Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 2 November 4 >

November 3

Category:Incumbent Indian Governors

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 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 debate was merge. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Incumbent Indian Governors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:State governors of India, we prefer timeless information, former / current / future distinctions require frequent updates and are not suitable for mirrors, CD's, or printed editions. -- Prove It (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to conform to other "current" office holder categories. Peterkingiron 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom to avoid unmaintainable current office cat. Carlossuarez46 22:33, 6 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Girl lovers

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 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 debate was Deleted, POV category, creator banned here and on de:WP. Guy ( Help!)

Category:Girl lovers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Apart from being rather meaningless what it actually means is they are pedophiles and we already have a pedophile category, POV fork as part of an ongoing campaign of promoting pro-pedophile activist POV on the project. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Nonsensical assumption: Only a slight percentage of girl lovers are pedophiles. Roman Czyborra 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Indef blocked user as of Nov 5. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No clear criteria, POV category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (repeat). Thanks for the hint, Will. I will add clearer criteria. But which point of view exactly are you talking about? Roman Czyborra 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Only one actual biography in it. Johnbod 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vague, subjective, underpopulated category. Doczilla 08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (repeat). The only reason it is underpopulated is that it had only been started a few hours ago. It will grow with time if you please let it. There are millions of girl lovers world-wide and some of them will be notable! Roman Czyborra 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Please only give one bolded opinion/!vote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
        • This is not a vote but an argumentation. Please do not mutilate my comments! Roman Czyborra 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
          • It's fine to reply to the opinions of others, but you don't need to write Keep (repeat) everytime. It's distracting and appears intended to overemphasize your viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. It's unclear whether this means paedophiles or whether it is an umbrella category or lesbians, heterosexual men and all bisexual people; in the first case it's a content fork, and in the second case it's an un-needed umbrella category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (repeat) Girl lover comprises indeed lesbians, heterosexuals and bisexuals. What is wrong with that? Roman Czyborra 01:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
      • As explained above, the term "girl" in this phrase is unclear to a plain English reading. "Girl" is sometimes used to mean "female" and at any rate is of indeterminate age. So, the category could be read to include more than 50% of all biographical articles, which is indiscriminate and unnecessary categorizing. -- lquilter 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The description given is "Girl lovers are persons who love or loved girls." This is an extremely broad and vague definition that makes for a useless category. Maralia 14:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per BHG and linguistic confusion. It could mean (A) Lovers of girls which is too broad especially since "girls" often means "female" and even as "not-yet-adult-females" is vague. And there are problems (already described above) with any of those categories, plus we don't categorize people relationally, or, generally on beliefs and interests. It could alternative mean (B) girls who are lovers which again suffers from the same problems of defining "girls", verifying that they have had lovers, and that that is not defining. -- lquilter 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per vague criteria "lovers" needn't be in a sexual sense, either - if you love your kid sister, daughter, niece, you're in this cat. Useless. Carlossuarez46 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (repeat) I you love your kid sister sexually you would probably go in this category, if loving girls is not an outstanding part of your personality then you simply will not be added. Roman Czyborra 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (repeat) Girl lover is an established term amongst those who do research into pedophilia. Roman Czyborra 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Will Beback, Johnbod, Doczilla, Maralia, BHG, lquilter, Carlossuarez46. Snocrates 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Category seems very subjective. Lists like these have a history of not lasting long in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Roman619 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman619 ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Roman C. As he says in defense, "Girl lover is an established term amongst those who do research into pedophilia." Even in accepting that (an assumption that I'm not debating), how established is this understanding in the general population? Girl love redirects to the Pedophilia article, but nowhere in that article is this phrase used. That being the case, how widespread is this? It's not. Further, the various interpretations above (lovers of girls, those who love someone who is a girl, girls who are lovers, etc.) make this category ineffective at differentiating. While generally I am not in favor of deletions, especially this soon after a page creation, in this case I believe it is warrented. VigilancePrime 02:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (side note: category creator constantly reverts pages in near edit-war style against multiple editors in pushing this category, which detracts unnecessarily from his credibility) reply
  • Delete. Obscure, inherently POV term. - Sean Curtin 05:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm all for neutral and informative editing on issues such as Adult-child sex, but despite this, and despite the fact that the editor is a respectable man, the category as it stands is PedCruft, and should be deleted. GrooV 07:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Question - Where is this pedophiles category you speak of? I see Category:Pedophile activism and Category:Fictional pedophiles, no category for real-world pedophiles in particular. — xDanielx T/ C 11:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

`*Endorse deletion - Absurd term which seems a POV term. All articles categorized as such (both of them) are also in the pedophile category, so it seems redundant, as well. Jeffpw 12:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep!!! + What the hell??? Girllove is out there, and very real, whether you sexual puritans would prefer to think so or not. They're here, they love girls, so suck on that! This is going to get deleted, isn't it? Ellis ♥▲ Raimbault 15:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Brand new user but already blocked indef. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • With incivility like that, ignorance is bliss.-- WaltCip 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Ellis Raimbault, category deletion doesn't imply denial of existence of a concept; simply determination that for one of several possible reasons, the concept doesn't work well within mediawiki's "category" functionality. Your comment suggests some confusion between categories and tagging; WP:CAT and WP:CLS could be helpful in distinguishing those concepts. -- lquilter 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
That's great—I want to see more votes of What the hell? in CFDs from now on. Snocrates 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - for an entire myriad of reasons. POV fork / vague / non-encyclopedic etc, etc. - Alison ❤ 19:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Because we don't need a category with only one thing in it. When we get a second self-identified GL, then we can make a category if anyone still cares. Enrico Dirac 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)user indef blocked on Nov 6. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a neologism used by a very small amount of people, and amounts to fancruft.-- A 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with fire. Blatant advocacy, utterly inappropriate for a mainspace category. Guy ( Help!) 10:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per VigilancePrime Strichmann 12:01, 6 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York State Reference Routes and Parkway Routes

