In practice, it seems to be currently on a rather arbitrary group of articles, so it is not doing much good.
  3. If someone thinks it should be have "Wikipedia" in the name, I certainly have no problem with that. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see how this category can be (or has ever been) helpful to WP:CSB so I'm voting delete unless someone can convince me. — mark ✎ 18:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I suppose it could be an alternative/addition to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open Tasks page, but it's not being used as such. The category would need to be added to all the Talk pages of the articles on the Task list. Nice eyepatch though. - Xed 13:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 keep --Kbdank71 15:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Rename'. a number of the architects are active in and listed under countries they are not native to. these architects' nationalities are of trivial importance to the work they they contribute to these countries. -Mayumashu 15:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per current standards. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standards based on what line of reasoning? Please address the point(s) raised in the nomination's comments. -Mayumashu 01:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We categorise people by nationality because people belong primarily to their country of nationality. If we change it for a few categories it will just create confusion and inconsistency. If you really want you can create some "Foreign architects active in" categories. CalJW 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but surely this is increasingly not the case, and with a number of professions, and being less accurate by not allowing the category to be vague/flexible enough in its purpose is actually more confusing. certainly being wrong is - this category links directly with Category:Canadian architecture (which by the way should be renamed 'architecture of Canada', 'not architecture in Canada' since some Canadian architects do not work in Canada -Mayumashu 11:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• comment/question:is renaming also proposed for everything in Category:Occupations by nationality? Internationalism is as prevalent in any field there as it is in architecture. It seems like a lot of work to rename everything there. Davidrowe 12:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Every architect will have a nationality (some may have several), but many prominent architects will be active in numerous countries not just one or two. This activity (if it's felt to be necessary to do so) can be categorised under "Architects active in Fooland" as per CalJW. That's not a reason to no longer be able to record the nationalities of architects. Valiantis 12:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the suggestion is not that we would no longer record by nationality - by "country" we can record by both country of (extended) activity and nationality - some people would be under two or three countries, yes. the suggestion is not too to have someone who did a single contract of work (a single building's design say) in one country to be catted under that country's cat -Mayumashu 14:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is your suggestion, why have you asked that Category:Architects by nationality be renamed Category:Architects by country then?? If you want to have cats by country of extended activity, go ahead and create them; there's no need to lose the existing cat hierarchy for this purpose. Valiantis 14:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose breaches normal practice. Honbicot 12:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 15:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very mangled category. Most of its entries belong in category:general relativity, with general relativity being a theory of gravitation instead of gravity. The exceptions are the perturbation and precession articles, which are adequately categorized without being a part of this one. --EMS | Talk 14:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur. Effects of gravity = falling :) confusing cat name. Radiant_>|< 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 upmerge --Kbdank71 15:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm... yeah. Two entries, I don't know of any more. Over-categorisation at it's worst - SoM 12:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What's the problem? Carina22 14:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - see my post and the two "upmerge" votes - SoM 17:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge, overly specific, and the meaning of the term 'berserker' is ambiguous since it can refer to vikings, dwarfs, barbarians and others, and its distinction from e.g. 'fighter' is unclear. Radiant_>|< 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contains three articles now. CalJW 07:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment [sarcasm]Sure, that makes all the difference[/sarcasm]. Maybe if there were thirty. - SoM 17:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge. Rediculous over-categorization. Berserker isn't even a class, it's a sub-class of fighter. Also ambiguous since it refers to too many popular images. dunerat 08:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)dunerat[reply]
• Upmerge per above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 17:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per above. NatusRoma 06:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per above. --Vizcarra 12:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match its parent ("Geography of the United States") and newly renamed children ("Geography of Alabama" etc.) categories. Martin 11:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. Carina22 14:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. In accordance with proposal. dunerat 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)dunerat[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Joshbaumgartner 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 --Kbdank71 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that this subcategory of disambiguation is not helpful to our readers. —GraemeMcRae^talk 09:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this statement of consensus is premature. Courtland 13:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding, perhaps incorrect, was that consensus has been achieved, through extensive dialog on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) clearly states that the only template that can be used to assign a category is {{disambig}}, with specific exceptions. Perhaps incorrectly, I take this MOS as a reflection of the consensus.—GraemeMcRae^talk 16:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting formula: "Consensus is that". Any specific reasons? -- User:Docu
    • Principally historical, in my opinion .. a small number of users began creating new templates and categories without seeking consensus regarding their creation. There is now a wave a activity taking place to "restore order" by stating that what the MoS says is historical consensus that must still be valid, which is driving some editor's actions to aggressively move back to the earlier state. Personally I think that such use of a MoS is unfortunate. Courtland 01:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Lists of two character combinations. Delete see subtopic comment This category has only a single page in it. The single page should be re-categorized into Category:Language lists and Category:Lists of abbreviations. Courtland 13:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  It used to include all pages using Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:2LCdisambig. Someone removed the category from the page, but in the meantime it was readded so the pages will be in there again soon. -- User:Docu

