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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category is currently being used to categorize some of the founders and leaders of
Rotary International, but there are also some articles in it whereby the subject has no greater connection to the topic apart from being a member of Rotary International. A category for members of Rotary International has been
deleted before. If kept, I suggest we at least rename this to
Category:Leaders of Rotary International or similar and include only those whose notability is due to the fact that they founded or headed Rotary International.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I think (but I am not sure) that fellows of the Rotary Foundation are people who have received a Rotary Foundation fellowship—kind of like a scholarship. That seems like a garden-variety awards category and is of dubious value, I'd say.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
If that's what it is about, and if fellowship (money) recipients are not clearly defined in any article, then certainly it is not a suitable categorisation. Awards have to be very significant to be a basis for categorisation. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
02:12, 20 November 2010 (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.
Category:Miscellaneous international cricket
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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. There has been a general consensus to avoid "remainder" categories like this that categorize "miscellaneous" or "not otherwise categorized" topics. In such cases, the "left-overs" are just contained in the parent category.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:17, 14 November 2010 (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.
Category:Lakes with rumoured lake monsters
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.
Delete. I think this is appropriate to have in a list, probably not for a category since the level of notability the lake derives from the rumour varies enormously from lake to lake. For some, it is quite central to what the lake it known for; for others, hardly at all.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:42, 16 November 2010 (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.
Category:University of Munich alumni
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 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.
Category:Introduced species sites
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete, arbitrary and unworkable, and founded upon OR. I doubt there's a place on earth that doesn't have an
introduced species of some kind (plant or animal). And as best as I can determine, "site" has no established meaning in this context, but is instead a made-up term, so what constitutes an "introduced species site" is either based on some kind of original research or meaninglessly vague, thus leaving this category to either arbitrarily select a few place articles for inclusion just based on what someone bothers to put in, or to expand to potentially any city, country, region, etc. And I doubt that there are any places that are defined by their having introduced species extant. The
list of introduced species is already organized geographically, so whatever information this category purports to collect is already out there in a useful form. postdlf (talk)
19:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
(I'M busy, but this should be Fun)-So the previous knows the word eclectic:... (I'm the author of the Category). the deal is this: 1.--the Nominator has a 'thing' going. He turned a personal note I gave to a reverter to
Camrose, Alberta into this. (I don't, and won't read his nominator -cabal-driven, excuses...), but here's the deal about the
Category:Introduced species: 2.--The category is underpopulated, (depauperate, to use a word as good as "eclectic"-(It's (eclectic)-a Barnstar Award-winning word, by the way). The category will remain underpopulated for the following reasons; 3.--One---List of intrudeced species, will never fulfull the need.-(This all began: I had to deal with 2-3 barrages about a "List" (there refs, not mine!) The following lists should be made: 4-A.--There is a List of intruduced birds. 4-B.--List of introduced species-Islands 4-C.--List of introduced fish species-Lakes 4-D.--List of introduced fish species-drainage basins 4-E.--List of introduced species-mammals 4-F.--List of introduced species-domesticated animals, (i.e. mammals, birds) 4.G.--List of introduced species-mountain ranges, (i.e. or valleys, plateaus,..)
So you get the idea of being underpopulated. I can guarantee, that 2 years from now (after the cabal-cowboys-get-done). Either the category will be transformed, or the ONE big list will be transformed. (As the "expert" nominator said in my Talk.. No place on the planet
Earth has not been affected. (And that's why I only found 2 mountain ranges, easily identifiable, living sites for a bird species, and a mammal.. ! --
Ruby Mountains, and
Florida Mountains; I suspect at least 10 to 20 good mountain ranges must be on the planet, with good examples of established, introduced species.)... (so help this category out, and set the example for the next two years.)...(i.e. keep it underpopulated... if you do a search of "intoduced-lakes-species-fish", you will be amazed at the items NOT, capable of being put on a "List of introduced species".)...(author of Category).. (And if you are incapable of figuring out why the
Tongariro National Park and the
Aammiq Wetland are precise examples for the category, then fellow wikipedians, and other Articles in Wikipedia, look out ahead.)... (author, of category)--....
Mmcannis (
talk)
16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. A site where something is introduced is that, the single place where something was introduced. By making it a category, we are saying that the introduction is defining for the site. A category is not capable of documenting that a species was specifically introduced there as to some other location and simply migrated to that location. While we may know that a specific species is not native, to claim that we know where it was introduced is generally unprovable. So I guess in the end, this category is subjective conjecture.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
07:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks-for not reading any of the articles. Each article, specifically tells, why the species was introduced, and the Resultant, of it. (I would expect that you at least look at 2,3,4 articles.... instead of making statements, based on (your) incorrect assumptions)-(because of not reading, or examining any articles).