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 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 debate was rename. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:New York State Reference Routes and Parkway Routes to Category:Reference routes in New York
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes, they are all reference routes. NE2 20:57, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Health in Manchester

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 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 debate was delete; all articles already appear in Category:Hospitals in Manchester. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Health in Manchester ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As rightly pointed out at stub types for deletion, I created this category in good faith but now I can't forsee anything other than hospitals being in the category, which is already served by Category:Hospitals in Manchester. Rudget Contributions 17:32, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

ANSI C

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 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 debate was delete all; the single article already appears in Category:C programming language. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:ANSI C standard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ISO C89 standard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ISO C99 standard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ANSI C standards ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is one article, ANSI C, with Category:ANSI C standard. There are three more categories: Category:ISO C89 standard, Category:ISO C99 standard, Category:C standards. These 4 categories contain only that one article and and a curious arrangement of subcategories of each other! The article is now correctly categorized as Category:Computer and telecommunication standards; the four listed categories can be deleted. Note: the article may have been merged with C (programming language), this request for category deletions is independent of that merge. tooold 15:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, my attempt to follow your instructions re listing multiple categories for deletion failed; only the one category above has been tagged cfd. Possibly one of the helpful moderators (mentioned on the Categories for discussion page!) can help out. tooold 16:16, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Needs album infobox

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 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 debate was rename all as nominated. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Needs album infobox to Category:Album articles needing infoboxes
Propose renaming Category:Needs album infobox conversion to Category:Album articles needing infobox conversion
Propose renaming Category:Non-standard album infoboxes to Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Clarity, consistency, and precedent at Category:Album articles without cover art and Category:Album articles needing attention -- PEJL 12:50, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Protected designation of origin

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 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 debate was rename all as nominated. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Protected designation of origin to Category:Products with protected designation of origin
Category:British Protected designation of origin to Category:British products with protected designation of origin
Category:English Protected designation of origin to Category:British products with protected designation of origin
Category:Scottish Protected designation of origin to Category:British products with protected designation of origin
Category:French Protected designation of origin to Category:French products with protected designation of origin
Category:Italian Protected designation of origin to Category:Italian products with protected designation of origin
Category:Swedish Protected designation of origin to Category:Swedish products with protected designation of origin
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Adding "Products with" clarifies the contents of these categories, additionally the English and Scottish categories should be merged as they are not recognised as distinct by the European Union [1] (note even Jersey is considered UK for these purposes) . Tim! 11:11, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Race and intelligence controversy

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 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 debate was keep. the wub "?!" 19:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Race and intelligence controversy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is for articles related to a set of articles on race and intelligence, but AfD recently merged most of them back to the main article. Looking at the articles now included, most are not really a good fit for a category on race and intelligence, including, for example, some of the last bastions of pseudoscientific racism - a concept in its own right but not specifically limited to race and intelligence. One or two are blatant POV forks that should simply be nuked, I'm on that next. I suspect that this would be better handled by other extant categories and perhaps a "key figures" list in the main article. Guy ( Help!) 10:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. It would take a while to assess fully, but my initial reaction after a quick glance is that this category might be worth keeping. There is definitely some stuff that shouldn't be there (e.g. David Duke, but some which seems a good fit, such as Scientific racism, Education outcomes in the United States by race and other classifications, Mainstream Science on Intelligence, and The Bell Curve; I suggest a weeding out of clearly misplaced material, and then see what's left. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is a real controversy. It's timely. Categorization might help people use this for research purposes. Doczilla 08:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Very important topic, and more than enough properly categorized articles to justify, but Wikidudeman seems to be keeping a bunch of articles w/categories on his user pages. Does anybody know of a user talk page notification template that explains succinctly why that needs to be avoided? Cgingold 20:03, 6 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles to be expanded since November 2006

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 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 debate was that the category hath been speedily deleted. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Articles to be expanded since November 2006 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No longer in use / project section completed. Guroadrunner 06:48, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional baseball teams

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 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 debate was delete. This redirect doesn't even need to go into the sports teams category, as the article it redirects to is about an episode.-- Mike Selinker 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional baseball teams ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material (a single redirect) does not justify a distinct category. A search for "fictional baseball team" yields only one other potential candidate ( Springfield Isotopes), but it too is a redirect. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Though I thought there shoud be many articles about fictional baseball teams, actually there is not many. If the category is unnecessary, it is necessary to be deleted. I think. -- Morio 07:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Fictional sports teams. No need for a specific baseball categ for only one team. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom, unnecessary category. Otto4711 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per BrownHairedGirl's suggestion. Kukini hablame aqui 18:46, 4 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harry Potter plants

