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. Mairi 05:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Victims of dognapping ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created by Lilyfan87 ( talk · contribs) to include one article ( Maggie May (dog), currently at AFD). At " dognapping", there are no other separate articles which could later be categorized here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as underpopulated and per the "O.o clause" ST47 Talk 23:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. How many captured dogs are notable anyway? bibliomaniac 1 5 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete How many kidnapped dogs are there period? Pascal.Tesson 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete this trivia. Doczilla 07:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Sounds like this is probably a vanity category for an unfortunate dog owner. Dugwiki 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete please make it go away. -- emerson7 | Talk 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep[ u dont no how bad it is 2 b a bictim of dognapping until uv had ur best friend stolen from u and ur made 2 pay a randsome for her. Lilyfan87
• Delete completely useless and non notable. Kolindigo 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete a category for one AfD'd article. Yes dognapping is an awful thing to happen, but so are lots of things. My cat died but I don't go making dead cats of wikipedians categories. Totnesmartin 11:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign last night,sorry) reply
• Delete per nom. Abberley2 10:41, 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 merge to Category:Football songs and chants. Mairi 20:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Arsenal F.C songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge with Category:Football songs and chants. There are only two songs in this category. Both songs would fit quite nicely in Category:Football songs and chants. Having a seperate category for these two songs is Arsenal F.C. centric.

• Merge - this is a category with 2 articles about a very small subject area and is rather redundant to the other category. ST47 Talk 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge pretty uncontroversial. Pascal.Tesson 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - both of the items listed within this category are on AfD anyway, so this might be empty in a couple of days. - fchd 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge' siarach 05:46, 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 10:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Father of the Nation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As someone else already pointed out on the Category talk:Father of the Nation page, this category recreates in a less useful form the existing list on Father of the Nation, but without the possibility for references or explanations. Propose delete as redundant of superior classification. lquilter 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - we have the list, this isn't even sorted very well and isn't useful, and the name isn't great for the context of a category ST47 Talk 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete This term is too loaded and too much abused to make a good category. Osomec 22:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep In this case the category reflects the list and should link to its source. It is not a case of one versus the other nor is it redundant User:Dimadick
• Delete - The Father of the Nation article has two large warnings posted on it. Basing a category on the article would be imprudent. Moreover, the terms too vague or jargonistic to use for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete I left the comment mentioned by lquilter. Moreover, the category name is nonstandard; if it were to survive at all it should have a plural name, maybe something like "People called Father of the Nation". jnestorius^{( talk)} 02:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Now I'm starting to get mad. This is the thrid page that I have made has been put up for deletion. Who is responsible I wonder, if you have problem with me stop being a coward and just talk to me. I have worked real hard to make a list of leader who have been seen as the Father of the Nation and it is imprtant to keep it. Tony360X
• Delete per nom. Making a category for this often unmerited status can be interpreted as an endorsement of it by wikipedia. Abberley2 10:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Abberley2. Dahn 15:45, 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. Mairi 05:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:U.S. Progressive Party presidential candidates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Delete, Empty category. -- Xdamr ^talk 19:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete, there were about three distinct Progressive Parties in the U.S. (not "U.S. Progressive Parties") and each nominated a single candidate in a single presidential election.- choster 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete based on the misnaming and confusion resulting from multiple parties with similar names. Listify either in a "Progressive Party candidates" article with explanation of the different parties or in a "minor party nominees" article. Otto4711 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The name is wrong, and it's not big enough for a category (and never will be, unless a fourth Progressive Party gets founded). Coemgenus 22:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unpopulated and dealing with too small a subject matter. ST47 Talk 23:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete has been empty forever hasn't it? Pascal.Tesson 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Candidates_and_nominees. Doczilla 07:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You have misread the text you site. It advises that "Wikipedia is not a crystall ball" because so we don't list potential candidates. On the other hand we do list historical ones.
• Delete Even if there was a fourth Progressive party, including all their candidates together would be misleading. The Parties did not share a political history or any particular agenda and there is no reason to keep a category suggesting they share a history. User:Dimadick

