Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:53, 13 August 2006

August 10

Category:United States Merchant Marine Academy Notable Persons and Alumni

Category:United States Merchant Marine Academy Notable Persons and Alumni to Category:United States Merchant Marine Academy alumni Cat should be renamed for consistency with other subcats of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. --musicpvm 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. ReeseM 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional unicorns

Category:Fictional unicorns into Category:unicorns

• Merge, seems useless separating fictional unicorns from unicorns, plus the two categories haw few articles each. Melaen 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. The former and latter are identical by the definition of "unicorn". --M@rēino 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 22:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. See below. David Kernow 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC), stricken 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mareino is wrong: the WP categorization scheme distinguishes fictional (made up one day) from legendary (part of cultural lore). That's why Category:unicorns is a subcat of Category:Legendary creatures and Category:Fictional unicorns (i.e. particular unicorns made up one day given existing cultural knowledge of what a unicorn "is") is a subcat of Category:Fictional legendary creatures. You can say this is overcategorization, but it's not meaningless. And we need these cats for consistency with parallel cats. —Blotwell 21:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In which case, for the sake of clarity, rename to Category:Unicorns in fiction. I'll set up a s" categories. Deep breath, David Kernow 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Update: See "Fictional s" on August 12 CfD. Regards, David Kernow 03:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know how we can delete this category but keep many of the other ones at Category:Fictional legendary creatures. --Usgnus 21:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Blotwell; WP needs to maintain a distiction between manufactured fiction versus actual belief and folklore. A rename isn't necessary any more than is necessary for the many, many other subcategories of Category:Fictional. -Sean Curtin 21:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. --musicpvm 22:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Media groups of the University of Leicester

Category:Media groups of the University of Leicester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, currently only contains one entry and the potential for growth isn't exactly great. makomk 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Rouge admins

