Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 12

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Racism in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Racism exists in all countries, this category is problematic because it is being used to single out individuals and label them as racists; which isn't appropriate even if they have been associated with racist views. Since it is not really viable to police what can and cannot appear in a category, and the libelous application of the category, it should be deleted. Peta 23:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the category has previously been discussed on the Aust. Wikipedians [mills27_notice_board/Archive_25#Category:Racism_in_Australia|noticeboard]. A category on politics and race in Australia might work since it is more neutral in phrasing. --Peta 23:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no clear criteria for inclusion of articles, probably unmanageable--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Racism on Wikipedia. If "Racism" cat can stand, this one can, too. - Darwinek 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sub cats of Category:Racism appear to be more tightly scoped. This is the only sub cat which is Racism in a country without qulification. Even the US sub cat is Category:History of racism in the United States - much more clear cut by its name.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Racism is a subjective thing and can not be easily asserted or verified; I repeat the same sentiment that I expressed last time: that it is completely unmanageable. Re the 'racism' category—just because the Americans want to engage in shit-throwing the pejorative label around doesn't mean we have to stoop as low. michael ^talk 23:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, yet another article topic masquerading as a category classification. There is simply no way to determine what does and does not belong in this. Postdlf 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Depopulate and rename to Category:History of racism in Australia, to parallel the existing category for the United States mentioned above. Articles such as Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, White Australia policy, Freedom Ride (Australia) and so on are the kinds of articles that would belong in such a category, with a focus on history. --bainer (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Changing the name of the category does not stop the overriding problem, that it is inherently subjective and perceptions of 'racism' differ hugely, whether on a personal or historical subject basis. I fear that particular individuals will use this category, in whatever form, to discredit historical personalities and events ('racism', seen through modern eyes, was almost completely universal until the 1960s-70s; the sheer scope of its potential usage is huge). The risk of this category being abused is too great. michael ^talk 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I invite any suggestions for a better name, but I think there's a legitimate case for a category here. Did you consider whether a category including articles along the lines of the ones I mentioned would be appropriate? The category would need to be monitored closely, but that's no different to any other difficult-to-maintain category, or article for that matter. --bainer (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Category:Race relations in Australia" as suggested below by Ulysses zagreb and then me. --lquilter 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, woefully inspecific category. It seems to be added to any article involving indigenous Australian people, seemingly without qualification. Lankiveil 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• That's a reason to challenge it on individual articles and maybe add a clarifying / defining statement on the category page itself, or rename; but by itself doesn't really mean the category is unworkable. --lquilter 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant keep. Category is being grossly misused, but deleting it would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Hesperian 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep but could settle for rename to Category:History of racism in Australia, as already suggested. The category is definitely not worthless. That would imply that either there is no racism in Australia worth mentioning, or that few people would be interested in reading entries falling under that category. Several have suggested that the category is "too subjective" and therefore "probably unmanageable". If that were a criteria for non-inclusion, there would be many other entries and categories that would have to be struck out. Some events in Australia are clearly the result of racism or racial tension - riots against Chinese on the goldfields, Cronulla riots in Sydney (both ways), as well as black deaths in custody and the stolen generation. If in any doubt, ask the victims involved whether their treatment had anything to do with their skin colour. Racism is not a figment of political correctness; racial discrimination even has its own commission. Have a tight definition for the category and police it like other difficult categories. But to question its necessity seems absurd.Sholto.mac 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the very valid concern that living individuals (WP:BLP) are being put in this category.--Peta 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Individual people who should not be here should be removed or discussed on their individual articles. --lquilter 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've expressly stated on your user page a mission to do a whole bunch of work on 'Racism in Australia' with a particular focus. I do not recall Wikipedia being a place for someone to take up their own political agenda online. michael ^talk 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, racism in Australia is an interesting topic and one I believe to be underreported. I have spent a bit of time over the last 12 months visiting Aboriginal communities talking about their perception of events such as the Palm Island riots, and there seems to be no doubt in their minds as to racism in those events or more generally existing in Australia. Is it more egregious to include their perspective or to omit it? There's no hidden political agenda here. I'd rather find a workable definition for the category and keep this a rational, unemotional debate.Sholto.mac 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category. It is possible we could write an interesting article on Racism in Australia or History of racism in Australia though. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How about Race relations in Australia as a suggestion Ulysses Zagreb 09:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the category is not 'australian racists' but racism in australia, as noted above it includes the r d a & the freedom ride for cyring out loud. where does the idea come from that this category is an accusation of racism? (have a look at Category:Antisemitism which icludes, for instance, the Anti-Defamation League this is the same type of category.) nomination is based on a misunderstanding of the category.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV magnet. >Radiant< 14:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV magnet; inherently biased; attack category with possible libel problems. Osomec 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I initially thought this was better for an article topic (and still think it needs an article topic, because racism in Australia has its own particular contours that are different than, say, in the US or in France). So initially I thought "delete without prejudice"; if there are a number of articles that delineate various aspects of racism in Australia, then the category could be recreated to gather together the articles on this topic. Then I actually looked at the category, and lo, that is how it is being used right now. A few resopnses to points raised above:

• It is not an "attack category" to have a general category name like "racism"; labeling a person a "racist" is different than labeling an issue about racism. However, for people who are concerned about POV issues, I suggest "Category:Race relations in Australia". It works better than "History of racism in Australia" for two reasons: (1) "history of..." implies past, while this is not necessarily solely a historical topic; and (2) "Race relations" avoids any anxious responses from people worried about the label "racism". (I see Ulysses zagreb proposed it before me. Good idea!)
• Writing articles about a political topic is not the same thing as taking up a political agenda, and the suggestions from editors here that the person who is interested in the topic is basically pushing a POV are improperly conflating the two.
• To the extent there are articles in the current category that don't belong, they should be removed; that is not, by itself, a reason to delete the category. (It's only a reason to delete the category if the non-belonging articles overwhelm the category, and there is no way to really practically separate or police them.)