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 keep presidential and vice-presidential nominee categories. The consensus was to delete Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court and Category:Withdrawn nominees to the United States Supreme Court. The nominees are listed at Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States and no further {{ listify}}ing is needed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:Socialist Party USA presidential nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Prohibition Party (United States) presidential nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Whig Party (United States) presidential nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Category:Libertarian Party (United States) presidential nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Libertarian Party (United States) vice presidential nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Category:Democratic Party (United States) presidential nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Democratic Party (United States) vice presidential nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Category:Republican Party (United States) vice presidential nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Republican Party (United States) presidential nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Withdrawn nominees to the United States Supreme Court ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Given that these are arguably more significant, I am raising these separately from the debate below. I have now listed all the 'nominee' categories that I have been able to find.

Xdamr ^talk 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Unlike award nominees, some of these political nominees are primarily known for being nominees for these positions. Michael Dukakis, Robert Dole, and John Kerry will all be remembered partly as nominees for the presidency possibly more so than for their other political activities. However, having many of the elected presidents listed in both the nominees and presidents categories (such as George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton) is distracting, although it should be noted that some presidents were never nominees of their parties. I also do not know how important it is to classify vice-presidential nominees in categories, as being a losing vice-presidential candidate does not seem very memorable to me. (Will people remember Jack Kemp, Joe Lieberman, or John Edwards as vice-presidential candidates? Maybe, but maybe not.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep all nominee categories. As was noted the last time one of these was nominated (and almost immediately withdrawn), these nominees are actually the winners of a protracted political contest. Thus they are different from the other "nominee" categories we've been deleting.
  Delete and listify the Supreme Court categories. Otto4711 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep all the presidential nominee categorys. Delete the supreme court nominee categorys. The Presidential nominee categorys are not award nominees. And unlike the people in the award nominee categorys (like the ones that are up for deletion below), this is a significant time in the career of the individual who is in the category of presidential nominees. The supreme court cats shouldn't be categorized as by unsuccessful or withdrawn nominees. Thats like categorizing football teams by who have lost the super bowl. — mikedk9109 ^SIGN 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment I was perhaps a little bloody-minded in bringing forward the [vice] presidential nominee categories. I hastily judged them by their title rather than their content, taking them to be concerned with the internal processes parties go through to select their electoral candidates. Would it perhaps be worthwhile to rename them in the form "XXX party (United States) presidential candidate" or does this overturn accepted terminology?

Xdamr ^talk 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Candidate broadens the scope of the category. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton etc. are all "candidates" who haven't been nominees. Restricting the categories to nominees (and removing those nominees who went on to become President or VP since in almost every case it's redundant) is best. Otto4711 01:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep as it is. Achieving nomination is a political victory, but any party member can put him or herself forward as a candidate. Carina22 13:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep the Presidential and vice presidential nominees. Particularly significant for political and party histories, defining for people included. The categorie should always include the who went on to become President or VP because the relevant categories do not disambiguate by Party. User:Dimadick

• Keep All people here are notable, and there is not signinfcent reason to delete.-- Sefringle 08:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete judicial nominees, Keep others. I've just realised that I failed to contribute my views, so there they are. As to the vice presidential/presidential nominees, put that down to a misunderstanding between US and UK nomenclature. I would have thought that one would be nominated to be the party's candidate in the election, but it seems that things are the other way around.

Xdamr ^talk 02:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Yes, over here the nominee is always a candidate but only rarely is a candidate the nominee. Otto4711 04:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Nominating a set of categories of such varying notability as a batch is not a good way to get a result. Osomec 14:45, 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 10:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Controversial Literature ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This category essentially recreates Category:Banned books with even less criteria for inclusion. lquilter 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you have noticed but their is 0 listed under banned books compared to 125 under Controversial Literature. Thought I sould point that out to you. - BigFrank100