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 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 debate was merge.-- Mike Selinker 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Harry Potter plants into Category:Fictional plants
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The category's sole member ( Plants in Harry Potter) already appears in Category:Harry Potter magical objects, so it's only necessary to also categorise the article into the Category:Fictional category tree. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Doczilla 08:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I don't see why this needs discussion - the only article in it is Plants in Harry Potter. When individual plant articles are unmerged (when they become of sufficient length), it can be recreated. Can't it be speedily deleted under G6? -- Oldak Quill 17:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Mergiamus herbocrufticus! per nom. Johnbod 21:35, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harry Potter magical spells

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 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 debate was delete.-- Mike Selinker 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Harry Potter magical spells ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All of the category members already appear in the parent category, Category:Harry Potter magic, which is not sufficiently populated to necessitate subcategorisation. I think navigation would be enhanced by simply deleting this redundant layer of categorisation. If no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Harry Potter spells (the "magical" seems redundant, given the absence of such a thing as a non-magical spell). – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:00, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harry Potter vehicles

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 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 debate was merge.-- Mike Selinker 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Harry Potter vehicles into Category:Harry Potter magical objects
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The sole member ( Hogwarts Express) is already categorised in Category:Fictional trains, which is located in the Category:Fictional vehicles category tree. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:53, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pages using header-temp template

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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Pages using header-temp template ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We don't need categories like these, this serves no useful purpose. VegaDark ( talk) 03:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. In any case, it's a user-category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I thought it was borderline, so I decided to nominate it here since it could potentially include non-user pages as well. VegaDark ( talk) 15:55, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from December 2006

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 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 debate was Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from December 2006 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is now empty, and will never be used again. Moglex 03:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Once empty, I think these should be speediable - perhaps we can create a precedent here? Johnbod 03:35, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Preachers

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 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 debate was delete. As noted by all participants, the inclusion criteria for these categories are subjective. Any attempt to introduce more objectivity would involve either applying the broadest possible definition (i.e. anyone who has ever preached, irrespective of how much they do it and how defining it is to them) or essentially arbitrarily selecting a set of narrow inclusion criteria. The latter would render the category scheme largely redundant to other existing categories and the former would face issues of construct validity. There is also the problem that setting particular inclusion criteria does not guarantee that they will be followed, but that (while still significant) is secondary to the main problem of definition. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sikh preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Muslim preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Christian preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Baptist preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Methodist preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Roman Catholic preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as a repost of deleted content. Difficult to come up with an objective inclusion criteria. -- Prove It (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At the time a generalised category was deleted, it only contained one article. Now these are becoming well-populated, and having looked at a good sample of members, all the articles appear to be on people who were notable as "star" preachers in their particular denominations. The inclusion criteria are certainly subjective, and only those with a good claim to be exceptionally successful preachers should be included, but this is an important field for clerics, & I think worth keeping, and giving an occasional weeding. Now if only we had the full charts from Preaching Magazine, who in 1999 "ranked James S. Stewart as the best preacher of the twentieth century" then even Otto would be happy! Johnbod 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • You are exactly right about about my concern. Since most religious leaders do a bit of preaching every week, deciding who belongs and who doesn't will always be somewhat subjective. Over-enthusiastic new editors tend to add every possible category that might apply ... I think that if we keep them, they will always require careful weeding. -- Prove It (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom and as recreation. The overwhelming majority of christian clergy/priests/ministers/pastors have preaching as a significant part of their job, so in the vast, majority of cases this category in just an extra label attached to christian clergy, and the same applies to other denoms. There are some exceptional cases of preachers who are not clergy/priests/ministers/pastors etc, but it would be much better to devise a specific category for that group than to see them being lost in categories like these, where inclusion can be denied only on a subjective assessment of someone's preaching ability. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and BHG. Almost every member of the clergy preaches at some point, making the category scheme largely if not entirely redundant to the various clergy categories. Not sure why my name is being thrown about in this nomination... Otto4711 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & BHG & Otto. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Reply I am not exactly surprised to see these comments, as you can imagine. I would say in reply that in practice the categories only contain a modest number of articles, all of whose inclusion seems entirely justified. This is very often the case, I find. Only rarely do we actually see the sort of evil-octopus-trying-to-take-over-the world category that seems to keep some people awake at night. One could in fact construct objective criteria for this - for non-moderns, are their sermons still in print, and so on, but I won't attempt it without evidence of support on this. Johnbod 13:43, 5 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Mshasho Productions

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 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 debate was delete all; after The Dogg is removed from Category:Music of Namibia, there is no other content to merge. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (closing statement revised at 06:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)) reply

Category:Mshasho Productions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There now follows a series of categories created solely for The Dogg, found at Special:Newpages (category section).
Category:Mshasho Productions – delete as overcategorization of a record label which barely deserves its article ( Mshasho Productions) let alone a category for itself just to link to its founder - he and it are linked to each in their respective articles anyway. (I didn't want to zap the article using CSD A7 when sorting these categories out, but I wouldn't object if somebody else did the honours.)
Category:Sunny Boy – delete as Eponymous overcategorization. (The Dogg has apparently signed Sunny Boy to his label, but that doesn't merit a category.)
Category:Gazza – delete, eponymous overcategorization again for The Dogg's rival "Gazza". Note that Gazza is a disambig page and Gazza (musician) was speedied a few months ago.
Category:Music of Namibia. Presumably the creator was looking for Category:Namibian music, so suggest merge, but leave a redirect and remove The Dogg from this category before the merger: he is now a member of Category:Namibian hip hop musicians and that's the appropriate place for his article, rather than a higher-level non-biographical category. Bencherlite Talk 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Did you mean "delete first three, merge fourth"? My fault for not setting out the nomination more legibly. Bencherlite Talk 21:03, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albinos