• If a category is likely to contain libellous and biased items much of the time, that is certainly a reason to delete it. Craig.Scott 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We desperately need an article on Racism in Australia (or Race relations in Australia) that lays out the fundamental points of tension, present and historical; and the major cultural and legal approaches to race relations, present and historical.

--lquilter 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some sort of keep. It is good to have a category for articles about racism issues, although individuals and apparently racist organisations probably shouldn't be included. A name change might make this clearer. JPD (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inherently contrary to the neutral viewpoint. Racism is subjective.--cj | talk 05:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV magnet, per Radiant. Metamagician3000 22:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misuse is inevitable. Craig.Scott 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Peta. Racism exists in almost all countries. This one is redundant. Causesobad → (Talk) 16:05, 21 February 2007 (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 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: moved to UCFD.--Mike Selinker 11:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Misogynist Wikipedians. Picaroon 01:09, 13 February 2007 (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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinct animals of Italy to Category:Extinct animals of Europe

• Merge - The extinct animals of Italy are also found in other countries. The political boundaries mean little in terms of the distributions of extinct animals. Moreover, classifying extinct animals by country in Europe is infeasible, as some animals may be found in multiple countries. The resulting category list would be difficult to read. For these reasons, I suggest merging Category:Extinct animals of Italy into Category:Extinct animals of Europe. Dr. Submillimeter 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. In addition to the usual problems with categorizing animals by every country in which they are found, it makes even less sense with animals who became extinct before the countries even existed. Postdlf 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Osomec 15:29, 13 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lithuanian horse breeds to Category:Horse breeds

• Merge - Horse breeds are currently not sorted according to country. This subdivision is not needed at this time. Dr. Submillimeter 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Postdlf 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Lesnail 03:36, 17 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big Five Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category for five animals simply seems unnecessary. The list in Big Five game is sufficient. Dr. Submillimeter 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by it's very nature this cat will only ever contain 5 items (or 6 if you count the article which has far more information) --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Geographically limited and therefore misleading. Osomec 15:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteBesides being unnecessary, its not very clear. My first thought was that this was a category for the BCS Championship Game and the four BCS Bowls. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I actually thought it was some type of a lottery game. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:13, 15 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birds of Lithuania to Category:Birds of Europe

• Merge - The birds of Lithuania are found elsewhere within Europe. Lithuania's political boundaries mean little in terms of the distributions of birds. Moreover, classifying birds by country in Europe is infeasible, as some birds may be found in multiple countries. The resulting category list would be difficult to read. For these reasons, I suggest merging Category:Birds of Lithuania to Category:Birds of Europe. Dr. Submillimeter 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. List articles are best suited to dividing this information by country. Postdlf 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Birds are far ranging, political boundaries mean nothing to them. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:14, 15 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reptiles of Estonia to Category:Reptiles of Europe

Category:Reptiles of Italy to Category:Reptiles of Europe

Category:Reptiles of Lithuania to Category:Reptiles of Europe

• Merge - - Most of the reptiles of Italy, Estonia, and Lithuania are found in many other European countries as well. These countries are not ecoregions; the reptiles in these countries are generally not restricted to the countries' political boundaries. Moreover, categorizing European animals by country is infeasible, as some animals may be found in multiple countries. Including a category for each country in which every animal is found would lead to category clutter. Given that the political boundaries have little to do with the distribution of the animals and that the categorization would not work well, I recommend merging to Category:Reptiles of Europe. Dr. Submillimeter 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. List articles are best suited to dividing this information by country. Postdlf 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and other XXX of Lithuania cats. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:15, 15 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mammals of Lithuania to Category:Mammals of Europe

Category:Mammals of Estonia to Category:Mammals of Europe

• Merge - Most of the mammals of Estonia and Lithuania are found in many other European countries as well. These two Baltic republics do not constitute an ecoregion; the mammals in these two countries are generally not restricted to the countries' political boundaries. Moreover, categorizing European animals by country is infeasible, as some animals may be found in multiple countries. Including a category for each country in which every animal is found would lead to category clutter. Given that the political boundaries have little to do with the distribution of the animals and that the categorization would not work well, I recommend merging to Category:Mammals of Europe. Dr. Submillimeter 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; I think he covered every good reason I can think of. Postdlf 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and other XXX of Lithuania cats. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:15, 15 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Rename, although not exactly to any of the suggested names. This whole discussion is quite confusing, with all the strikeouts and all, and is really a few french fries short of a quorum. I don't really see a consensus, and perhaps it should be relisted, but I don't like to relist if it can be avoided, and I'm not sure what a relist would accomplish.

You cannot rename Category:German army groups to Category:Army groups of Germany, since the army groups are not (in essence) "of Germany", they are "of the German Army". Yes, they are also "of Germany" but that is not their essential characteristic. If it was, and "Germany" is meant geographically, an argument could be made that United States Army units based in Germany should be categorized as "of Germany". If we are speaking of the German state or the German nation, then`you have a better argument for "of Germany". But my reading of the matter is that the units don't really belong to the state directly. They belong to the army, which is admittedly an arm of the state (or of the nation, if you prefer), but is such a distinct arm of the state (and often enough in a state of tension with it), and really more than just an arm of the state (many armies have existed without states) that it is improper to assign the military units directly to the state. That is my opinion. I cannot prove that this is true, but then the converse cannot be proved, either.

Now, we do have the other categories for the military units of Germany being listed as "of Germany". This leads to the distinctly unpleasing Category:Divisions of Germany, which certainly sounds like it would contain the the provinces of Germany. That category should be either Category:Divisions of the German Army (a bit awkward, but in line with normal taxonomy) or Category:German Army divisions (more pleasing, but nonstandard). But that is not at issue here. Normally I would consider the standard provided by other categories, but a standard that has gone so far astray that it leads to Category:Divisions of Germany referring to military units is may be safely superseded, in my opinion. The fact that the other categories are wrong is interesting but not germane here.