• Delete. The inclusion criterion is impossible to define. Coemgenus 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_24#Category:Banned_books, since the intended scope appears to be the same. Pomte 18:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• comment - I also saw a reference to a Category:Controversial books CFD ? But couldn't find it. -- lquilter 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• comment - Oh! plus the capitalization problem. -- lquilter 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete I could pick up a book start reading it, and call it controversial. This category is incredibly POV. — mikedk9109 ^SIGN 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete Tony360X recently added Talmud to this category, which to me seemed incorrect. So of course I go to the category page to see what the definition of a "Controversial Literature" (The talmud has very few critics many of them anti-semitis - does that make it Controversial; the talmud is almost interchangeable with the Judaism so is are Judaism a "Controversial religion"? should we have a category for that?) Of course there was no definition and I doubt one could be made. Is every book that has any criticism at all Controversial? If that is the case then the category "Literature" in general covers the same group. Jon513 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete The definition of this category is too far too inclusive to be useful. Virtually any work containing any sort political content or overtone, and even factual works containing information deleterious to an country's interest would be banned in totalitarian countries. pbryan 22:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Provides useful information about books which may be consitered controversial.-- Sefringle 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have worked hard to provide a list of literature works that have caused controversy which lead to them being removed from libraries to banned in schools or countries. Even religous text from the Bible to the Quran has caused an uproar. To delete this categorie is like censorship cause most of the people who want to delete the list don't like what has been listed or don't have a clear viwe of it. I'm trying to write a clear definition of Controversial Literature but that will not be possible if it gets deleted. So I ask all of you to please support Controversial Literature Category so we can look at works and see the diffrence between a work that has caused an uproar yet mad a change compared to a simple book. Tony360X

• Tony360X, I wonder if you have tried to work on the related List of banned books. A category is basically an automatic list, but the kind of list that is included in the article List of banned books can work, even when the automatic lists generated by categories don't. Concepts that don't work as categories can still work as lists. -- lquilter 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment The key point is your trying to write a clear definition of whats controversial. Most of the people don't choose to delete because they don't like it, they choose to delete because this cat is too broad, or can't have criteria for inclusion, or because it is POV. — mikedk9109 ^SIGN 23:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• How about I make an Artical on Controversial Literature since I fell the banned book artical is unorganized and not very clear. This artical will cover both challenged and banned books and the reason for it. It will be more organized. Tony360X

• Someone (and only that person) has created and worked on Controversial literature, a stub that you can expand on. An existing category that you may be interested in is Category:Lists of controversial books, which contains lists but not the books themselves. Pomte 01:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no npov criteria for inclusion. ST47 Talk 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The category name suffers from point of view problems. (Besides, what book has been published that has not been the source of some disagreement?) Dr. Submillimeter 23:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - way too subjective and almost a recreation of the Banned books/films categories. Pascal.Tesson 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Controversial for some but not for others. What is the stance of Wikipedia? None of those. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete – more subjective, harder to verify, and in need of even more context for each member than the banned category. × Meegs 11:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom andn others. Carina22 13:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. "Controversial" is not NPOV. The only reliable, verifiable measure is whether a work has been banned - hey, what happened to Category:Banned books? Robin Johnson (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete of subjective category. Side note: The title is inappropriately capitalized for Wikipedia style. Doczilla 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete "Controversial" is a very loose term and this category invites POV pushing. Cloachland 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - completely subjective LaszloWalrus 04:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. - Per nom, too subjective. -- Bryson 15:11, 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 delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:Best Director Ariel nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Best Film Ariel nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Best Actress Ariel nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Best Actor Ariel nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Best Iberoamerican Film Ariel nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Category:BAFTA nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
  • Category:BAFTA nominees (film) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    
  • Category:BAFTA nominees (people) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    
  • Category:BAFTA nominees (television series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    

• Category:Best Original Song Score Academy Award nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Emmy Award nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:AFI Awards Nominee ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Philip K. Dick Memorial Award nominee ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Best Drama Picture Golden Globe nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Hugo Award Nominee for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Hugo Award Nominee for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Per the general distaste for nominee categories, here are a few which I have turned up which I nominate for deletion.