  Comment I've changed my opinion above based on User:Docu's having achieved repopulation of the category. Note that I did place on User:GraemeMcRae's (nominator) talk page a reminder not to depopulate categories prior to their run through here once I saw some of that behavior, but I hadn't realized how extensive the depopulation had been. Courtland 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pointless. Radiant_>|< 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, all pages of the same category, make up a specialized collection of similar pages. -- User:Docu
• keep useful. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep jengod 20:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 15:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that this subcategory of disambiguation is not helpful to our readers. —GraemeMcRae^talk 09:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pointless. Radiant_>|< 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete. Merge with "appropriate existing categories" Category:Lists of two-letter combinations and subsequently delete. Courtland 01:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not all letter-and-number combinations have two characters.—GraemeMcRae^talk 16:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
    • Comment: I am aware of that. The merger should not put inappropriate dab pages together; two-character items should go with two-letter items .. three-character items should go with three-letter items. Courtland 17:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As its been emptied it's hard to judge whether it was useful or not. Honbicot 12:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I am more concerned about navagatibility in the main dab category than how useful it is in other extents hence it's existance. --Nintendude 18:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. per above. «»Who?¿?^meta 21:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to standard and more inclusive form as per parent category category:Buildings and structures in Sweden. CalJW 08:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. In accordance with the proposal. dunerat 08:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)dunerat[reply]
• Object. No need to make name less specific. - SimonP 13:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Honbicot 12:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Should be a speedy rename. Carina22 18:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted. It overlaps with Wars of Ecuador, which is the proper name for the category. Andres C. 05:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• See #category:wars of Ecuador. — Instantnood 09:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I was the one who posted it. What do I do now? How do we get Category:Ecuadorian wars out of the way? Andres C. 16:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Does this move this issue to speedy delete? If it is still in this section doesn't that invite further votes/comments, and if so, why were votes already placed deleted, instead of the request for speedy delete simply being added? Just asking as I am relatively new to the CfD process and haven't seen this done like this before. Joshbaumgartner 00:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of states in Chinese history named Wei, and eventually (when I reach there chronologically, perhaps in a few months :-) :-() I will create a category of Category:Emperors of Northern Wei, and so "Emperors of Wei" should be preemptorily disambiguated. --Nlu 04:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What about category:emperors of Wei (220-265)? — Instantnood 08:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible, but I think that's going to be too cumbersome. --Nlu 08:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the current way how Jin Dynasty (晉朝, 金朝) are disambiguated. — Instantnood 08:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that, but in that case, it's necessary because of the sameness in pinyin (although an alternative would have been to have "Jìn Dynasty" and "Jīn Dynasty," I guess). In this case, the Wei we're talking about is already known among Chinese historical circles as Cao Wei, so I wouldn't necessary think that it needs to be disambiguated that way. I am not wed to the idea of necessarily using Cao Wei, though -- any disambiguation is better than no disambiguation. Anybody else care to chime in on this? --Nlu 06:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 --Kbdank71 14:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Transnational corporations headquartered in Hong Kong to Category:Multinational corporations headquartered in Hong Kong
• Category:Dutch multinationals to Category:Multinational corporations headquartered in the Netherlands

"Transnational corporation" is a synonym for "multinational corporation". On Wikipedia currently transnational corporation redirects to multinational corporation. This proposal establishes a naming convention for "Multinational corporations headquartered in _". Kurieeto 00:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some such categories - a UK one at least - should be "multinational companies". Ideally I would like to see this category deleted, as being "multinational" becomes a less unusual or significant characteristic for a large company each year, and soon being a "multi-billion dollar company that isn't a multinational" may be a more notable characteristic, but proposing deletion is probably not worthwhile. CalJW 08:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, name is too long. Try "multinationals" rather than "multinational corporations", and maybe ditch the "headquartered" for a shorter word. I would support deletion per Cal's arguments. Radiant_>|< 00:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important for the word "corporation" or "companies" to remain in the category title. Would "Multinational corporations based in _" be acceptable? Kurieeto 10:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is that important? The word 'multinational' implies it being a corporation. Radiant_>|< 11:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to me because it's a complete description of the entity, and remains concise enough. Though I acknowledge that shortening to just "multinational" may be preferrable as we may wish to categorize multinational companies together with multinational corporations. Companies and corporations have different legal standings, see company (law) and corporation for more on that topic. Kurieeto 00:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if renamed to to Category:Multinational corporations in Foo or Category:Multinationals in Foo. I think that 'headquartered in' is implied and is not needed in the category name. If this is important for someone, it can be added to the introduction for the category page. Vegaswikian 03:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Headquartered, although awkward, makes the purpose of the category clearer than simply saying Multinationals (or multinational corporations) in Fooplace. If we had the latter, we could legitimately say Coke, Nike, and Pokemon are all in Australia. Which, duh they are -- multinationals says as much. The significance is that their HQ can only be in one place. What about M founded in Fooplace? This is not exactly the same as HQed, but related, and restrictive enough to be useful. pfctdayelise 06:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.