For the avoidance of doubt: this is not a joke category, it is a category of administrators who put policy first, and are prepared to take firm action to enforce it. Read between the lines of WP:ROUGE. Many of The Cabal are in this category, including Essjay, The Epopt, Mackensen and David Gerard. And indeed Cyde. Just zis Guy you know? 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Per conversation with Cyde, I'm proposing the category for deletion as there is an inherent unencyclopedic nature to the category. hoopydink 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the section could theoretically hold some sort of encyclopedic benefit such that it makes users realize that administrators aren't out to get them and that they have a sense of humor, too, but the category would be unnecessary. Perhaps if it was made into a Misplaced Pages namespace page that specifically outlines that administrators have a sense of humor too. Cowman109 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Like WP:ROUGE? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Precisely, in which case this category isn't really necessary, in my opinion. Cowman109 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's necessary so that we can identify which admins have a sense of humor and which are humorless. No reason why everyone should have to learn the hard way. ;) --M@rēino 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's at all appropriate to suggest that administrators not in the category are humourless. hoopydink 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Either that was irony or you just made Ino's point for him :o) Just zis Guy you know? 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cowman, and because I seriously doubt that if a user is so new that they believe admins are out to get them, they're probably not going to know about the Rogue Admins category. I didn't for a while; I initially thought it meant missing admins or something to that effect. Additionally, admins can express their sense of humor in other ways - putting themselves in the Crazy Wikipedians category, their user page, their signature, etc. Srose (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; this category is very important to community-building, and has been around far too long for people to be deleting it withuot a reason other than "unencyclopedic", which is a weasel word. Rename Category:Misplaced Pages rouge admins to bring into closer conformity with other user cats. --M@rēino 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • To elaborate upon my original labelling of the category as being unencylcopedic (which I don't think is a weasel word at all), the category does not help build the encyclopedia in any way. It is not a tool for identifying administrators (there is already a category for that) and the date created has little to do with its encyclopedic nature. It is purely used for humourous purposes, and is very similar to the recently deleted "Gangster Wikipedians" category. I hope this clears things up a bit hoopydink 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please elaborate: this is a category for Misplaced Pages administrators who put policy before process, and are firm in enforcing policy (made clear in WP:ROUGE). What are the similarities with Gangster Wikipeidans? Just zis Guy you know? 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sure thing, I'd be happy to elaborate. From my interpretation of the two categories (that is, the deleted "Gangster Wikipedians" and the "Rouge Admins" categories), both exist(ed) for purely humourous reasons, and as such do not belong in the encyclopedia-building environment that is Misplaced Pages. I believe precedence has been set many times over, most recently with the "Gangster Wikipedians" category. I spoke to one of the administrators that deleted the "Gangster Wikipedians" category and he agreed that this category should be deleted as well. The "Rouge Admins" category says nothing about putting policy before process. In fact, it states; We promise to block IPs for 61 years, block and protect the talk pages of editors we edit war with, and unprotect the main page on April Fool's day. Again, while this is obviously a joke, it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. It also has the potential to give off the wrong impression about administrators (not just the 38 in the category, but administrators at large) on Misplaced Pages for those who do not understand the underlying humour. hoopydink 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There are hundreds of user categories that are totally useless and uninteresting (wikipedians who insist on having the word lobster in every article is one example). This one is actually funny and humorous. — Dark Shikari /_contribs 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Then perhaps those should be brought up for CFD as well? Cowman109 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with cowman here. So many hours wasted on trivial stuff. The more wikipedia matures, the more wikipedia seem to take on the role of a social club. Jokes are fun but let's not get too distracted from the task at hand. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As per Dark Shikari
• Keep, rename in line with current naming conventions. Supports an encyclopaedic topic (WP:ROUGE) which has a humorous wrapper around a core of solid policy. Rouge admins are policy wonks. Just zis Guy you know? 20:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• WP:ROUGE is not an encyclopedic topic. hoopydink 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete if we can delete/merge Category:List of freshwater aquarium plant species, which from below seems to be on the chopping block, then I have no qualms deleting/merging this info. David D. (Talk) 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • See below. --M@rēino 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just noticed that freshwater plants is a bit safer than i had suspected when I wrote the above. Nevertheless, aren't there rules such as 'wikipedia is not a playground' and such? We encourage people to be responsible with their user space but ignore admins messing around with the main space? I suspect that this could be seen as being a little bit hypocritical. What is a rouge admin anyway? Is it a play on words with rogue admin or a reference to blushing? David D. (Talk) 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I just noticed this reference in the picture on the Rouge admin page, "Rouge admins: known either for their uncanny makeup skills or POV-pushers' inability to spell "rogue"". Obviously that answers my question above. I have to say, it was not obvious from scanning the page. David D. (Talk) 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• This vote looks like a WP:POINT. I am tempted to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I can assure you i was not voting to make a wikipoint. i was merely considering its neighbour in this CFD and reflecting that if we can can delete that (freshwater plants), but not rouge, then there is something wrong. As it happens, it seems that freshwater aquatic plants may get a reprieve. I'm still not convinced, however, that the joke category should be maintained. David D. (Talk) 22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Freshwater plants has only two members, and is unlikely to be deleted anyway, more likely to be renamed. Just zis Guy you know? 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I hate to appear humorless, but I think that joke categories are a little out of hand. It's not that I'm against having humor on Misplaced Pages; I just don't think that categories are a very good way of doing it (and to be honest, joke categories usually aren't all that funny). --Cswrye 22:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, all joke categories should be deleted. --musicpvm 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a joke. Just zis Guy you know? 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Joke category that isn't even funny and was possibly created as a form of mockery or WP:POINT. KleenupKrew 02:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Call me humorless if you like, but we've been busy deleting joke user categories, and this should be no exception. Administrators need to be held to a higher standard, and shouldn't act as if they're above the rules. - EurekaLott 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of WP:ROUGE - the point is that we are following the rules. Just zis Guy you know? 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I created the category before WP:ROUGE even existed. Perhaps the category page should be cleaned up, but I see no reason to delete it altogether. Ral315 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Precedent has been set to delete these types of categories (see the recently deleted "Gangster Wikipedians" category). hoopydink 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or rename. 03:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion, not a vote. An explanation of why it should be kept according to policy would be helpful. hoopydink 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I dunno... it's kind of grown on me Bastique▼ _voir 03:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion, not a vote. An explanation of why it should be kept according to policy would be helpful. hoopydink 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Rebecca 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion, not a vote. An explanation of why it should be kept according to policy would be helpful. hoopydink 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nom, categories describing Wikipedians do not need to be encyclopedic. If you have problems telling that this category is non-encyclopedic, rename to Category:Misplaced Pages rouge admins or Category:Rouge Misplaced Pages admins or similar. Kusma (討論) 08:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not funny or helpful. Recury 13:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per JZG's various comments. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JzG. Mackensen (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• What is the rename being proposed here? I think I missed that... The notion behind this category is important.. it is the category of admins that won't shy away from doing the right thing when it is needful, because they are willing to not be blocked by process from doing it. That takes courage. You can say "hey, all admins should be willing to do that" but the truth of the matter is, not all are, and that is OK as long as some are. Just like admins willing to make hard blocks, or admins willing to be recalled in a peaceful collegial manner, it's not for everyone. It is not fair to expect all admins to be exactly the same, and it is useful to know who to turn to when you need to. By the way... Getting put in this category is not something done as a joke, in my view, it is something you earn by having shown that you are willing to Do the Right Thing. This category is VERY encyclopedic, as knowing who to go to in a pinch is important to the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. Keep and perhaps try to educate people on why this is important and why we need some (not necessarily all) admins willing to be this way. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rename is trying to accomplish either. Misplaced Pages Rouge Admins does not make the category any more encyclopedic with the Misplaced Pages prefix. I understand what you're saying Lar, but that category doesn't mention or even allude to the points you're making. If there was a renaming of the category and an explanation that this group of administrators would be happy and readily available to help users with controversial issues, then I'd support a category like this, as it would serve as a great reference for users needing help. Also, if being in the category is not a joke, then why is everything a joke on the category page? hoopydink 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per JzG. Rougely,  RasputinAXP  c 06:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or rename. We rouge admins will not be defeated! You suxx0r. —Nightstallion (?) 14:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  This is absolutely ridiculous... this CfD has turned into a three ring circus, and again, while I understand the humour of the category, it is still a serious discussion and we are building a serious encyclopedia. Lar has been the only one in favour of keeping the category to provide a reasoned explanation. If you wish to participate in the discussion, you're certainly welcome to and your reasoned input would be both helpful and appreciated, but mocking the CfD is not helpful in the least. hoopydink 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Hoopydink, you're the one who hasn't provided a reasoned explanation for your point of view. All you've done is call this category "unencyclopedic" (a weasel word) and compared it to "Gangster Wikipedians" (a polemic attack, since members of that category claimed to be felons).--M@rēino 02:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Delete. Stupid, useless, elitist "insider" humor. Non-encyclopedic.Courtney Akins 04:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