Mmcannis (
talk)
18:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- much too wide-ranging to be useful. One might think of having this as a parent-only category, but this would lead to species articles being plastered with categories for places where the species had been interoduced. This is why we do not allow award and performance by performer categories. List-articles might be acceptable.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:43, 18 November 2010 (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.
Category:Atheistic actors
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 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.
Category:Black Rock region
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. While listed as a rename since the current name is not accurate in my mind, I think that deletion is the best choice. This area is one of about 3,000 USGS defined units. It would be much better for navigation to cover this information in articles about major units with sections for the subunits. I contend that being included in the USGS units is not defining for the articles. Note, this was created by a banned user.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)reply
It looks like a stub masquerading as a category. Why hasn't the description (and map!) been moved to article space? Is there any precedence on having or not having articles on each of these USGS units? postdlf (talk)
22:05, 14 November 2010 (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.
Category:Piano compositions
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 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.
Category:Lakes of the Mojave Desert (California)
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 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.
Category:Recipients of the Jawaharlal Nehru Award
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 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.
Category:Yuba River Basin
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 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.
Category:Bear River Basin (California)
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single entry category with unclear growth opportunities. No main article and the category is masquerading as the main article.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:34, 14 November 2010 (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.
Category:Regions of the United States
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Which type of region? political, physical, historical or other as listed in the template used in the introduction. Bottom line here is that there is no inclusion criteria. One could argue that splitting along the topics in the template might be a way to go. My question there is, would we need both the template and the categories?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep this category, as a "layperson's sense of regions" cat. - without phyto-hydro-bio-eco-et al criteria that is well served in those disciplines own cat.s - so 'regular average readers' can find general encyclopedic region info. Can put a few links to the primary science based parent cat.s at page's top.---
Look2See1t a l k →05:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as an appropriate parent for articles and categories grouping the United States into regions, a clear defining category and an aid to navigation.
Alansohn (
talk)
22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep, I'm not understanding the nom's problem with this category. "Region" is an informal term, but it's understood as such and that's its benefit here. It seems to me like a logical grouping of such unofficial subdivisions (whether cultural, geographic, or historical) of the U.S., to separate them out from formal (i.e., political) subdivisions such as states, cities, etc. So it's serving a useful sorting function, and I don't see it being misused. Really the only alternative is to reverse the sorting, by dumping all of this category's contents back into
category:Subdivisions of the United States, and then moving all of the political subdivisions into a further subcategory, but that seems backwards to me. postdlf (talk)
22:22, 14 November 2010 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category is currently being used to categorize some of the founders and leaders of
Rotary International, but there are also some articles in it whereby the subject has no greater connection to the topic apart from being a member of Rotary International. A category for members of Rotary International has been
deleted before. If kept, I suggest we at least rename this to
Category:Leaders of Rotary International or similar and include only those whose notability is due to the fact that they founded or headed Rotary International.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I think (but I am not sure) that fellows of the Rotary Foundation are people who have received a Rotary Foundation fellowship—kind of like a scholarship. That seems like a garden-variety awards category and is of dubious value, I'd say.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)reply
If that's what it is about, and if fellowship (money) recipients are not clearly defined in any article, then certainly it is not a suitable categorisation. Awards have to be very significant to be a basis for categorisation. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
02:12, 20 November 2010 (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.
Category:Miscellaneous international cricket
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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. There has been a general consensus to avoid "remainder" categories like this that categorize "miscellaneous" or "not otherwise categorized" topics. In such cases, the "left-overs" are just contained in the parent category.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:17, 14 November 2010 (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.
Category:Lakes with rumoured lake monsters
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.
Delete. I think this is appropriate to have in a list, probably not for a category since the level of notability the lake derives from the rumour varies enormously from lake to lake. For some, it is quite central to what the lake it known for; for others, hardly at all.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:42, 16 November 2010 (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.
Category:University of Munich alumni
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 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.
Category:Introduced species sites
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete, arbitrary and unworkable, and founded upon OR. I doubt there's a place on earth that doesn't have an
introduced species of some kind (plant or animal). And as best as I can determine, "site" has no established meaning in this context, but is instead a made-up term, so what constitutes an "introduced species site" is either based on some kind of original research or meaninglessly vague, thus leaving this category to either arbitrarily select a few place articles for inclusion just based on what someone bothers to put in, or to expand to potentially any city, country, region, etc. And I doubt that there are any places that are defined by their having introduced species extant. The
list of introduced species is already organized geographically, so whatever information this category purports to collect is already out there in a useful form. postdlf (talk)
19:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
(I'M busy, but this should be Fun)-So the previous knows the word eclectic:... (I'm the author of the Category). the deal is this: 1.--the Nominator has a 'thing' going. He turned a personal note I gave to a reverter to
Camrose, Alberta into this. (I don't, and won't read his nominator -cabal-driven, excuses...), but here's the deal about the
Category:Introduced species: 2.--The category is underpopulated, (depauperate, to use a word as good as "eclectic"-(It's (eclectic)-a Barnstar Award-winning word, by the way). The category will remain underpopulated for the following reasons; 3.--One---List of intrudeced species, will never fulfull the need.-(This all began: I had to deal with 2-3 barrages about a "List" (there refs, not mine!) The following lists should be made: 4-A.--There is a List of intruduced birds. 4-B.--List of introduced species-Islands 4-C.--List of introduced fish species-Lakes 4-D.--List of introduced fish species-drainage basins 4-E.--List of introduced species-mammals 4-F.--List of introduced species-domesticated animals, (i.e. mammals, birds) 4.G.--List of introduced species-mountain ranges, (i.e. or valleys, plateaus,..)