Kirill Lokshin's comment about the dichotomy being "[British] [army groups] vs. [British Army] [groups]" is off mark. The actual entities in question are [British Army] [army groups].

So the current name Category:German army groups is also wrong. It should be Category:German Army army groups. This does not scan too well, so Category:Army groups of the German Army is the preferred alternative; it too does not scan all that great, but it's better, and has the distinct advantage of being closer to, if not actually in line with, the classification system used for smaller military units.

As to the particular situation of the UK, we still have the choice between Category:Army groups of the Army of the United Kingdom and Category:Army groups of the British Army, assuming we don't want to go with Category:Army groups the United Kingdom, which we don't. The former scans poorly to the point of near-absurdity, so we are left with "British Army". Granted, that leaves out the Irish, but on the other hand, "British Army" is an accepted and widely used substitute for the Army of the United Kingdom. Everyone knows what it means, and isn't that the point, to convey information in the must succinct and easily understood manner. Herostratus 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German army groups to Category:Army groups of Germany Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree See Category:American army groups below. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below. Kirill Lokshin 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British army groups to Category:Army groups of the United Kingdom Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree See Category:American army groups below. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below. Kirill Lokshin 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename to Category:British Army groups as "British Army" is a proper noun. Osomec 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, the name actually refers to [British] [army groups], not [British Army] [groups]. (The ambiguity, incidentally, is one reason why this naming is problematic.) Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Definite support of changing to Army groups of the ...; no opinion as to whether that should be continued ... British Army or ... United Kingdom Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American army groups to Category:Army groups of the United States Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree There does not appear to be an established naming convention as to whether military units should use Fooian unit types or Unit types of Foo. Worse in this case, the other types of units below the level of army group in Category:Military units and formations of the United States Army use a convention that would call for renaming this one to Category:Army groups of the United States Army. Recommend that this one and the ones for the British and German army groups be sent to the main CFD page instead so as to hash out what convention, if any, to use here. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, there is an established naming convention (which was done through a mass CFD nomination, no less), maintained by WP:MILHIST; see WP:NCCAT. Kirill Lokshin 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did look at WP:NCCAT, but on taking a second look at it, I see that it's listed under the less than intuitive heading State-based topics and to me State means something like South Carolina not like United States which explains why I didn't look there. Anyway, withdraw my objections to the other three, but my second objection to this one still stands due to the fact that it should be Category:Army groups of the United States Army just as there is a Category:Corps of the United States Army and no Category:Corps of the United States. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, fair enough; since the USMC didn't field any army groups, the intermediate category isn't needed; this can go directly to Category:Army groups of the United States Army. I'll go ahead and list it on CFD proper. Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German World War II sea units to Category:Navy units and formations of Germany in World War II Kirill Lokshin 04:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree with a speedy. No evidence of an established convention. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. Kirill Lokshin 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support depending on whether there are other categories that refer to the Kriegsmarine by name or not. If so, Navy units and formations of the Kriegsmarine might be better. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any; but, if we do go that way, it should probably be simply "Military units and formations of the Kriegsmarine", as there aren't any non-naval Kriegsmarine units. Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 14 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge back into Category:Museums in New York City. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Museum Mile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete/merge, ambiguous category that obscures relationships and hinders navigation. There are at least two "Museum Miles" in the world: one in London, and one in New York City, which this category was created for. The meaning of this is rather literal: it's (roughly) a mile of museums all clustered together. The articles on the Museum Miles themselves are of course totally fine, and each museum's article mentions its location. However, as a category it adds nothing to that, but merely groups articles based on the subject's physical proximity to one another, and tends to supplant categories such as Category:Museums in New York City and even Category:Art museums and galleries in the United States.[1] No one searching for a particular museum article in categories (for example, if they can't spell "Neue Galerie") should have to know that it's part of a "Museum Mile" subcategory in order to find it. In the alternative, this should be renamed to avoid ambiguity. Postdlf 20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Museums in New York City - Grouping articles by tourist routes is unwise in the long term as many tourist routes may be conceived of that cross the location of specific locations. However, grouping articles by city is smart. The articles in Category:Museum Mile were moved out of Category:Museums in New York City, which would be the first place to look for them. The articles should be moved back to Category:Museums in New York City. Dr. Submillimeter 21:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "Museum mile" is just a slogan/colloquialism/marketing slang, and not suitable for encyclopedic classification. Osomec 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Museum Mile, New York" to avoid confusion (especially with the Museum Mile in London). "Museums in Manhattan" could be a useful alternative category. — Jonathan Bowen 15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Museums in New York. "Museum Mile" is tourist guide language, not encyclopedic language. Craig.Scott 23:35, 19 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NASCAR on NBC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. The category is basically a dumping ground for announcers, and it's not likely this category will be filled with useful articles. The announcers should be put into a NASCAR announcers cat, and the few other articles should be put into a general NASCAR article of some sort. I think many of these "sports on a certain channel" categories need to be discussed and merged with other cats. In my opinion, they are just overcategorization. RobJ1981 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Given that this is being used to sort announcers and not articles related to the broadcast itself, it should be deleted. Note that some related categories (e.g. Category:The NFL on NBC) are used for articles on the broadcast program and for the announcers, and for specific games. (In Category:The NFL on NBC, for example, articles directly related to the broadcast include The NFL on NBC and List of NFL on NBC announcers; articles on broadcasters include Jack Buck and Greg Gumbel; and articles on the games include multiple playoff and Super Bowl pages, such as Super Bowl XX.) These categories clearly cannot be used to list the shows that every sportscaster has worked on, as the category clutter is overwhelming; see Jack Buck, for example. Categorizing specific games (such as Super Bowl XX) is questionable. Categorizing information directly related to the broadcast, however, is useful. A lengthy discussion is needed on this class of categories and whether they should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dr. Sub. Coemgenus 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are many of these categories. They are all overcategorisation, and when applied to events staged outside the U.S. they are unacceptably U.S. centric. The channel a sports event is broadcast on is not a defining characteristic of the events itself. Osomec 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:17, 15 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Category:American army groups already renamed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American army groups to Category:Army groups of the United States Army