Xdamr ^talk 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Two more which I've just come across:

• Category:Films whose director was nominated for the Best Director Golden Globe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Nobel Peace Prize nominees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Xdamr ^talk 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete all per nom and precedent. Otto4711 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all Per all the previous CfD's on "nominee" categorys. — mikedk9109 ^SIGN 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - Being a nominee is not worth noting in the category tree, as it is not very exclusive. Moreover, it contributes to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all. Nomination is not significant, and most of the categories will get huge as time progresses and lists lengthen. Coemgenus 18:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - Although I think nomination for awards is significant & worthy of note, it's not appropriate for categorization since it's rarely defining for that individual, and it creates unmanageably large category trees. -- lquilter 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per precedent. ST47 Talk 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Candidates_and_nominees. Doczilla 07:45, 6 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 first three, delete 4th, rename 5th and 6th, delete 7th (possibly temporarily).-- Mike Selinker 02:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

1. merge Category:American football coaching families to Category:American football families
2. merge Category:Basketball coaching families to Category:Basketball families
3. merge Category:National Hockey League families to Category:Hockey families
4. delete Category:Three generation sports families
5. rename Category:Major League Baseball families to Category:Baseball families
6. rename Category:Three generation baseball families to Category:Baseball families
7. rename Category:Multiple sport athletic families to Category:Multiple-sports families

There’s just too much going on here for my tastes. It’s an unadvisable three-way intersection between, say, being in basketball, being related, and being a coach. I like the general concept, though, so some streamlining is all that’s needed.-- Mike Selinker 16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete all including the suggested target categories. The relationships between the various people included in the categories belong linked within the articles for the individuals. Categorizing sportspeople by family is overcategorization and leads to the dreaded category clutter. Otto4711 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge top 3 as a false dichotomy, rename and merge 5 and 6, delete remainder as overcategorization. ST47 Talk 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• I might feel differently if the majority of these cats' members were articles or subcats dedicated to specific families instead of individual biographies, but as it is, I really don't think any of these are useful enough to justify the clutter. Category:Major League Baseball families, for example, is really nothing but "Baseball players with relatives that also played baseball," which is not by itself a defining characteristic. My first suggestion is to delete them all (and their targets), followed by ST47's proposal to at least delete Category:Three generation sports families and Category:Multiple sport athletic families so that we're left with just a single cat per sport. If any are kept, merge/rename per Mike S. × Meegs 10:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Meegs has a good point. (Why, for example, are all the Mannings listed under Archie Manning rather than a "Manning family" article?) Regardless, I'm OK with either result. The target categories would need to be nominated, though. Maybe let's go through for the seven above, and then if they're all deleted, we can nominate the rest.-- Mike Selinker 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Looking through the subcats of Category:Sports families, I only found one article about a family ( Gretzky family, and it's not so great). Pretty much everyone agrees that the cats should not include individuals (like Category:Basketball families does), so the question comes to whether we want to keep the categories so that they can be populated solely with family subcategories (as Category:Auto racing families already is). I don't really care, but it might be best to just implement ST47's plan for the moment, plus purge the individuals. × Meegs 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Otto. Doczilla 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all including target categories - These categories effectively group together all individuals who have a relative in the same field. This would not be acceptable for other lines of work (such as "banker families" or "sailor families"). The categories on specific families are fine, but these broad categories are inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep 3 & 5 I think its a very worthwhile group of cats. The others though are a bit much. -- Djsasso 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Otto. Wimstead 18:47, 12 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 rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Edmonton Oilers players (WHA) to Category:Edmonton Oilers (WHA) players