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 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 debate was rename both as nominated and leave category redirects. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Albinos to Category:People with albinism
Propose renaming Category:Fictional albinos to Category:Fictional people with albinism
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the other people by medical condition categories, e.g., Category:People with brain injuries, Category:People with schizophrenia, Category:People with muscular dystrophy, etc. Doczilla 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod 03:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom but keep category redirect as it's far more likely people would search for "albinos" than "people with albinism". Snocrates 09:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom and redirect per Snocrates. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and redirect per nom and Snocrates. Can we also move Category:Fictional albinos to Category:Fictional people with albinism, or does that need to be a separate nomination? I can't imagine the consensus would not be the same. LeSnail 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I have tagged it and added it in here. If that's unacceptable to anyone, it can be moved off to its own section. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
      • It's acceptable to the nominator. Doczilla 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - Person first language is always preferable. Kukini hablame aqui 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - per nominator. Rudget Contributions 17:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose both - political correctness runs amuck. Otto4711 13:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Otto4711. Albino is the normal word, applicable to animals as well as people. Albinism, while the correct name for the medical condition, is a much less commonly used word. Categories work best with short names. Peterkingiron 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment According to a Wiktionary definition of albino, the term is "[c]onsidered by some to be offensive when used as a term for human beings; more neutral language being 'albinistic'." I post this not to claim that the term is indeed offensive, but just to put the information out there for consideration. Snocrates 10:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I understand your point, but WP:NOTCENSORED does not really come into play when there is an alternate term that means exactly the same thing. We're not censoring anything — it's being phrased differently. If a category redirect is included, there is zero net loss of information to the project. In fact, the proposed rename is probably more accurate, since there can be albino animals, and the proposed name makes it clear that the category is for people. Snocrates 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per Snocrates. Hardly necessary to look in a dictionary to confirm that referring to someone as "an albino" is generally regarded as demeaning -- it's a hereditary disorder, not an ethnicity. (We also don't refer to a person who has lost the use of a leg as "a cripple".) Cgingold 20:16, 6 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Place of worship disambiguation

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 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 debate was keep all. Please see the Nov 2 discussion and considering initiating new nominations if you can think of a better naming standard for the subcategories of Category:Disambiguation. It may be useful to raise the issue at Category talk:Disambiguation. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 00:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Place of worship disambiguation to Category:Lists of ambiguous places of worship
Propose renaming Category:Educational institution disambiguation to Category:Lists of ambiguous educational institutions
Propose renaming Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation to Category:Lists of ambiguous tropical cyclones
Nominator's rationale: The current name is ambiguous and does not correctly identify the contents of the category. Templates may need updating if the categories are renamed. Vegaswikian 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the format favoured in two of yesteady's discusions was "Lists of ambiguous foo". Wouldn't it be better too standardise on that? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Weak Oppose I don't know if they're always lists. Does telling two items apart really make a list? Lists on Wikipedia are generally longer than 2, and disambiguation pages here are generally only a few.-- Patrick Ѻ 02:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Are you saying that all three have this problem? Are you also saying that the current names are better then the proposals and that we don't need some kind of naming convention for these? Vegaswikian 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I disagree. Creating dab pages like this is against WP:NOT, especially only one article actually containing the term exists. A full directory would of course contain thousands of entries (nearly all NN), especially if foreign translations are included. The page and the category should be deleted. In fact we no doubt have dozens of other articles on Catholic Churches named after John, but who can be bothered to add them here? Unless it finds a dedicated wikignome, it will always misrepresent the number of articles we actually have, and should be deleted as misleading. changed - maybe it has Johnbod 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The suggested titles seem to imply that the places of worship, educational institutions, and tropical cyclones themselves (rather than their names) are ambiguous. The same issue applies to the other nominations. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't mind too much which format is used, so long as we can agree a consistent format for use in all the subcats of Category:Disambiguation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. They're not all lists. The suggested wording is awkward. Have you seen an ambiguous cyclone? Doczilla 18:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • rename or not, but not to anything using the word "ambiguous" because that is ambiguous. Hmains 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I believe that there is consensus to rename. However I'm not sure that there is any proposal on the table that addresses the concerns with the nomination as proposed. Is there a form that works for most? Vegaswikian 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there was in the last few days, a similar discussion regarding ship name disambiguation recently. For those categories that are kept, these items should be renamed to conform to the convention formulated there. This should involve the word "disambiguation" (which is well-known in WP), rather than "ambiguous". I doubt we need a category for churches dedicated to St. John, which seems to be the basis of the churches item. Peterkingiron 19:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The church one is badly underpopulated. Seems other editors are populating it after the discussion here. Vegaswikian 19:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Proposed solution. Allow the closing administrator of this related discussion to close these using the same form. I think that is the thrust of the comments above. Vegaswikian 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Agreed, both for myself, and the way others seem to be thinking. Now that Category:Place of worship disambiguation suddenly has 52 pages (most much better than the original one, I agree it should stay. Johnbod 00:51, 5 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_3&oldid=1146512541"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 2 November 4 >

November 3

Category:Incumbent Indian Governors

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 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 debate was merge. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Incumbent Indian Governors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:State governors of India, we prefer timeless information, former / current / future distinctions require frequent updates and are not suitable for mirrors, CD's, or printed editions. -- Prove It (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to conform to other "current" office holder categories. Peterkingiron 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom to avoid unmaintainable current office cat. Carlossuarez46 22:33, 6 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Girl lovers

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 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 debate was Deleted, POV category, creator banned here and on de:WP. Guy ( Help!)