Nominator's Rationale: Rename per the naming conventions for military unit categories. An earlier proposal to change this to Category:Army groups of the United States was pointed out to be redundant, since no other U.S. service branch has actually fielded an army group. Kirill Lokshin 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "Groups of the United States Army"? Just a question, not a preference. Postdlf 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the formations are called "army groups" (e.g. "12th Army Group"), not "groups"; it's an actual technical term. :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:27, 13 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Civil decorations of Australia to Category:Civil awards and decorations of Australia
• Rename Category:Awards and decorations of the Australian armed forces to Category:Military awards and decorations of Australia

Per new categorisation guidelines, as arrived at by the Orders, decorations, and medals WikiProject, I propose that these two sub-categories of Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia are renamed as above.

Xdamr^talk 16:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 13:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Craig.Scott 23:36, 19 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was duplicate nomination, already nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Birds of North America, simple names are preferred. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Osomec 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Lesnail 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 14:11, 18 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Birds of Africa, birds are too wide ranging for country cats. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Most animals are actually too wide ranging to be so specifically categorized; by continent is as specific as these should get. Imagine how many categories rat would have. Postdlf 21:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Classification by political boundaries is infeasible, especially for animals with broad ranges. See boar, leopard, great egret, golden jackal, or Eurasian lynx for examples. Dr. Submillimeter 22:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it is useful though, to categorise or list animals endemic to a restricted region. Carcharoth 14:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for exactly the reason Carcharoth suggested. If we can have Category:Flora of New Jersey, we can have Category:Birds of Sierra Leone. Once all birds species are created, we will almost certainly have such a category anyway.Circeus 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was not suggesting keep... What I was trying to say is that some animals have restricted ranges (though here you get into the tricky species and subspecies arguments) and some are wide-ranging. In general, this sort of thing should be avoided, as people will tend to try and stuff everything in the category, when in fact we need to be selective. These 'geographical categories' need to be set up using proper biogeography terminology (eg. Ecozone#Ecozones and, Category:Nearctic, Category:Palearctic, Category:Afrotropic, Category:Indomalaya, Category:Australasia, Category:Neotropic, Category:Oceania, Category:Antarctica and the map at right), and also based on the "world's 800+ terrestrial ecoregions". Then, possibly, those categories can be put in the Fauna/Flora of categories. More creative thinking is needed here, rather than a straight keep/delete. Carcharoth 15:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These eight ecozones are more useful than the geopolitical boundaries, and the ecozone page itself has an external link to the WWF showing that the regions are generally recognized by external sources (although more references and an explicit reference list are needed). I suggest working with this. Perhaps Category:Birds of Africa can be shifted to Category:Birds of the Afrotropic Ecozone? (To sort animals found only within specific ecoregions, I suggest using the word "endemic" in categories' titles.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a better approach is to stick rigidly to the sources. If you have a book called "Birds of Sierra Leone", then you can try and build a category or list from that. If you have a book called "Fauna of the high Neartic", then similar considerations apply. Just use the right terminology. "Birds of the World" is, I think, a book, as is "Mammals of the world". Lists of Wikipedia articles for animals listed in the major biology guides might be useful, or maybe not. Different sources will divide animals up geographically in different ways. Should Wikipedia pick one system and stick to it, or attempt to document them all? Carcharoth 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If everyone does not use a uniform categorization system on Wikipedia, then the system is not going to work. At the moment, the category tree under Category:Birds of Africa is a mess; birds may be organized in several different ways, including region (e.g. Category:Birds of East Africa) and country. The same was true for Category:Fauna of the United States (which should be merged into Category:Fauna of North America). Some things were even categorized differently among the states; reptiles were listed by themselves in Connecticut and were listed with amphibians in another state. Moreover, categorizing animals by small geographical boundaries is simply impractical; look at boar, for example (which is also in redundant categories). I would recommend having lists for each country's fauna but having categories organize fauna by ecozone or continental divisions. Fauna for specific ecoregions can be placed in categories with names such as "Endemic fauna of X ecoregion". The organization by country, however, is not feasible. Dr. Submillimeter 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with the exclusive use of lists to subdivide species by country. Beyond that, I prefer continental groupings for the categories—it's how most people are accustomed to thinking, and it's at least how mainstream books present the info as well (one sees plenty of Birds of North America books,[2] and no Birds of the Nearctic Ecoregion[3]). The ecoregion terms are unfamiliar and nonintuitive. I wouldn't be opposed to categorizing both continents and ecoregions, however; at least doing that won't be subject to the same problems as the country categories. Postdlf 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you believe I just found Category:Western Palearctic restricted-range endemic bird species and Endemic birds of the Western Palearctic? Slightly off-putting name, but much more accurate. Plus Template:Endemism in birds. It is reassuring to know that some people try and follow the sources when categorising, rather than categorising by their ideas of 'natural' groupings by countries. Carcharoth 01:12, 21 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Christian pastors into Category:Christian ministers and Category:German pastors into Category:German Christian ministers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:German pastors into Category:Christian pastors, or Keep, see discussion of December 7th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whereas the December 7 discussion was about pastors from a U.S. State (Texas) and therefore thought to be overcatorization, this is for a nationality and an occupation, with many, many similar cats connecting these throughout wikipedia. Thanks. Pastorwayne 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be an ok combination Ulysses Zagreb 09:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:Christian ministers and Category:German Christian ministers "Pastor" is just a job title that is used by certain denominations in certain contexts, and adds little to the system other than inconsistency and confusion. Osomec 15:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We have Category:Christian ministers, Category:Christian religious leaders, Category:Christian clergy, Category:Christian pastors and maybe others, as well as all the specialist categories for ranks such as bishop and for particular denominations. The categorisation of articles is a hopelessly confused and inconsistent mess, impeding navigation, which is what categories are for. Is it possible to agree on one term that can be used for all Christian priests/clergy/ministers, and made the