Rename to fit the format of other subcategories of Category:Ice hockey players by league. Skudrafan1 15:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename ccwaters 16:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Resolute 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename ST47 Talk 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename -- Djsasso 21:43, 8 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. the wub "?!" 17:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Unaccredited Christian universities and colleges ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Unaccredited Christian universities and colleges Delete: this is a sub category of Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning and Category:Christian universities and colleges. It is an unnecessary category and it is hardly used. Better to have a category for being unaccredited and a category for being Christian. As most (but not all) unaccredited colleges are Christian, if we were to move all colleges from "Unaccredited institution of higher learning" to "Unaccredited Christian universities and colleges", the former would only have 2 or 3 entries in it. Because of the number of colleges in these categories the 2 super-categories are sufficient. Mgroop 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep as Category:Christian universities and colleges is huge and has many other subcategories it makes sense to provide suitable subcategories for all members. Also note that outside the U.S. there may be thousands of unaccredited colleges and universities which are not Christian for all I (and probably you) know. Eg if there are many unaccredited colleges and universites in India it is unlikley that most fo them are Christian. Cloachland 18:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - If anything, the category is underpopulated. I believe there are many more unaccredited Christian colleges than are currently in this category. Since seeing this "CFD" item, I have added 14 more schools to the category; the articles clearly identified the schools as unaccredited and Christian, but they had not been added to this category. This category makes it possible to separate unaccredited Christian schools (which people presumably are willing to attend for reasons of faith) from the other types of unaccredited schools.-- orlady 18:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. The two main categories are sufficient. FGT2 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete. As author of the page I request this to speedy. I agree with Mgroop that the page serves as a detractor. The supercategories better serve wikipedians in this case. Arbustoo 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I've declined to speedy the cat, since it has been around for nearly a year and likely has many contributors. × Meegs 07:42, 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:Political parties in the United States. the wub "?!" 17:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:U.S. political parties which have received one or more electoral votes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Political parties don't get electoral votes, candidates do. We can't just move it because we'd have to replace all the articles in the category, too (remove parties, insert candidates,) which would be more time-consuming than just creating a new category. Coemgenus 15:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Political parties in the United States - This kind of inclusion criterion is strange. The articles on the individual parties should be placed in the parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge I would choose to keep if this category was organized by "Political parties which have received 5 or more electoral votes", but one is just too broad. — mikedk9109 ^SIGN 15:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Dr. Sub since they are very close to the same thing. ST47 Talk 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep They are nowhere close to being the same thing. This is a useful way of grouping major parties and one is the least artbitary cut off that can be used. Osomec 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't mean to be pedantic, but parties don't receieve electoral votes, candidates do. That's why I nominated the category. Coemgenus 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The category's definition itself is flawed, as Coemgenus points out. -- DavidGC 09:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - How would the editors feel if we created a different category, "U.S. political parties whose presidential candidates have received electoral votes"? -- Orange Mike 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Shrug. I don't think it would be terribly useful, but I wouldn't nominate it for deletion, either. The name's a bit awkward, but I can't think of a better way to say it. It seems like the whole point of the category was to list the Libertarian Party along with the major parties of various eras. This would accomplish that, for what it's worth. Coemgenus 21:29, 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 rename. Category:Alae units of ancient Rome is already a subcat of Roman cavalry units. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:Roman naval units to Category:Naval units and formations of ancient Rome
• Category:Roman infantry units to Category:Infantry units and formations of ancient Rome
• Category:Roman cavalry units to Category:Cavalry units and formations of ancient Rome
• Category:Roman military units by type to Category:Military units and formations of ancient Rome by type
• Category:Roman military units to Category:Military units and formations of ancient Rome
• Category:Roman military units of the imperial era to Category:Military units and formations of the Roman Empire
• Category:Roman Republican military units to Category:Military units and formations of the Roman Republic

Rename all per the naming conventions for military unit and formation categories. Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename all The same should be done for any other Ancient Roman categories that don't have "Ancient" in their name. Nathanian 16:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, but merge Category:Cavalry units of ancient Rome into Category:Alae of ancient Rome, or at very least make the latter a subcat of the former. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:53, 10 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. the wub "?!" 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Ancient military unit types into Category:Military units and formations of the Ancient era

