The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (note left on msh210's talk page asking to re-populate Category:Mycology -- Kbdank71 13:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

There was a {{ merge}} tag on category:mycology and category:fungi asking that thye be merged with one another. I've done so, so one can now be removed. (Is this a CSD?) — msh210 19:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• This should have been discussed here before moving the articles. Actually, I'm not really sure this merge was a good idea. I'm no expert in this field, but it seems useful to have some sort of separation between articles on fungi, and articles on the study of fungi. Category:Fungi could be a sub-cat of Category:Mycology. I think that would be a logical move. -- Azkar 20:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Actually .. looking at the history of Category:Fungi, it was a sub-cat of Category:Mycology. I say we reverse the actions taken without discussion. -- Azkar 20:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply
    • my vote: keep as separate categories. What is the current standard (if there is one) with respect to nesting categories like these: "that which is studied" is nested in "the study of that" or vice versa, "that which is studied" as the parent of "the study of that"? about reversing the actions: you (Azkar) could of course revert the actions without asking here. I'd suggest the actions be left standing until the final disposition is discussed and determined. Msh210 exhibited the Be Bold positive character trait and then came to this forum to ensure that the changes would meet with consensus approval. That's behavior I can live with, personally.
      Courtland 23:06, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
      • Yes, being bold is a valued trait on Wikipedia. However, if the consensus is to move these articles back, there's a lot of work involved in sorting through all of that and figuring out what's what. Also, the very template we add to CfD candidates asks that they not be emptied while discussion is ongoing. Anyway, we may as well just leave it alone until the discussion is closed. It would be benifitial if we were all discussing the same categorical situation. -- Azkar 00:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as seperate categories. James F. (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply

My excuse for not discussing it first is that there was a {{ merge}} tag, not a {{ MergeDisputed}} tag, on it: I took that to meanthat there was no dispute that the categories be merged. (After all, were there some dispute, someone should have changed the merge tag to a MergeDisputed tag.) However, if you wish to undo my actions, I imagine some admmin can use the rollback feature. — msh210 15:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• I think there was a bit of confusion. The merge tag should really only be used on articles. Because there's a lot more work involved in moving categories around, it's usually better to list it here before doing anything. It's all good, though - we'll come to a consensus over the next seven days, and do whatever needs to be done. -- Azkar 15:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as separate categories. Fungi and the Study of Fungi (Mycology) are two different things. -- Kbdank71 20:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks to the hard work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, there are no longer any substubs, so the category and template can be deprecated. R adiant _* 14:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Imo, this should only be gotten rid of if the community is no longer to use the {{ substub}} template. — msh210 19:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • For your information, see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Substub. — Insta ntnood 22:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • my vote: keep. The page you (Instantnood) point to shows that there are 5 articles (after winowing out the talk and wikipedia references) that use the template. This is something that we expect, that there will be people using the template for a period after orphaning if it remains in existence. Personally I'm a bit ambivalent about deleting something that is still being used on a daily basis, despite the desire for it to be permanently orphaned. In my opinion, the change in behavior should precede the change in availability, which is the primary influence on my vote. How would one go about changing behavior? I'm not sure other than contacting people who use the substub template and explain the disadvantages, trying to sell deprecation of the template. There has been talk that there are some people who will likely never abandon use of the sub-stub template as long as it exists. I think there should be a period during which we see how much stuff (new stuff) accumulates around this previously very heavily used template. What I'd like to see? No stub should be reverted to sub-stub status; behavior should be encouraged that uses a topical stub over stub of sub-stub - both items that most all the stub sorting community would agree on, I think. Courtland 23:20, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
      • Well, you could always just redirect the template to Template:stub. That would save stubsorters work, since they would have one rather than two categories to look in, and it would make no practical difference to anyone else. Grutness... wha? 01:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• I'm leaning towards a keep vote until there's an official policy notice out of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting announcing the retirement of the sub-stub concept. -- Azkar 00:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Ok, I'll bite. I'll support the deletion of this category once someone redirects Template:Substub to Template:Stub. -- Azkar 15:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• That hasn't happened simply because the category and template still exists. If you look at the proposals that WP:WSS has been writing for its newly organised pages, they are deliberately vague as far as substubs are concerned because of the strong likelihood of them going. Delete. No longer in much serious use, and redundant since the inception of stub subcategories. The original intention of substub was to mark articles that were too short to stand alone and should have had several thins happen to them (1) vfd; (2) merge; (3) hurried expansion. Now, the same articles are placed in categories where editors who know about such topics can find them more easily (who ever waded through 3000 substubs?). And those editors will know far better than the average Wikipedian whether something should be saved or not - as well as being able to expand those that could. I say rest in peace. Grutness... wha? 01:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• People voting to keep should first consider if a meaningful distinction still exists between a Stub and a Substub. Note that this distinction used to exist at a point where there were over 5000 stubs, and substubs were added to alleviate category:stubs. Presently, there are only a couple hundred stubs left. R adiant _* 08:04, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Grutness's comments. Bluemoose 08:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, constant cause of additional work for WP:WSS with no real benefits (Also: what Grutness said) --  grm_wnr Esc 09:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, move the substub template to the stub cat whilst waiting for that to be redirected. James F. (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as redundant. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete poor concept from the beginning. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Aww, how where do I go to find those little articles I like to fix up? Is there a Wikipedia:Articles with less than 100 words? humble fool ® 23:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Category stub... or pick your topic of choice from the stub subcategories :) Grutness... wha? 05:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete/redirect, there are better systems to use. Joe D (t) 14:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, maybe redirect, redundant with stub since stub categories exist and are in full use. -- Nabla 15:33, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Martg76 19:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Its template is going to be deleted, 500LL 16:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{ stub}}. — Insta ntnood 08:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{ stub}} while ensuring that people (especially stub-sorters) know that substub will be officially deprecated. This would offer the smoothest transition. MithrandirMage 06:30, May 15, 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Has been replaced by Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit and is now empty. -- the wub (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