overall parent category, with a set of national subcategories all in the same form? Would Category:Christian ministers be the best option, ie one acceptable to all denominations? Osomec 15:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The stub sorting project has chosen to use (somewhat arbitrarily of course) clergy as the generic, but if a consensus is developed for some other term, I don't foresee any problems with changing it once informed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We categorize primarily by occupation and by nationality. Pastor is a primary occupation, more so that "minister" or "leader," etc. Those are more generic. Pastor is definitive. Bishop is similarly definitive. Clergy is NOT an occupation, but a status, like Priest. A priest can do any of a number of occupations. Clergy can too. Clergy and Priest imply ordination, which is status or achievement, not occupation. Pastor does not necessitate ordination, though often these coincide. Therefore, Category:Christian clergy should NOT be a subcat of occupation. But Pastor cats SHOULD be under occupation. "Priest" cats and "clergy" cats are still good cats, just not as occupations. They make good subcats of Category:Christian ministers and Category:Christian religious leaders, which again are not exclusively occupations, either. Pastorwayne 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Christian pastors into Category:Christian ministers and Category:German pastors into Category:German ministers - Osomec's assessment is very sensible. The difference between "minister" and "pastor" has not been clearly explained, and spreading the articles among various branches of the category tree as is happening here is not helpful. Dr. Submillimeter 19:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modification of vote: Merge Category:German pastors into Category:German Christian ministers - This title should be clearer than my first suggestion. Dr. Submillimeter 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Osomec & Dr. S' formulation - and is there a project somewhere looking at a sensible set of occupational categories that isn't obsessively focused on maintaining industry/church-specific terminology? because there needs to be. --lquilter 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Christian pastors into Category:Christian ministers and Category:German pastors into Category:German ministers per Dr S. The distinction between "minister" and "pastor" is not clear enough to justify separate categorisation; the issue of ordination is inappropriate to use a criterion for categorisation, because the notion of "ordination" has varying degrees of importance across the denomination. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • change recommendation: merge Category:German pastors into Category:German Christian ministers for clarity, per Olborne. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Christian pastors into Category:Christian ministers (and keep as a redirect) and merge Category:German pastors into Category:German Christian ministers. The word "Christian" is essential as most non-religious people - an overall majority in the developed world I should think - will think of government ministers first when "ministers" are mentioned. The article pastor makes it clear that Pastorwayne's assessment of the clarity of the term "pastor" is simply wrong. Olborne 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename/redirect to Category:Christian ministers and Category:German Christian ministers per Olborne unless anyone has a better idea than "Christian minister" for an overall term. AshbyJnr 13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note despite this and other CFDs deprecating the use of the term "pastors" in category names, Pastorwayne is back at work creating lots of new sub-categories of Category:Christian pastors (see Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Christian_pastors for a list of the 12 created today). :(
  One of them, Category:Indian pastors is a recreation of a deleted categ which was orginally created by PW; I haven't checked the others, but suggest that we need a group CFD for Category:Christian pastors and all its sub-categories ... and also that it is time to return to WP:ANI to seek a ban on category creation for Pastorwayne (a previous request at the start of January was withdrawn when things improved for a while). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 15#Sub-categories_of_Category:Christian_pastors. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/rename/redirect to Category:Christian ministers and Category:German Christian ministers per Olborne et al. roundhouse 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename/redirect all the pastor categories. Haddiscoe 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find the discussions interesting. Wikipedia sometimes seems "fact by concensus whether or not it IS fact," and that concensus by just a very few people, some of whom may have no appreciation for the particular topic. (For this reason, I limit my participation only to those areas I know, but that is just me.) In this example, the FACT is "Pastor" IS an occupation (not just a "job title"), "Clergy" is NOT an occupation (but a title) and "Minister" is not as clear of an occupation (a jumble of all sorts of occupations). It does not matter what WE say. That does not change the FACTS. Interesting. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You need to present referenced information to prove your viewpoint. My Lexicon Webster Dictionary (1985, Delair Publishing) says a pastor is "a minister of the gospel having charge of of a church or congregation". I conclude that a minister is the same as a pastor. Dr. Submillimeter 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Yes, a Pastor IS one kind of minister (thus Pastors as a subcat of Ministers is entirely appropriate). But a minister is NOT always (or just) a Pastor. A Minister can be and do any number of occupations. "Pastoring" is only one of these occupations. I don't know how to make it any clearer. It is common sense. It needs no authoritative reference more than you have already given it. Pastorwayne 18:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment My copy of the Shorter OED (1973 edition) defines pastor as having various agricultural occupations and "2. A shepherd of souls; spec. the minister in charge of a church or congregation, with particular ref. to the spiritual care of his 'flock'. 3. One who protects or guides a number of people". The Shorter OED's lengthy definition of "Minister" includes "4b. A person officially charged with spiritual functions in the Christian Church."
        So I conclude slightly diferently from Dr S: that a pastor is a particular form of minister, in other words that a not all pastors are ministers, but not all ministers are pastors ... and PW and I seem to agree so far. Alhamdulillah!.
        The point which PW has not addressed is what purpose is served by splitting out from "christian ministers" those ministers with a pastoral function. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of ministers include some pastoral duties in their role, whether or not they hold that title. The main issue is that some ministers, such as PW, have the job title of "pastor"; but in my own experience there is usually little or no difference in the actual functions peformed by the Presbyterians ministers and Baptist Pastors who I know. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response The purpose is self evident. i.e., why do we split Bishops and Archbishops? Why do we split various types of teachers, academics, etc.? They are basically the same occupation. Ministers is inclusive of many, many occupations, Pastors being one of them (Bishops/Archbishops, in fact, could be another). If Presbyterians do NOT call their pastors pastors, then I suppose that could be a problem. Though my guess is, from an occupational standpoint (not just job title), pastor would still be correct -- if that is the occupation such a minister occupies. Afterall, wikpedia seeks to describe what is, not just report various nomenclature. Pastor IS a primary occupation of many Christian ministers. One of many such occupations. In my own case, though I dislike using any one unimportant person (such as I) to prove anything, I do not simply have the job title "Pastor." It IS my occupation. Indeed, my title is more properly "ordained elder," or "member in full connection" of the East Ohio Annual Conference of the U.M. Church, or you might even call me "reverend" -- believe it or not, some people do! There are ca. 600 of us. Most of us are "clergy," but THAT is NOT our "occupations," either. Most of us occupy the occupation of Pastor. Some occupy other occupations: teacher, professor, district superintendent, Bishop, Director of the Conference Council of Ministries, etc. But I don't want to bore you with all this. Hope this helps. Pastorwayne 12:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • PW, you are half-right on one point: that pastoring is the primary function of many christian ministers. However, I think you are missing the other points:
            1. It is the primary function of the overwhelming majority of ordained christian ministers: the exceptions are a small minority.
            2. In the protestant denominations, even fewer christian ministers never have a pastroral role at any stage in their careers. (Thinking through the several hundred ministers I have known in various contexts, only one never had a pastoral role).
            3. The word "pastor" is unhelpful, because it is both a generic description of a function performed by some ministers, and also a job title used in some denominations, but not others. In the UK and Ireland, it is not used by the Anglicans, Methodists or the Presybterians or the United Refomed Church, which are the largest such denominations. Using "pastor" as a category name will lead to a split category, because a lot of people editors will reject it as an appropriate label for a particular deomination.
            4. If (and it's a big IF), enough editors understood all the subtleties to use the category appropriately (which I realy doubt), what would we gain by trying to subdivide christian ministers in his way? We already divide ministers by denomination where appropriate, which is for most purposes a much more useful division.
          • We split bishops from archbishops because the two terms are clearly and consistently used and understood as describing two jobs with where a) the classification is clear and unambiguous across different denominations; and b) there is a clear distinction in roles. Neither of those points applies to the word "pastor".
          • As with other categories, we can create sub-categories for the exceptions, such as bishops, and categorise teachers where appropriate. But sub-dividing by a fuzzy term such as pastor will merely cause an arbitrary split in the category, with some ministes beng labbeled pastors, and others who perform an identical role not getting the label because it is unfamiliar. That's simply bad categorisation: category names should, where possible be self-evident. --BrownHairedGirl 16:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A Bishop is, per se, notable (although there seem to be thousands of them); an Archbishop is more notable; of course there should be categories for both. A pastor is not notable per se, neither is a vicar or a rector, or a minister etc etc so we do not see the need to subdivide similar non-notable jobs/occupations/positions. We agree that Pastor Wayne is an unimportant person, which is why Wayne Scott, Wayne W. Scott and Wayne William Scott have been deleted (see eg this afd) and why references to Wayne W Scott in List of people from Ohio, in Cambridge, Ohio and in Edwin Charles Boulton are likely to be removed. roundhouse 16:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/rename How Pastor Wayne can think that using such confusing category names is helpful is beyond me. Craig.Scott 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Most other "pastor" categories were renamed as "minister" categories. These categories should also be renamed (or merged) for consistency. Dr. Submillimeter 09:03, 25 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete without prejudice (4 days empty is WP:CSD C1). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty, or Rename to Category:Canadian Freemasons in Ontario -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as empty, or as overcategorization. We really don't need subnational subdivisions of this sort. Postdlf 21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. Sure, it's empty, but it's only 4 days old. OTOH, if the even the creator didn't think it was useful enough to make a start on populating it, I don't see any resaon to believe that it will serve a useful purpose. However, a bit of quick research took me to Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario, which I have just added to the category page. Since Ontarian freemasonry appears to be organised separately from other states, it does seem to me to be logical to classify these masons in ways which reflect their own structures. However, if the category is still underpopulated in a few months, I would support deleting it for being under-used. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
• Delete. Freemasonry in Ontario is not any different from in other provinces. Each province (and US State) has its own Grand Lodge in the same way. There is no reason for a "Canadian Freemasons" category and an "Ontarian Freemasons" category. Also, the article for the Grand Lodge does not belong in a category of Freemasons. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:55, 16 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. There is already a list at Hubbard Medal; I see no evidence of anyone trying to delete it. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hubbard Medal recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is another award that goes to people who win many awards anyway (such as Neil Armstrong and Charles Lindbergh). The category's contents are already listed at Hubbard Medal, which is better for navigation. This should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Hubbard Medal is awarded by the National Geographic Society and is just as prestigious as whatever other medal the recipients have been awarded. Having a list is no reason for deleting a category. List lovers will try and delete the category and category lovers will try and delete the list, that's why both are needed. Existence of a list is not a valid reason for deletion of a category, both are valid navigation devices. The only valid criteria for the importance of a medal is how long it has been distributed, and if it has been referenced in other media outlets. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The short list at Hubbard Medal does not look like it is in danger of being deleted. This is not a case where a list is going to be deleted in favor of a category, given that the list is well-defined (unlike a "list of fictional mad scientists") and small in scope (unlike a "list of notable vegetarians"). Also, I doubt that this award is any more important than the other awards won by these individuals. For example, Neil Armstrong won the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Can you seriously tell me that the Hubbard Medal is more important? Dr. Submillimeter 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Recipients of awards is not a good structure for a category; it's a much better structure for lists. (To the extent that the list & category crews are separate, we probably need more integration to be sure we're developing something coherent. But that's a general systems problem, not a defense of this category.) --lquilter 17:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most award winners should be handled by list articles. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners for reasoning and discussion. Dugwiki 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify & Delete, it's more comprehensive that way. >Radiant< 14:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olborne 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki. Lesnail 03:35, 17 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Real estate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Real estate, unlikely to grow beyond the home staging article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth. ~ BigrTex 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Olborne 14:26, 14 February 2007 (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 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: merge to Category:Recipients of the Silver Star medal. --Wizardman 05:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Silver Star to Category:Recipients of the Silver Star medal