• Merge, redundant categories; the latter follows the categorization guidelines, while the former does not. Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 5 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 keep. -- RobertG ♬ talk 13:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:Racehorse births by year
• Category:Racehorse deaths by year

all delete or merge into Category:XXXX births and Category:XXXX deaths category. -- Lodn 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep Obviously no reason given for deletion or merge. There is no XXXX births or XXXX deaths categorys, but there are subcats in the parent category ( Category:Racehorse births by year and Category:Racehorse deaths by year) that break down the horses births and deaths by year. (ie: Category:2001 racehorse births and Category:2003 racehorse deaths). — mikedk9109 ^SIGN 03:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'm not sure that racehorses should be categorised in this way, but if they are to be I would prefer the racehorses to be kept separate from the people. Nathanian 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Horses aren't people, and a horse's birth year is significant for reasons different from those of people. Coemgenus 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The age of a racehorse at a given point shows which races it is eligible for, e.g. the Breeders' Cup Juvenile for two-year-olds, or the Kentucky Derby for three-year-olds. The birth categories indicate which racehorses were around in a particular era, grouping together possible rivals on the track. The death categories act as a both a memorial to lost "favourites" (recently Desert Orchid and Barbaro), and as a guide to the differing fortunes of otherwise forgotten horses. If merged into the main birth/death categories, the names would be completely swamped and it would become meaningless to include them. -- Zafonic 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Generally speaking articles include categories for their birth/death, or creation, or establishment/disestablishment. I don't see offhand why the same scheme shouldn't apply to horses. Dugwiki 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, absolutely. Handicapper 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Without any doubt - I can't improve on Zafonic's rationale above. Bcp67 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per nom and Zafonic. — Dale Arnett 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Also in Japanese wikipedia, this category exists as a subcategory of Category:Births by year. This category should become a subcategory of Category:Births by year.-- Galopin 04:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Useful for those researching horseracing history and completely inapropriate in the main birth and death categories which only list humans. User:Dimadick

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. the wub "?!" 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:Characters introduced in 1960
• Category:Characters introduced in 1966
• Category:Characters introduced in 1987
• Category:Characters introduced in 1990
• Category:Characters introduced in 1999

all merge into Category:XXXX introductions category. overcategorization.-- Lodn 02:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge Since the XXXX intrioductions cats already exist, these seem redundant. — J Greb 19:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep (I think) Generally speaking, articles normally include a category for the year of creation. For example, people have a "year of birth" category, and works like books, films and architecture have a "works by year" category. Seems to me that since that scheme has been adopted for people and works, it also can be applied to fictional characters by including the "year of first appearance" or "year of creation" for the character. So I'd be in favor of keeping these categories, or something similar, to allow for a "year of creation" category for fictional characters. Dugwiki 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Comics Project has been routinely using the XXXX introductions for characters. At this point it seems to have been working extremely well. There is no reason for it not to work with other fictional characters. If a cat for a particular year gets overly large, it may be reasonable to split off the characters to XXXX fictional character introductions. — J Greb 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Changing to Merge to XXXX introductions Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I thought the complaint was the inclusion of the year of creation. I didn't realize these were already under XXXX introduction categories. Merge with those, and maybe recreate for characters if the number of articles warrants subdividing. Dugwiki 17:20, 6 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 already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Building Society ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is a duplicate of Category:Building Societies. Delete. ( Extra3 02:29, 5 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 withdrawn. the wub "?!" 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Elementary schools in Ontario, convention of Category:Elementary schools in Canada. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge To match the convention, Elementary schools in Ontario. — mikedk9109 ^SIGN 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• This category is not inconsistent with the convention of Category:Elementary schools in Canada; the actual convention is for each province's subcategory to be further subcategorized by city or region when possible. York Region is a notable and encyclopedic division, so there's no particularly compelling reason to kill a useful subgrouping. Keep. Bearcat 00:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Withdrawn Yes you are correct. When I nominated this it had only one member, not worth keeping a subcat. However it has since been populated, so lets let it be. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