List Categories

Category:List of freshwater aquarium plant species

*Delete; merge members into Category:Aquatic plants. --M@rēino 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Rename per David D. --M@rēino 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• rename/move- it does not seem appropriate to merge into the aquatic plant section since this is a specific subset of aquatic plants. New name could be Category:Freshwater aquarium plants. This seems like it could become a popular category, even if it is not right now. David D. (Talk) 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Um, it is a category, but it's named List of... Clearly it should either be listified or renamed. I think rename is proabbly best, but I sure hope it has more than two potential members! Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A little hunting around reveals that there is a very comprehensive list here List of freshwater aquarium plant species. Since there are so many red link members it is possible that the list is currently preferable to the category. However, it is my impression that wikipedia's goal is to establish categories as the primary sorting protocol. Therefore, we should move to the new category name, populate the category with the blue links in List of freshwater aquarium plant species and finally keep the list too, as a record of the articles that need to be created (known due to the sea of red links). David D. (Talk) 22:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thinking more it is not clear to me that the List of freshwater aquarium plant species is specifically aquarium plants or just all fresh water aquatic plants? Maybe there is no difference? A possible hierarchy is Category aquatic plants (all water plants sea and fresh), possible sub categories could include Category:Freshwater aquarium plants, Category:Freshwater plants, Category:Saltwater aquarium plants and Category:Saltwater plants. Is there a wikiproject aquariums? It seems like they should be making these decisions. David D. (Talk) 22:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and move contents to Category:Aquatic plants. Subcategorizing that category can be discussed separately. I doubt botanists consider aquarium/non aquarium plants an important distinction. I suspect almost every aquatic plant could be grown in an aquarium. The subject of aquarium plants seems much better suited to a list or article. --Samuel Wantman 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Category:Aquatic plants per Samuel Wantman. It doesn't look like a subcategorization is necessary at the moment.

Category:List of Disney anthology series episodes to Category:Disney anthology television series

• Rename to remove "list" and match the article Disney anthology television series. --M@rēino 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Olborne 23:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:List Of Exile Creatures

• Delete; cat currently has only one member, and Exile (computer game) doesn't look notable enough to merit articles on its other characters.--M@rēino 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Even creatures in well-known video games usually get put on lists instead of getting their own articles. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:List of farms in Norway to Category:Farms in Norway

• Rename per nom below. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Osomec 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:List of farms in Oppland to Category:Farms in Oppland

• Rename to keep a clean distinction between lists and categories. --M@rēino 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:List of noted film director collaborations to Category:Lists of noted film director collaborations

• Rename to plural, as seems to be the convention for categories that collect list articles. --M@rēino 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Piano rockers

Category:Piano rockers to Category:Rock pianists

• Rename and merge. Arual 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Category:Rock pianists as it's named correctly. --musicpvm 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 05:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge this duplicate. Honbicot 08:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Print media in Belize

Merge into Category:Belizean media, see Category:Italian media or Category:American media for examples. -- ProveIt 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 05:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge The distinction between print and non-print media is no longer clear cut, so this is a misleading category. Chicheley 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Go ahead and merge; it is a distinct category of Belizean media (I should know, I created it). --Aaronhumes15:02, 11 August 2006