• Speedy merge - This is create one category for American military veterans who received this honor. It is also for clarity as well. Chris 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Categorization by awards leads to category clutter, as the individuals in these categories win many awards over the course of their careers. This is not a feasible categorization system in the long term. Dr. Submillimeter 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. Discussion is ongoing at the Orders, Decorations, and Medals Wikiproject as to the best way to approach this area, whether by lists in the articlespace or through categorisation. However note that this is a military decoration—recipients of such an award are unlikely, in most cases, to be the recipients of a vast number of other awards, honours, and decorations.

Xdamr^talk 15:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I looked at Richard Bong and Alexander Haig. Richard Bong's article showed that he received eight medals. Alexander Haig is listed in seven award categories. Categorization of all these awards is excessive, as it makes the category list more difficult to read. However, I am happy that the Orders, Decorations, and Medals Wikiproject is discussing a solution. I hope that they develop a good solution soon. Dr. Submillimeter 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these categories are for the senior US gallantry awards, not for every medal, no matter how trivial, I think that this use isn't wholly unreasonable. There is a reason that Richard Bong won these awards—he led a conspicuously courageous life. Even if by some measures it might look excessive, it is really nothing other than a measure of his achievements. Of course the likes of Bong are really the exception—few sailors/soldiers/airmen receive gallantry awards, even fewer receive more than one.

Xdamr^talk 19:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into a single category name. Definitely notable content. — MrDolomite • Talk 11:03, 15 February 2007 (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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, empty. Postdlf 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comedy junk food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty, unlikely to be populated. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete fiddle-faddle. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this empty junk category devoid of any nutritional value. Doczilla 16:52, 12 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deceased Playboy Playmates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Is categorizing Playboy playmates by status useful or encyclopedic? Does this orphaned cat serve any real purpose in navigation? We don't typically categorize people by status in any other way than by year of death; there's no cat for "dead politicians" or "dead musicians". Similar "dead people" cats have been deleted in the past, such as Category:Dead rappers. szyslak (t, c) 06:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia says don't categorize by living/dead. Doczilla 07:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Playboy Playmates, we don't directly categorize people by death. Yes, we go by date of death, and also by cause of death, but not just for being dead. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. At this point, Playboy has been around for decades and playmates are going to be dying of old age soon, and that isn't very notable. Neonblak 09:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was just going with the suggestion made here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Playboy Playmates. Oh well... There's no point in merging since they're all already in the Playmate cat. Dismas|^(talk) 14:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every playboy playmate will decease someday. And this category will become a gravestone for these people, won't it? Sigh... Causesobad → (Talk) 14:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicative. They're all in the Playmates category, and they're all not in the Living people category. That's all we need. Coemgenus 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, everybody dies eventually and we don't normally intersect death with occupation. The only time this type of intersection might make sense is when you have a category specifically to handle people who died as a result of being in their particular occupation (eg a category for race car drivers who died in a car crash during a race). Dugwiki 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Peta 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above reasons. Metamagician3000 22:47, 18 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Towns in Morocco and Category:Cities in Morocco into Category:Cities and towns in Morocco. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Cities in Morocco --escondites 06:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Are cities and towns the same thing in Morocco? Also, please tag the nomination. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if so, wouldn't it be Cities and towns in Morocco, like Category:Cities and towns in Italy? -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Cities and towns in Morocco Ulysses Zagreb 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Cities and towns in Morocco per ProveIt. Lesnail 03:30, 17 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military training to Category:Military exercises and wargames