*laugh* Fair enough; I wouldn't have known about it, or seen that it needed populating, if it hadn't been nominated here, so it's all good. Bearcat 10:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep per above. -- Djsasso 22:08, 8 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 keep. the wub "?!" 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:People associated with Aberdeen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete vague category. Category:People from Aberdeen already exists consistent with the "People from" naming conventions, but do not merge because neither of the two people categorized as being associated with Aberdeen were born there. Each does, however, belong to other categories related to the connection anyway. Doczilla 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment agree with the idea to not have people associated with foo category pages as people from fooian to include both natives and non-natives (especially considering the recent decision to rename subcat pages of Category:English people by county from Natives of Fooian county to People from fooian county). however, there should be all-encompassing nomination made that lists the whole of the Scottish people category pages, not just one at a time, to overhaul the scheme, not just disrupt it Mayumashu 14:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - why is this category being singled out? It is part of a suite of Scottish "people associated with" categories. There is a big difference from being associated with a place and being native to it (the "natives of" cat was daftly renamed to the POV "people from" format, along with the other Scottish cities some months ago, leaving the 28 other council areas in the standard "natives of" format). Stop making a pigs ear out of the biography cats. This higgeldy-piggeldy trend towards the "people from" format has got to stop. It is unciteable, and thus a breach of WP:CITE. -- Mais oui! 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually we've been CfDing a lot of "associated with" categories. Doczilla 07:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - as per Mais oui!. The sub-categories of this article are not all-encompassing. There is a clear difference between people born in Aberdeen and those who are associated with Aberdeen. PM J 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Well, being born in (natives) categories are being renamed to 'from' since being a native may or may not be important to an individual. Vegaswikian 03:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete We should work towards using "People from" across the board. "Associated with" categories are subject to abuse, especially from people who want to promote a small town by adding everyone famous who ever visited. Cloachland 18:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete The last thing we need is rival sets of people by place categories as the category clutter will get out of hand. Piccadilly 15:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. -- Smerus 08:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - the nominator is incorrect: none of the 3 individuals in the category - John Boyd Orr, 1st Baron Boyd-Orr, George Byron, 6th Baron Byron, Karl König - "belong to other categories related to the connection". If this cat is deleted then they will not remain in any other Aberdeen-related biography cats. But, far more importantly, neither the nominator, nor his supporters, has even mentioned the fact that this category has 7 subcategories, which are all clearly strongly associated with Aberdeen, but whose members are by no means necessarily "from" the city. This is a truly arbitrary and ill-thought-through CFD. -- Mais oui! 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Set of several categories. "associated with" is inclusive of people who moved there later in life. This is a good thing. Canæn 08:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per User:PMJ. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Agree with Mais Oui and Canaen. The various subcategories are useful encyclopaediacally, and include people who although may not be Aberdonians, have had an impact on the city or vice versa Brendandh 10:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above Astrotrain 14:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Just think of the mess Wikipedia will become if this system is applied to major cities. Abberley2 10:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