Category:Incubator tests

Rename to Category:Wikimedia Incubator languages. -- ProveIt 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references. --musicpvm 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Artists by record label

• Category:RCA Records musicians to Category:RCA Records artists
• Category:Arista Records musicians to Category:Arista Records artists
• Category:Hollywood Records musicians to Category:Hollywood Records artists
• Category:Dischord Records to Category:Dischord Records artists
• Category:Epitaph Records groups to Category:Epitaph Records artists
• Category:Apple Records recording artists to Category:Apple Records artists
• Category:K Records to Category:K Records artists
• Category:KLF Communications to Category:KLF Communications artists
• Category:Motown performers to Category:Motown artists
• Category:Yamaha Artists to Category:Yamaha artists
• Category:Swing Mob to Category:Swing Mob artists
• Rename all. Arual 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all, viva consistency! Recury 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all for consistency. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all per consistency. David Kernow 05:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Triangle, North Carolina

• Category:The Triangle, North Carolina to Category:Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area
• Category:People from the Triangle, North Carolina to Category:People from Raleigh-Durham

Rename, "The Triangle" is a denonym, and as I have no problem with calling the metro that in the article, the category should be renamed to its formal name. Arual 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The Triangle is a nickname, not a demonym, and the category name should align with its main article. If there's consensus to change the article name, then we should rename the category. - EurekaLott 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. Arual 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What's Good For You

• Category:What's Good For You --> Category:What's Good For You?
• Rename, TV Show, proper name includes question mark.Allied45 11:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What's Good For You? isn't a category, so it shouldn't be listed here. However, I've renamed it. -- ProveIt 14:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Former buildings and structures

• Category:Former buildings and structures of Canada --> Category:Former buildings and structures in Canada
• Category:Former buildings and structures of Egypt --> Category:Former buildings and structures in Egypt
• Category:Former buildings and structures of France --> Category:Former buildings and structures in France
• Category:Former buildings and structures of Germany --> Category:Former buildings and structures in Germany
• Category:Former buildings and structures of Israel --> Category:Former buildings and structures in Israel
• Category:Former buildings and structures of Japan --> Category:Former buildings and structures in Japan
• Category:Former buildings and structures of Poland --> Category:Former buildings and structures in Poland
• Category:Former buildings and structures of the United Kingdom --> Category:Former buildings and structures in the United Kingdom
• Category:Former buildings and structures of England --> Category:Former buildings and structures in England
• Category:Former buildings and structures of London --> Category:Former buildings and structures in London
• Category:Former theatres of London --> Category:Former theatres in London
• Category:Former buildings and structures of the United States --> Category:Former buildings and structures in the United States
• Category:Former buildings and structures of New York City --> Category:Former buildings and structures in New York City
• Rename all. When is "Buildings and structures in XY" a common naming convention. Shouldn't it be renamed also to in form ? - Darwinek 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all Existing buildings are "in" a place, but former buildings aren't anywhere any more. Osomec 13:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (oppose rename) all per Osomec and inasmuch as any alternative (e.g., Category:Buildings and structures to have been located in Canada or Category:Former buildings and structures to have been located in Canada) will necessarily be unwieldy. Joe 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all I don't think the proposed names more appropriate. Hawkestone 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Notable aircraft to Category:Aircraft with historical significance

• Rename, Notable is vague, historical significance is more accurate. Vegaswikian 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed name is still vague. category:Individual aircraft might work. Osomec 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • category:Individual aircraft seems to be more vague since it allows any aircraft that has an article and is about a single aircraft. But then if an aircraft meets that criteria maybe it belongs in a cat like that. However it would exclude aircraft when the type is historically significant. Vegaswikian 07:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• In the end the problem is that the judgment is subjective. This one may be better listified with an explanation of historical significance for each entry. Just zis Guy you know? 07:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Any opinion on which of the three names would be 'better'? Vegaswikian 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that naming this category is not straightforward! Not all its members refer to specific or individual aircraft, so, given the current suggestions, I think I'd support Category:Aircraft of historical significance, but per the comments above, I'm not sold on it. Maybe something more effective might occur to me if/when I read a few more of the articles within. Regards, David Kernow 04:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:List of Canadian companies

Merge into Category:Companies of Canada, member of Category:Companies by country. -- ProveIt 04:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. --musicpvm 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Twittenham 20:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Companies listed on the National Stock Exchange

Rename to Category:Companies listed on the National Stock Exchange of India, since it is for the National Stock Exchange of India, and not the National Stock Exchange of Chicago. -- ProveIt 00:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Osomec 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom.--M@rēino 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)