So you get the idea of being underpopulated. I can guarantee, that 2 years from now (after the cabal-cowboys-get-done). Either the category will be transformed, or the ONE big list will be transformed. (As the "expert" nominator said in my Talk.. No place on the planet
Earth has not been affected. (And that's why I only found 2 mountain ranges, easily identifiable, living sites for a bird species, and a mammal.. ! --
Ruby Mountains, and
Florida Mountains; I suspect at least 10 to 20 good mountain ranges must be on the planet, with good examples of established, introduced species.)... (so help this category out, and set the example for the next two years.)...(i.e. keep it underpopulated... if you do a search of "intoduced-lakes-species-fish", you will be amazed at the items NOT, capable of being put on a "List of introduced species".)...(author of Category).. (And if you are incapable of figuring out why the
Tongariro National Park and the
Aammiq Wetland are precise examples for the category, then fellow wikipedians, and other Articles in Wikipedia, look out ahead.)... (author, of category)--....
Mmcannis (
talk)
16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. A site where something is introduced is that, the single place where something was introduced. By making it a category, we are saying that the introduction is defining for the site. A category is not capable of documenting that a species was specifically introduced there as to some other location and simply migrated to that location. While we may know that a specific species is not native, to claim that we know where it was introduced is generally unprovable. So I guess in the end, this category is subjective conjecture.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
07:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Thanks-for not reading any of the articles. Each article, specifically tells, why the species was introduced, and the Resultant, of it. (I would expect that you at least look at 2,3,4 articles.... instead of making statements, based on (your) incorrect assumptions)-(because of not reading, or examining any articles).
Mmcannis (
talk)
18:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete -- much too wide-ranging to be useful. One might think of having this as a parent-only category, but this would lead to species articles being plastered with categories for places where the species had been interoduced. This is why we do not allow award and performance by performer categories. List-articles might be acceptable.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:43, 18 November 2010 (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.
Category:Atheistic actors
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 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.
Category:Black Rock region
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. While listed as a rename since the current name is not accurate in my mind, I think that deletion is the best choice. This area is one of about 3,000 USGS defined units. It would be much better for navigation to cover this information in articles about major units with sections for the subunits. I contend that being included in the USGS units is not defining for the articles. Note, this was created by a banned user.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)reply
It looks like a stub masquerading as a category. Why hasn't the description (and map!) been moved to article space? Is there any precedence on having or not having articles on each of these USGS units? postdlf (talk)
22:05, 14 November 2010 (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.
Category:Piano compositions
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 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.
Category:Lakes of the Mojave Desert (California)
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 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.
Category:Recipients of the Jawaharlal Nehru Award
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 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.
Category:Yuba River Basin
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 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.
Category:Bear River Basin (California)
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single entry category with unclear growth opportunities. No main article and the category is masquerading as the main article.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:34, 14 November 2010 (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.
Category:Regions of the United States
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Which type of region? political, physical, historical or other as listed in the template used in the introduction. Bottom line here is that there is no inclusion criteria. One could argue that splitting along the topics in the template might be a way to go. My question there is, would we need both the template and the categories?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep this category, as a "layperson's sense of regions" cat. - without phyto-hydro-bio-eco-et al criteria that is well served in those disciplines own cat.s - so 'regular average readers' can find general encyclopedic region info. Can put a few links to the primary science based parent cat.s at page's top.---
Look2See1t a l k →05:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep as an appropriate parent for articles and categories grouping the United States into regions, a clear defining category and an aid to navigation.
Alansohn (
talk)
22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep, I'm not understanding the nom's problem with this category. "Region" is an informal term, but it's understood as such and that's its benefit here. It seems to me like a logical grouping of such unofficial subdivisions (whether cultural, geographic, or historical) of the U.S., to separate them out from formal (i.e., political) subdivisions such as states, cities, etc. So it's serving a useful sorting function, and I don't see it being misused. Really the only alternative is to reverse the sorting, by dumping all of this category's contents back into
category:Subdivisions of the United States, and then moving all of the political subdivisions into a further subcategory, but that seems backwards to me. postdlf (talk)
22:22, 14 November 2010 (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.