How come? Please explain what on earth you mean. It is a highly logical and useful method of grouping together a multitude of biographical categories and articles that are related to a city, and would be absolutely wonderful if applied throughout Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that editors take a very close look indeed at the Scottish categories, and follow our example. -- Mais oui! 11:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep & Oppose. per above. Nevertheless a general discussion about Natives and People from might be useful because inconsistency is rife at the moment. - Kittybrewster 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Very strong keep. When I started looking at this category, I thought it would be a clear delete, but Mais Oui is right: this is very useful way of grouping people who have (as the category says) a "significant" association with a place. Like Mais Oui, I would like to see this system used thoughout wikipedia; but unlike Mais Oui, I think it is neatly partnered by the "people from" category. The two crucial things about the usefulness of this category are that word "significant" and its sub-categs. Deleting this category would be, IMRHO, daft. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep I had a look at this useful category and would like to see it generally introduced in conjunction with the more specific 'People from'. roundhouse 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Ultra strong delete Anyone is associated with any place they ever stayed, and prominent people tend to have stayed in a lot of places. This is only useful for people who want to promote their not all that prominent city, which is perhaps why this category exists for Aberdeen rather than London, New York or Paris Wimstead 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Mmmm... yes, that's right: slagging off Aberdeen is really going to advance your case. No Wikipedia category should ever be used for trivial associations. Notability is required, and is assumed, in all categorisation: eg. we do not have a cat called "Category:Notable French people", it is called "Category:French people", because the word "notable" is implied. The same for "Category:Villages in foo" not "Category:Notable villages in foo" etc, etc, etc. It is only people notably associated with a place that should be categorised as such. -- Mais oui! 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• • • Comment: I wonder whether Wimstead actually looked at the category and its sub-cats befoe making that recommendation to delete?
      The category is specifically for "biographical articles about people with a strong association with Aberdeen", which obviously excludes those who just visted the place, and that's exactly how it is being used. Apart from the very specific sub-categories, there are three articles directly in the category:
      * John Boyd Orr, 1st Baron Boyd-Orr, whose first job was as director of a nutrition institute in Aberdeen, which he started from scratch;
      * Karl König, who set up the first Camphill Community for Children in Need of Special Care at Camphill on the outskirts of Aberdeen.
      * Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, a notable family of nobility based in Aberdeen (the first Marquess, for example), was Governor-General of Canada.
      I see abolutely no sign of this category being used for tangential connections. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 09:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Useful 'structural' category. The strictly-defined subcategories prevent the "associated with" becoming meaningless, and editors will be able to stop non-notable 'associations' creeping in. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Very useful to clear up the current inconsistancy of the People From cats which have a habbit of listing every place a person have been involved with. -- Djsasso 18:29, 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

Delete, as similar is subjective. Categorizing games as being like other games won't work very well. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete impossible to determine what articles would belong in the list, as it is too ambiguous in its definition. As well, it is a useless list. The reader will not use this category. Jerry lavoie 02:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete unnecessary subjective category. Doczilla 01:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Whats the point in categorizing like this. The only sport I can think of that is similar to baseball is cricket. This way obviously won't work. — mikedk9109 ^SIGN 02:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Softball, rounders, kilikiti... but we've previously deleted very similar subjective cats such as "Games similar to cricket", so this should go, too. Grutness... wha? 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Maybe "templatify" and add to end of each sport's article...?   David Kernow (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Templatifying won't work in "similarity" cases. Do we really want, say, soccer to have half a dozen different templates all based on its similarity to other sports - "similar to hockey", "similar to American football"\, "Similar to rugby", "Similar to handball', "Similar to water polo"...? Also, the problems of the arbitrary judgement of the term "similar" still apply. Grutness... wha? 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete - This is content that was deleted after a 2006 December 23 discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete (or possibly rename) - Delete, but if it's appropriate to the category & cat tree, something like this could be useful with some sort of families-of-sporting-games category? I note that chess & its relatives have a game-family category. So wickets/bats-balls -- there must be some kind of family name (that is not baseball-centric). -- lquilter 19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete-- Releeshan 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree, the general idea of categorizing games that are "similar" to other games seems too subjective. How similar does it have to be? Is American Football similar to Soccer (aka Football)? They both have the same name and involve teams of guys on either side of a long field fighting over a ball. Is hockey similar to basketball? They're both five on five sports with somewhat similar overall team tactics (passing, setting picks, etc). Would you consider a homerun derby similar to baseball? This type of category scheme just sounds like it's a little too vague. Dugwiki 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is a joke, right?-- Sefringle 00:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose deletion The articles themselves tend to indicate that the sports (softball, punchball, kickball, etc.) are similar to baseball. It appears to be far from "impossible to determine," as asserted. It would also appear to help people such as the above commenter who thought that cricket was the only game similar to baseball.-- Epeefleche 01:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply

You could just as easily have named them "Games similar to kickball". The name itself invokes POV in its choice of sport. Doczilla 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename - to Bat and ball games. Kevlar67 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete We have Category:Ball games and many bat and ball games are not particularly similar to baseball. If we categorised them as such why not categorise all of them in a category for each of the others? Well, becuase then we would have a crowd of useless duplicate categories. Piccadilly 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete siarach 05:45, 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.