Category:Girl lovers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Apart from being rather meaningless what it actually means is they are pedophiles and we already have a pedophile category, POV fork as part of an ongoing campaign of promoting pro-pedophile activist POV on the project. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Nonsensical assumption: Only a slight percentage of girl lovers are pedophiles. Roman Czyborra 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Indef blocked user as of Nov 5. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No clear criteria, POV category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (repeat). Thanks for the hint, Will. I will add clearer criteria. But which point of view exactly are you talking about? Roman Czyborra 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Only one actual biography in it. Johnbod 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vague, subjective, underpopulated category. Doczilla 08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (repeat). The only reason it is underpopulated is that it had only been started a few hours ago. It will grow with time if you please let it. There are millions of girl lovers world-wide and some of them will be notable! Roman Czyborra 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Please only give one bolded opinion/!vote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
        • This is not a vote but an argumentation. Please do not mutilate my comments! Roman Czyborra 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
          • It's fine to reply to the opinions of others, but you don't need to write Keep (repeat) everytime. It's distracting and appears intended to overemphasize your viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. It's unclear whether this means paedophiles or whether it is an umbrella category or lesbians, heterosexual men and all bisexual people; in the first case it's a content fork, and in the second case it's an un-needed umbrella category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (repeat) Girl lover comprises indeed lesbians, heterosexuals and bisexuals. What is wrong with that? Roman Czyborra 01:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
      • As explained above, the term "girl" in this phrase is unclear to a plain English reading. "Girl" is sometimes used to mean "female" and at any rate is of indeterminate age. So, the category could be read to include more than 50% of all biographical articles, which is indiscriminate and unnecessary categorizing. -- lquilter 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The description given is "Girl lovers are persons who love or loved girls." This is an extremely broad and vague definition that makes for a useless category. Maralia 14:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per BHG and linguistic confusion. It could mean (A) Lovers of girls which is too broad especially since "girls" often means "female" and even as "not-yet-adult-females" is vague. And there are problems (already described above) with any of those categories, plus we don't categorize people relationally, or, generally on beliefs and interests. It could alternative mean (B) girls who are lovers which again suffers from the same problems of defining "girls", verifying that they have had lovers, and that that is not defining. -- lquilter 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per vague criteria "lovers" needn't be in a sexual sense, either - if you love your kid sister, daughter, niece, you're in this cat. Useless. Carlossuarez46 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (repeat) I you love your kid sister sexually you would probably go in this category, if loving girls is not an outstanding part of your personality then you simply will not be added. Roman Czyborra 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (repeat) Girl lover is an established term amongst those who do research into pedophilia. Roman Czyborra 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Will Beback, Johnbod, Doczilla, Maralia, BHG, lquilter, Carlossuarez46. Snocrates 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Category seems very subjective. Lists like these have a history of not lasting long in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Roman619 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman619 ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Roman C. As he says in defense, "Girl lover is an established term amongst those who do research into pedophilia." Even in accepting that (an assumption that I'm not debating), how established is this understanding in the general population? Girl love redirects to the Pedophilia article, but nowhere in that article is this phrase used. That being the case, how widespread is this? It's not. Further, the various interpretations above (lovers of girls, those who love someone who is a girl, girls who are lovers, etc.) make this category ineffective at differentiating. While generally I am not in favor of deletions, especially this soon after a page creation, in this case I believe it is warrented. VigilancePrime 02:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (side note: category creator constantly reverts pages in near edit-war style against multiple editors in pushing this category, which detracts unnecessarily from his credibility) reply
  • Delete. Obscure, inherently POV term. - Sean Curtin 05:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm all for neutral and informative editing on issues such as Adult-child sex, but despite this, and despite the fact that the editor is a respectable man, the category as it stands is PedCruft, and should be deleted. GrooV 07:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Question - Where is this pedophiles category you speak of? I see Category:Pedophile activism and Category:Fictional pedophiles, no category for real-world pedophiles in particular. — xDanielx T/ C 11:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

`*Endorse deletion - Absurd term which seems a POV term. All articles categorized as such (both of them) are also in the pedophile category, so it seems redundant, as well. Jeffpw 12:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Keep!!! + What the hell??? Girllove is out there, and very real, whether you sexual puritans would prefer to think so or not. They're here, they love girls, so suck on that! This is going to get deleted, isn't it? Ellis ♥▲ Raimbault 15:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Brand new user but already blocked indef. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • With incivility like that, ignorance is bliss.-- WaltCip 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Ellis Raimbault, category deletion doesn't imply denial of existence of a concept; simply determination that for one of several possible reasons, the concept doesn't work well within mediawiki's "category" functionality. Your comment suggests some confusion between categories and tagging; WP:CAT and WP:CLS could be helpful in distinguishing those concepts. -- lquilter 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
That's great—I want to see more votes of What the hell? in CFDs from now on. Snocrates 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - for an entire myriad of reasons. POV fork / vague / non-encyclopedic etc, etc. - Alison ❤ 19:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Because we don't need a category with only one thing in it. When we get a second self-identified GL, then we can make a category if anyone still cares. Enrico Dirac 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)user indef blocked on Nov 6. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a neologism used by a very small amount of people, and amounts to fancruft.-- A 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with fire. Blatant advocacy, utterly inappropriate for a mainspace category. Guy ( Help!) 10:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per VigilancePrime Strichmann 12:01, 6 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York State Reference Routes and Parkway Routes