This US govt. position has been replaced by the new United States Director of National Intelligence, and so the category should now be moved to Category:Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency. Harro5 08:24, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Move, and all that entails. James F. (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

No longer needed, as I've created the more-encompassing Category:Boston-area public transportation and its subcategories. -- SPUI ( talk) 05:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The top level is useful, and would be well covered by a Category:Brands by company, but the lower section is much less so. Can't pretty much every company and consumer product of the world be considered a brand? Are we actually going to try and add them all to this category? - SimonP 02:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I think Category:Brands by company would be a useful category for the current sub-cats, as suggested. I also agree that the individual articles included in this category are a bit much. -- Azkar 13:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• my vote: delete (convert to list). I've done some addition of brands as a way to communicate the marketplace deliverables of particular companies. My thought is that lists are of more utility in the organization of brands than categories, particularly because I agree that the 1-brand-1-article approach is not a good way forward. This doesn't mean that a brand should not have an article; on the contrary, of course there are brands that warrant an article of their own, such as Coca-Cola, Tang, Barbie, and others. Courtland 23:26, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

• I vote against deletion. I've just come across this page, and it's very interesting; brands, especially brands in countries other than one's own, provide a quaint sort of insight into culture; having an index to these brand articles is nice. If someone wants to do the work to create a list, with links to the major brands' own articles, I wouldn't oppose deletion after the work is done, but I don't think this information should be lost. -- jhf 18:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep - agreeing with Jhf, it may need splitting (say by initial letter) but it is a useful accessibility tool for non-English speaking users. Saga City 02:55, May 13, 2005 (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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, because the category is empty. If a replacement is needed, please get together to see which one would be best for all involved. -- Kbdank71 13:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm moving this from the speedy renaming section, as it does not meet the speedy renaming criteria. Original nomination (and discussion) follows. -- Azkar 01:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Category:Mexica (Aztec) religion should be renamed to Category: Aztec religion, since that is what I'd intially meant and erred in typing. -- Mitsukai 16:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC) reply
  • We already have Category:Aztec mythology, which should cover this subject. - SimonP 22:34, May 8, 2005 (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 page.