• Merge, the category contents are all specific military exercises and wargames. There's already a Category:Military education and training category for the more general topic, as well. Kirill Lokshin 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Yep, using Category:Military exercises and wargames and Category:Military education and training properly can make Category:Military training go away. Good idea. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't there be a comprehensive category about military training (and education?), even if this isn't it? AshbyJnr 13:57, 15 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates for Governor of New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the utility of this category is unclear. Anyone who runs for governor, often several people per party per election, is eligible for inclusion. It appears that only one other state, New Jersey, has a similar candidates category which I'm also nominating. If not deleted, Rename to Category:Nominees for Governor of New York to restrict the scope to those who actually won the nomination of a party.. Otto4711 06:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 14:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NYS politics is still machine-driven, and being a nominee does not necessarily count for much in terms of contributions to the state polity.-choster 18:12, 12 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates for Governor of New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the utility of this category is unclear. Anyone who runs for governor, often several people per party per election, is eligible for inclusion. It appears that only one other state, New York, has a similar candidates category which I'm also nominating. If not deleted, Rename to Category:Nominees for Governor of New Jersey to restrict the scope to those who actually won the nomination of a party. Otto4711 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 14:18, 12 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Senate candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Similar to the problems with Category:United States House of Representatives candidates, I question the utility of this category. Although there are fewer than 35 Senate elections held every two years, there are still potentially dozens or hundreds of articles could be added per election, swelling the category beyond usefulness. If not deleted, Rename to Category:United States Senate nominees at least to narrow the scope to those candidates who actually win the nomination of their parties, and consider breaking down the category by either state or party. At the very least, if neither deleted nor renamed, consider removing from the category's scope inclusion criterion 3: "past elections for the United States Senate who lost and who did not win another election to the Senate." Otto4711 05:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too broad. The category would serve little purpose after a few elections. Coemgenus 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete A quick calculation suggests that if renamed to [:Category:United States Senate nominees]] the category would likely have 100 new entries per decade, so even if all of the 20th century was fully covered, that's still only be about 1000 articles, which is not unmanageable. I still say delete, because I don't think it would be particularly useful. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:32, 15 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States House of Representatives candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - I'm unconvinced of the utility of this category. With 435 HoR elections held every two years, potentially hundreds or thousands of articles could be added per election, swelling the category beyond any possible hope of usefulness. If not deleted, Rename to Category:United States House of Representatives nominees at least to narrow the scope to those candidates who actually win the nomination of their parties, and consider breaking down the category by either state or party. At the very least, if neither deleted nor renamed, consider removing from the category's scope inclusion criterion 3: "past elections for the United States House of Representatives who lost and who did not win another election to the House."Otto4711 05:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With so many safe seats, the nominees of the out-of-favor party are often extremely obscure even within the districts, and with rare exception (e.g. Ezola Foster) destined literally to be footnotes to history.-choster 15:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too broad. The category would serve little purpose after a few elections. Coemgenus 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This categ would grow to be ginormous and, per Choester, the losers are usually not notable. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete (category was empty). --RobertG ♬ talk 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conspiracy Realists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is part of an editor's larger plan to substitute "Conspiracy realist" for "conspiracy theorist" for people s/he shares an ideological affinity with. The category itself, like the article, is POV in its basic assumptions because a "realist" supposedly bases their belief system on "facts," not "baseless theories." The category can never be NPOV because a judgment is implied about every theorist who is NOT included and there is really no basis for inclusion anyway beyond individual judgment. janejellyroll 04:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Please delete and salt this and the other categories he's tried to populate. Agree with nominator. Category:Conspiracy realists (probably the proper name if this category were at all valid) and Category:Conspiracy realist, and probably Category Conspiracy Realist. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the editor has created at least one variation, so they should all be salted. janejellyroll 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Janejellyroll and Arthur Rubin. Yours, Famspear 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as intrinsically POV. For some reason, this CfD was deleted by User:Otto4711 [4]. I'm not very familiar with CfD, but the deletion seems to be erroneous. If I'm wrong, sorry for restoring it. --Hyperbole 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unreferenced, subjective neologism. Doczilla 07:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I hope that, at least those articles which were originally in category:Conspiracy theorists, will be returned there when this category is deleted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We should not use invented euphemisms for category names. Dr. Submillimeter 09:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV neologism. --Xdamr^talk 13:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV nonsense. Coemgenus 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the above reasons, plus because the new category structure is a rejoinder to one meaning of the word "theory", and it's not the operable meaning. (See Theory -- if they're trying to distinguish between fact-based and baseless speculation, that's a scientific distinction; "theory" in science terms means exactly what they're trying to suggest with "realists".) --lquilter 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article creator has been blocked for 3RR repeatedly re-adding pointers to this and the related article to an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a bad faith POV creation. Olborne 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Conspiracy theorists, and salt all permutations per Arthur Rubin. -19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kiribati music to Category:Kiribatian music

Propose renaming Category:Kiribati culture to Category:Kiribatian culture

Propose renaming Category:Kiribati people to Category:Kiribatian people

Propose renaming Category:Kiribati mythology to Category:Kiribatian mythology

Propose renaming Category:Kiribati media to Category:Kiribatian media

Propose renaming Category:Kiribati politicians to Category:Kiribatian politicians

Propose renaming Category:Kiribati sportspeople to Category:Kiribatian sportspeople

Propose renaming Category:Kiribati athlete to Category:Kiribatian athletes

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Kiribatian" seems to be a real word, so Wikipedia can use it. LukeHoC 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the speedy renaming. The World Factbook doesn't use it as a demonym. Google gets 1680 hits for the word. This indicates it isn't widely used, and may even be a neologism. I don't think its a legitimate demonym. Picaroon 02:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Kiribati is a tiny place, the google results look legit and it hasn't been put up for speedy renaming anyway. See this list. Craig.Scott 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the correct demonym is still "Gilbertese", believe it or not. I've never heard of "Kiribatian" and I'm pretty sure it's not in wide or official usage. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - the correct and official demonyms are Gilbertese and I-Kiribati. Gilbertese tends to refer to the language, I-Kiribati is more general - and has some 110,000 ghits. As such, suggest renaming to Category:I-Kiribati music et al. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to I-Kiribati form per Grutness. Picaroon 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "I-Kiribati" is really going to bugger up the helpfulness of these categories for navigation, though I don't suppose many people will care. Olborne 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what you get for using demonyms. personally, I'd preferr "X of Kiribati" styling throughout, but unfortunately Wikipedia's naming conventions say that things relating to Monaco, St Kitts and Nevis, Kiribati, Burkina Faso and Cyprus become Monegasque, Kittitian-Nevisian, I-Kiribati, Burkinabe and Cypriot respectively. Along with all the other weird oddities of demonym nomenclature. Grutness...wha? 05:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep sod the grammatical problems of using a noun as an adjective; the adjectives wil confuse people. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:39, 15 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Category:Saw victims. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saw victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Only six articles in this category, all based on characters who fell victim to Jigsaw in the Saw trilogy. Largely irrevelant as each of these articles are in Category:Saw. The only reason why we would need another Saw category is if the main one became much too big, but I don't see that happening in the future. CyberGhostface 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the category and delete all the articles too. Otto4711 04:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category and victims articles per above. Doczilla 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if they're in both categories. And perhaps remane the "Saw" category to "Saw films". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the cat and Merge the article contents. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge the articles. Coemgenus 15:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The CFD process is for the category only (which I believe should be Deleted) Bluap 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Using categories to describe someone's role in a particular work, or part of a work, is just unwieldy and likely to lead to category bloat. It's also unnecessary, because lists would accomplish same purpose better. --lquilter 01:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : there's only one person in the category now... Really no need to keep it now if there's only one person in there now. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 05:58, 21 February 2007 (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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metabolic processes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no logical reason why this undefined group of articles has been split off from Category:Metabolism. Peta 00:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In the future, Category:Metabolism may grow too large, thus creating more subcategories could be reasonable, but there are more logical alternatives than Category:Metabolic processes. Julius Sahara 16:38, 21 February 2007 (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 section.