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 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 debate was rename. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:New York State Reference Routes and Parkway Routes to Category:Reference routes in New York
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes, they are all reference routes. NE2 20:57, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Health in Manchester

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 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 debate was delete; all articles already appear in Category:Hospitals in Manchester. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Health in Manchester ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As rightly pointed out at stub types for deletion, I created this category in good faith but now I can't forsee anything other than hospitals being in the category, which is already served by Category:Hospitals in Manchester. Rudget Contributions 17:32, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

ANSI C

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 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 debate was delete all; the single article already appears in Category:C programming language. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:ANSI C standard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ISO C89 standard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ISO C99 standard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ANSI C standards ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is one article, ANSI C, with Category:ANSI C standard. There are three more categories: Category:ISO C89 standard, Category:ISO C99 standard, Category:C standards. These 4 categories contain only that one article and and a curious arrangement of subcategories of each other! The article is now correctly categorized as Category:Computer and telecommunication standards; the four listed categories can be deleted. Note: the article may have been merged with C (programming language), this request for category deletions is independent of that merge. tooold 15:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, my attempt to follow your instructions re listing multiple categories for deletion failed; only the one category above has been tagged cfd. Possibly one of the helpful moderators (mentioned on the Categories for discussion page!) can help out. tooold 16:16, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Needs album infobox

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 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 debate was rename all as nominated. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Needs album infobox to Category:Album articles needing infoboxes
Propose renaming Category:Needs album infobox conversion to Category:Album articles needing infobox conversion
Propose renaming Category:Non-standard album infoboxes to Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Clarity, consistency, and precedent at Category:Album articles without cover art and Category:Album articles needing attention -- PEJL 12:50, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Protected designation of origin

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 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 debate was rename all as nominated. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Protected designation of origin to Category:Products with protected designation of origin
Category:British Protected designation of origin to Category:British products with protected designation of origin
Category:English Protected designation of origin to Category:British products with protected designation of origin
Category:Scottish Protected designation of origin to Category:British products with protected designation of origin
Category:French Protected designation of origin to Category:French products with protected designation of origin
Category:Italian Protected designation of origin to Category:Italian products with protected designation of origin
Category:Swedish Protected designation of origin to Category:Swedish products with protected designation of origin
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Adding "Products with" clarifies the contents of these categories, additionally the English and Scottish categories should be merged as they are not recognised as distinct by the European Union [1] (note even Jersey is considered UK for these purposes) . Tim! 11:11, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Race and intelligence controversy

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 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 debate was keep. the wub "?!" 19:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Race and intelligence controversy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is for articles related to a set of articles on race and intelligence, but AfD recently merged most of them back to the main article. Looking at the articles now included, most are not really a good fit for a category on race and intelligence, including, for example, some of the last bastions of pseudoscientific racism - a concept in its own right but not specifically limited to race and intelligence. One or two are blatant POV forks that should simply be nuked, I'm on that next. I suspect that this would be better handled by other extant categories and perhaps a "key figures" list in the main article. Guy ( Help!) 10:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. It would take a while to assess fully, but my initial reaction after a quick glance is that this category might be worth keeping. There is definitely some stuff that shouldn't be there (e.g. David Duke, but some which seems a good fit, such as Scientific racism, Education outcomes in the United States by race and other classifications, Mainstream Science on Intelligence, and The Bell Curve; I suggest a weeding out of clearly misplaced material, and then see what's left. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is a real controversy. It's timely. Categorization might help people use this for research purposes. Doczilla 08:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Very important topic, and more than enough properly categorized articles to justify, but Wikidudeman seems to be keeping a bunch of articles w/categories on his user pages. Does anybody know of a user talk page notification template that explains succinctly why that needs to be avoided? Cgingold 20:03, 6 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles to be expanded since November 2006

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 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 debate was that the category hath been speedily deleted. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Articles to be expanded since November 2006 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No longer in use / project section completed. Guroadrunner 06:48, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional baseball teams

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 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 debate was delete. This redirect doesn't even need to go into the sports teams category, as the article it redirects to is about an episode.-- Mike Selinker 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional baseball teams ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The material (a single redirect) does not justify a distinct category. A search for "fictional baseball team" yields only one other potential candidate ( Springfield Isotopes), but it too is a redirect. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Though I thought there shoud be many articles about fictional baseball teams, actually there is not many. If the category is unnecessary, it is necessary to be deleted. I think. -- Morio 07:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Fictional sports teams. No need for a specific baseball categ for only one team. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom, unnecessary category. Otto4711 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per BrownHairedGirl's suggestion. Kukini hablame aqui 18:46, 4 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harry Potter plants

