Category talk:en:Skeleton
Latest comment: 8 years ago by -sche in topic RFM discussion: August 2013–February 2016
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I think it should be moved to Category:en:Bones. --ElisaVan (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support, but let's call it "List of bones". There are a lot of categories like this that could benefit from less ambiguous names. DTLHS (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- No preference; it's not exactly ambiguous what either skeleton or bones refers to. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be 'List of bones' because other categories (that I can think of) don't include "List" in their names, except the top level "List of topics". Why rename from Skeleton to Bones? What's the reason? - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not moved. - -sche (discuss) 00:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I support the move, though not everything related to the skeleton is a bone. So it's probably more sensible to create "bones" alongside "skeleton". The former would be a "set" category, the latter a "topic" category. —CodeCat 00:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sceptical that many people will realize or maintain that distinction in practice. OTOH, it does seem to fit what we already do (with Category:en:Cities containing only a list of cities, and not as far as I can tell any words related to cities, like [[city]]). - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I support the move, though not everything related to the skeleton is a bone. So it's probably more sensible to create "bones" alongside "skeleton". The former would be a "set" category, the latter a "topic" category. —CodeCat 00:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)