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 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 debate was merge.-- Mike Selinker 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Harry Potter plants into Category:Fictional plants
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The category's sole member ( Plants in Harry Potter) already appears in Category:Harry Potter magical objects, so it's only necessary to also categorise the article into the Category:Fictional category tree. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Doczilla 08:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I don't see why this needs discussion - the only article in it is Plants in Harry Potter. When individual plant articles are unmerged (when they become of sufficient length), it can be recreated. Can't it be speedily deleted under G6? -- Oldak Quill 17:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Mergiamus herbocrufticus! per nom. Johnbod 21:35, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harry Potter magical spells

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 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 debate was delete.-- Mike Selinker 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Harry Potter magical spells ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All of the category members already appear in the parent category, Category:Harry Potter magic, which is not sufficiently populated to necessitate subcategorisation. I think navigation would be enhanced by simply deleting this redundant layer of categorisation. If no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Harry Potter spells (the "magical" seems redundant, given the absence of such a thing as a non-magical spell). – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:00, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harry Potter vehicles

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 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 debate was merge.-- Mike Selinker 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Harry Potter vehicles into Category:Harry Potter magical objects
Nominator's rationale: The material does not justify a distinct category. The sole member ( Hogwarts Express) is already categorised in Category:Fictional trains, which is located in the Category:Fictional vehicles category tree. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:53, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pages using header-temp template

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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Pages using header-temp template ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We don't need categories like these, this serves no useful purpose. VegaDark ( talk) 03:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. In any case, it's a user-category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I thought it was borderline, so I decided to nominate it here since it could potentially include non-user pages as well. VegaDark ( talk) 15:55, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from December 2006

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 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 debate was Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from December 2006 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is now empty, and will never be used again. Moglex 03:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Once empty, I think these should be speediable - perhaps we can create a precedent here? Johnbod 03:35, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Preachers

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 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 debate was delete. As noted by all participants, the inclusion criteria for these categories are subjective. Any attempt to introduce more objectivity would involve either applying the broadest possible definition (i.e. anyone who has ever preached, irrespective of how much they do it and how defining it is to them) or essentially arbitrarily selecting a set of narrow inclusion criteria. The latter would render the category scheme largely redundant to other existing categories and the former would face issues of construct validity. There is also the problem that setting particular inclusion criteria does not guarantee that they will be followed, but that (while still significant) is secondary to the main problem of definition. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sikh preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Muslim preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Christian preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Baptist preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Methodist preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Roman Catholic preachers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as a repost of deleted content. Difficult to come up with an objective inclusion criteria. -- Prove It (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At the time a generalised category was deleted, it only contained one article. Now these are becoming well-populated, and having looked at a good sample of members, all the articles appear to be on people who were notable as "star" preachers in their particular denominations. The inclusion criteria are certainly subjective, and only those with a good claim to be exceptionally successful preachers should be included, but this is an important field for clerics, & I think worth keeping, and giving an occasional weeding. Now if only we had the full charts from Preaching Magazine, who in 1999 "ranked James S. Stewart as the best preacher of the twentieth century" then even Otto would be happy! Johnbod 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • You are exactly right about about my concern. Since most religious leaders do a bit of preaching every week, deciding who belongs and who doesn't will always be somewhat subjective. Over-enthusiastic new editors tend to add every possible category that might apply ... I think that if we keep them, they will always require careful weeding. -- Prove It (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom and as recreation. The overwhelming majority of christian clergy/priests/ministers/pastors have preaching as a significant part of their job, so in the vast, majority of cases this category in just an extra label attached to christian clergy, and the same applies to other denoms. There are some exceptional cases of preachers who are not clergy/priests/ministers/pastors etc, but it would be much better to devise a specific category for that group than to see them being lost in categories like these, where inclusion can be denied only on a subjective assessment of someone's preaching ability. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and BHG. Almost every member of the clergy preaches at some point, making the category scheme largely if not entirely redundant to the various clergy categories. Not sure why my name is being thrown about in this nomination... Otto4711 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & BHG & Otto. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Reply I am not exactly surprised to see these comments, as you can imagine. I would say in reply that in practice the categories only contain a modest number of articles, all of whose inclusion seems entirely justified. This is very often the case, I find. Only rarely do we actually see the sort of evil-octopus-trying-to-take-over-the world category that seems to keep some people awake at night. One could in fact construct objective criteria for this - for non-moderns, are their sermons still in print, and so on, but I won't attempt it without evidence of support on this. Johnbod 13:43, 5 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Mshasho Productions

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 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 debate was delete all; after The Dogg is removed from Category:Music of Namibia, there is no other content to merge. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (closing statement revised at 06:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)) reply

Category:Mshasho Productions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There now follows a series of categories created solely for The Dogg, found at Special:Newpages (category section).
Category:Mshasho Productions – delete as overcategorization of a record label which barely deserves its article ( Mshasho Productions) let alone a category for itself just to link to its founder - he and it are linked to each in their respective articles anyway. (I didn't want to zap the article using CSD A7 when sorting these categories out, but I wouldn't object if somebody else did the honours.)
Category:Sunny Boy – delete as Eponymous overcategorization. (The Dogg has apparently signed Sunny Boy to his label, but that doesn't merit a category.)
Category:Gazza – delete, eponymous overcategorization again for The Dogg's rival "Gazza". Note that Gazza is a disambig page and Gazza (musician) was speedied a few months ago.
Category:Music of Namibia. Presumably the creator was looking for Category:Namibian music, so suggest merge, but leave a redirect and remove The Dogg from this category before the merger: he is now a member of Category:Namibian hip hop musicians and that's the appropriate place for his article, rather than a higher-level non-biographical category. Bencherlite Talk 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Did you mean "delete first three, merge fourth"? My fault for not setting out the nomination more legibly. Bencherlite Talk 21:03, 3 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albinos

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 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 debate was rename both as nominated and leave category redirects. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Albinos to Category:People with albinism
Propose renaming Category:Fictional albinos to Category:Fictional people with albinism
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the other people by medical condition categories, e.g., Category:People with brain injuries, Category:People with schizophrenia, Category:People with muscular dystrophy, etc. Doczilla 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod 03:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom but keep category redirect as it's far more likely people would search for "albinos" than "people with albinism". Snocrates 09:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom and redirect per Snocrates. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and redirect per nom and Snocrates. Can we also move Category:Fictional albinos to Category:Fictional people with albinism, or does that need to be a separate nomination? I can't imagine the consensus would not be the same. LeSnail 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I have tagged it and added it in here. If that's unacceptable to anyone, it can be moved off to its own section. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
      • It's acceptable to the nominator. Doczilla 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - Person first language is always preferable. Kukini hablame aqui 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - per nominator. Rudget Contributions 17:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose both - political correctness runs amuck. Otto4711 13:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Otto4711. Albino is the normal word, applicable to animals as well as people. Albinism, while the correct name for the medical condition, is a much less commonly used word. Categories work best with short names. Peterkingiron 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment According to a Wiktionary definition of albino, the term is "[c]onsidered by some to be offensive when used as a term for human beings; more neutral language being 'albinistic'." I post this not to claim that the term is indeed offensive, but just to put the information out there for consideration. Snocrates 10:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I understand your point, but WP:NOTCENSORED does not really come into play when there is an alternate term that means exactly the same thing. We're not censoring anything — it's being phrased differently. If a category redirect is included, there is zero net loss of information to the project. In fact, the proposed rename is probably more accurate, since there can be albino animals, and the proposed name makes it clear that the category is for people. Snocrates 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per Snocrates. Hardly necessary to look in a dictionary to confirm that referring to someone as "an albino" is generally regarded as demeaning -- it's a hereditary disorder, not an ethnicity. (We also don't refer to a person who has lost the use of a leg as "a cripple".) Cgingold 20:16, 6 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Place of worship disambiguation

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 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 debate was keep all. Please see the Nov 2 discussion and considering initiating new nominations if you can think of a better naming standard for the subcategories of Category:Disambiguation. It may be useful to raise the issue at Category talk:Disambiguation. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 00:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Place of worship disambiguation to Category:Lists of ambiguous places of worship
Propose renaming Category:Educational institution disambiguation to Category:Lists of ambiguous educational institutions
Propose renaming Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation to Category:Lists of ambiguous tropical cyclones
Nominator's rationale: The current name is ambiguous and does not correctly identify the contents of the category. Templates may need updating if the categories are renamed. Vegaswikian 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the format favoured in two of yesteady's discusions was "Lists of ambiguous foo". Wouldn't it be better too standardise on that? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Weak Oppose I don't know if they're always lists. Does telling two items apart really make a list? Lists on Wikipedia are generally longer than 2, and disambiguation pages here are generally only a few.-- Patrick Ѻ 02:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Are you saying that all three have this problem? Are you also saying that the current names are better then the proposals and that we don't need some kind of naming convention for these? Vegaswikian 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I disagree. Creating dab pages like this is against WP:NOT, especially only one article actually containing the term exists. A full directory would of course contain thousands of entries (nearly all NN), especially if foreign translations are included. The page and the category should be deleted. In fact we no doubt have dozens of other articles on Catholic Churches named after John, but who can be bothered to add them here? Unless it finds a dedicated wikignome, it will always misrepresent the number of articles we actually have, and should be deleted as misleading. changed - maybe it has Johnbod 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The suggested titles seem to imply that the places of worship, educational institutions, and tropical cyclones themselves (rather than their names) are ambiguous. The same issue applies to the other nominations. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't mind too much which format is used, so long as we can agree a consistent format for use in all the subcats of Category:Disambiguation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. They're not all lists. The suggested wording is awkward. Have you seen an ambiguous cyclone? Doczilla 18:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • rename or not, but not to anything using the word "ambiguous" because that is ambiguous. Hmains 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I believe that there is consensus to rename. However I'm not sure that there is any proposal on the table that addresses the concerns with the nomination as proposed. Is there a form that works for most? Vegaswikian 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there was in the last few days, a similar discussion regarding ship name disambiguation recently. For those categories that are kept, these items should be renamed to conform to the convention formulated there. This should involve the word "disambiguation" (which is well-known in WP), rather than "ambiguous". I doubt we need a category for churches dedicated to St. John, which seems to be the basis of the churches item. Peterkingiron 19:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The church one is badly underpopulated. Seems other editors are populating it after the discussion here. Vegaswikian 19:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Proposed solution. Allow the closing administrator of this related discussion to close these using the same form. I think that is the thrust of the comments above. Vegaswikian 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Agreed, both for myself, and the way others seem to be thinking. Now that Category:Place of worship disambiguation suddenly has 52 pages (most much better than the original one, I agree it should stay. Johnbod 00:51, 5 November 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_3&oldid=1146512541"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE