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.
Please familiarize yourself with the subject. See
2019 in video games which includes PC, console and mobile;
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)#Disambiguation which says to use "(video game)" over "(computer game)";
Category:Video games which, as the category says This category is for topic related to all video games regardless of platform, such as games for computers, consoles, and cellphones. A computer game is just one type of video game and not how you described it, that would be "console" game (though to be even more precise, you can play any PC game on a TV). --
Gonnym (
talk)
18:49, 28 January 2020 (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: Misleading titles. Most immigration is inside the continents, not from outside. And it might be worth considering renaming all these continental categories "migration" rather than immigration.
Rathfelder (
talk)
08:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Europe is different from the other continents. But even in Europe most migration is within the continent. The articles are mostly about immigration into particular countries. And the categories have to encompass the large numbers of articles about individual immigrants. I think "in" includes migration from outside as well as within the continent.
Rathfelder (
talk)
12:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Would it be more sensible to delete the Illegal immigration continent categories? Apart from Europe almost all the articles are concerned with individual countries, and there certainly aren't so many that they need subdividing.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:07, 30 January 2020 (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.
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:United States Executive Cabinet members by presidential administration
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.
Neutral. Whatever is consistent is fine. By the way, I created the first actual subcategory for cabinet members by Presidential Administration; it is this one:
Category:Clinton administration cabinet members. Just a little trivia for all you fans out there.
I'm pleased to see this discussion here to improve the categories in general. thanks!!! --
Sm8900 (
talk)
22:26, 9 February 2020 (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.
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:G4 (television)
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.
Not sure deletion is correct. Links aren't the same as categories (not that I need to explain that). There are 2 sub-categories and 6 articles that are currently in the category. I don't really see how deleting the category helps in any way. As I said above, naming this after the company itself (
G4 Media) which is also the name used in the infoboxes of the relevant pages. The only pages that don't belong to G4 Media are
G4 (Canadian TV channel) and
Adult Digital Distraction, which only licensed the G4 name. --
Gonnym (
talk)
17:58, 31 March 2020 (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:LaserDiscs
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:Transgender in South Africa
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:Multiplayer gaming services
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:Online gaming services
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.
So we can look at it from two angles: they facilitate the activity of videogaming, or they facilitate the access to video games. Presumably both names can be used (although in fact neither of the two names are often used exactly with those words in the articles).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I don't buy into the common belief that if a word has been commonly misused, we must eliminate that word entirely. The logical thing to do, at least on Wikipedia, is to eliminate the misuses, and as Marcocapelle pointed out this category is not a misuse of the word "gaming".--
Martin IIIa (
talk)
14:40, 9 February 2020 (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:Social casual gaming
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus for social-network games, so rename to
Category:Social casual games.
It seems to be a sub-genre of
casual games, namely casual games with a significant social aspect. This is mostly a technical move request that just barely falls outside the scope of CFDS#C2B, given the recent change to
WP:NCVG as a result of the linked discussion.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
17:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think it makes sense to describe these as social network games. The social network aspect is not a core feature, and usually not a feature incorporated at all of the games, which typically involve either one or two players. Some of the sources, and the article in question, sloppily describe any game distributed on a social network platform or that has added features like leaderboards as a social network game (e.g. Farmville, which does not appear to be sourced), but that would make even Tetris, chess, and solitaire social network games, which just isn't the case. -
Wikidemon (
talk)
14:29, 25 March 2020 (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: This is a compelling list, but it is not an appropriate category. In the best cases, such as
pisco, "moonshine by country" is a confusing tag. In the worst cases, such as
brandy, it's largely misleading. —
jameslucas▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄15:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: as explained by the nominator. Category and article-list confuse illegaly produced spirits (=moonshine) and traditional brandies, which don't share the same technical and sociocultural contexts.--
Phso2 (
talk)
17:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's far easier to fix incorrect entries on a list, and one already exists so listifying is unnecessary. By the way, this seems to have been emptied during this nomination, which it shouldn't have been.
Grutness...wha?03:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, it is empty, which it wasn't before the nomination. It should still have its articles. It also shouldn't have been merged while the CfD discussion was in progress. Nominating a category for renaming, or for deletion if it's unnecessary are fine - pre-empting the outcome of the discussion is not. As the instructions say, Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.Grutness...wha?03:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article is good, the category is inappropriate and genuinely erroneous for some entries. I'm seeing a genuine lack of competence here.
oknazevad (
talk)
15:27, 10 February 2020 (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:Noggin (brand) original programming
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.
Oppose. I find it strange even if I try to AGF that you've nominated this again, as if the speedy wasn't opposed without either addressing my point or even pinging me.
Noggin does not lead to the article, as such, it shouldn't hold the primary name here. As I've explained before, if this is for the TV network, then the correct name is
Category:Noggin (TV network) original programming. --
Gonnym (
talk)
14:47, 16 February 2020 (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:Microscopic organisms described by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
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 "described" is used in taxonomy categories such as
Category:Plants described in 1753 which give the year of formal scientific description under the system established by Linnaeus. If DexDor hadn't mentioned "Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus" in the nom, I wouldn't have remember that "named" is used instead of "described" for categories based on the namer/describer. We don't have any categories for organisms observed/described by pre-Linnaean biologists (Aristotle provided the earliest (surviving) descriptions of some species, but doesn't have a category). van Leeuwenhoek is somewhat of a special case, as he is the first person who can be proven to have observed the species he did (many species new to science have been previously observed by indigenous peoples; van Leeuwenhoek observed species that couldn't have possibly been observed by anybody before him). If the category is kept, I'd suggest renaming to "Microorganisms first observed by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek" to avoid confusion with the categories for taxa "named by" and "described in YEAR".
Plantdrew (
talk)
22:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, it'd be a bit odd if, for example, Eimeria stiedae was categorized for being described in 1895 and categorized for being described by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (died 1723). I support rename proposed by Plantdrew or (preferably) deletion. DexDor(talk)11:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Support rename, oppose deletion. No objection to the category being renamed to accommodate van Leeuwenhoek as being the first to observe, although perhaps another word can be found to encompass the fact that he did scrupulously record his observations. Documented, perhaps?
BD2412T04:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)reply
My preference is option e (then c, d, b and a) - deletion on the basis that this is non-defining and is a categorization scheme that only works for a tiny fraction of articles about microorganisms. It should also be noted that van Leeuwenhoek's article is a better source of info about what he observed (e.g. because it can include things such as muscle fibre) than this category. DexDor(talk)12:38, 5 March 2020 (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.
Please familiarize yourself with the subject. See
2019 in video games which includes PC, console and mobile;
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)#Disambiguation which says to use "(video game)" over "(computer game)";
Category:Video games which, as the category says This category is for topic related to all video games regardless of platform, such as games for computers, consoles, and cellphones. A computer game is just one type of video game and not how you described it, that would be "console" game (though to be even more precise, you can play any PC game on a TV). --
Gonnym (
talk)
18:49, 28 January 2020 (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: Misleading titles. Most immigration is inside the continents, not from outside. And it might be worth considering renaming all these continental categories "migration" rather than immigration.
Rathfelder (
talk)
08:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Europe is different from the other continents. But even in Europe most migration is within the continent. The articles are mostly about immigration into particular countries. And the categories have to encompass the large numbers of articles about individual immigrants. I think "in" includes migration from outside as well as within the continent.
Rathfelder (
talk)
12:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Would it be more sensible to delete the Illegal immigration continent categories? Apart from Europe almost all the articles are concerned with individual countries, and there certainly aren't so many that they need subdividing.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:07, 30 January 2020 (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.
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:United States Executive Cabinet members by presidential administration
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.
Neutral. Whatever is consistent is fine. By the way, I created the first actual subcategory for cabinet members by Presidential Administration; it is this one:
Category:Clinton administration cabinet members. Just a little trivia for all you fans out there.
I'm pleased to see this discussion here to improve the categories in general. thanks!!! --
Sm8900 (
talk)
22:26, 9 February 2020 (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.
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:G4 (television)
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.
Not sure deletion is correct. Links aren't the same as categories (not that I need to explain that). There are 2 sub-categories and 6 articles that are currently in the category. I don't really see how deleting the category helps in any way. As I said above, naming this after the company itself (
G4 Media) which is also the name used in the infoboxes of the relevant pages. The only pages that don't belong to G4 Media are
G4 (Canadian TV channel) and
Adult Digital Distraction, which only licensed the G4 name. --
Gonnym (
talk)
17:58, 31 March 2020 (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:LaserDiscs
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:Transgender in South Africa
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:Multiplayer gaming services
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:Online gaming services
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.
So we can look at it from two angles: they facilitate the activity of videogaming, or they facilitate the access to video games. Presumably both names can be used (although in fact neither of the two names are often used exactly with those words in the articles).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I don't buy into the common belief that if a word has been commonly misused, we must eliminate that word entirely. The logical thing to do, at least on Wikipedia, is to eliminate the misuses, and as Marcocapelle pointed out this category is not a misuse of the word "gaming".--
Martin IIIa (
talk)
14:40, 9 February 2020 (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:Social casual gaming
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus for social-network games, so rename to
Category:Social casual games.
It seems to be a sub-genre of
casual games, namely casual games with a significant social aspect. This is mostly a technical move request that just barely falls outside the scope of CFDS#C2B, given the recent change to
WP:NCVG as a result of the linked discussion.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
17:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think it makes sense to describe these as social network games. The social network aspect is not a core feature, and usually not a feature incorporated at all of the games, which typically involve either one or two players. Some of the sources, and the article in question, sloppily describe any game distributed on a social network platform or that has added features like leaderboards as a social network game (e.g. Farmville, which does not appear to be sourced), but that would make even Tetris, chess, and solitaire social network games, which just isn't the case. -
Wikidemon (
talk)
14:29, 25 March 2020 (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: This is a compelling list, but it is not an appropriate category. In the best cases, such as
pisco, "moonshine by country" is a confusing tag. In the worst cases, such as
brandy, it's largely misleading. —
jameslucas▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄15:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: as explained by the nominator. Category and article-list confuse illegaly produced spirits (=moonshine) and traditional brandies, which don't share the same technical and sociocultural contexts.--
Phso2 (
talk)
17:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's far easier to fix incorrect entries on a list, and one already exists so listifying is unnecessary. By the way, this seems to have been emptied during this nomination, which it shouldn't have been.
Grutness...wha?03:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, it is empty, which it wasn't before the nomination. It should still have its articles. It also shouldn't have been merged while the CfD discussion was in progress. Nominating a category for renaming, or for deletion if it's unnecessary are fine - pre-empting the outcome of the discussion is not. As the instructions say, Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.Grutness...wha?03:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article is good, the category is inappropriate and genuinely erroneous for some entries. I'm seeing a genuine lack of competence here.
oknazevad (
talk)
15:27, 10 February 2020 (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:Noggin (brand) original programming
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.
Oppose. I find it strange even if I try to AGF that you've nominated this again, as if the speedy wasn't opposed without either addressing my point or even pinging me.
Noggin does not lead to the article, as such, it shouldn't hold the primary name here. As I've explained before, if this is for the TV network, then the correct name is
Category:Noggin (TV network) original programming. --
Gonnym (
talk)
14:47, 16 February 2020 (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:Microscopic organisms described by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
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 "described" is used in taxonomy categories such as
Category:Plants described in 1753 which give the year of formal scientific description under the system established by Linnaeus. If DexDor hadn't mentioned "Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus" in the nom, I wouldn't have remember that "named" is used instead of "described" for categories based on the namer/describer. We don't have any categories for organisms observed/described by pre-Linnaean biologists (Aristotle provided the earliest (surviving) descriptions of some species, but doesn't have a category). van Leeuwenhoek is somewhat of a special case, as he is the first person who can be proven to have observed the species he did (many species new to science have been previously observed by indigenous peoples; van Leeuwenhoek observed species that couldn't have possibly been observed by anybody before him). If the category is kept, I'd suggest renaming to "Microorganisms first observed by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek" to avoid confusion with the categories for taxa "named by" and "described in YEAR".
Plantdrew (
talk)
22:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, it'd be a bit odd if, for example, Eimeria stiedae was categorized for being described in 1895 and categorized for being described by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (died 1723). I support rename proposed by Plantdrew or (preferably) deletion. DexDor(talk)11:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Support rename, oppose deletion. No objection to the category being renamed to accommodate van Leeuwenhoek as being the first to observe, although perhaps another word can be found to encompass the fact that he did scrupulously record his observations. Documented, perhaps?
BD2412T04:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)reply
My preference is option e (then c, d, b and a) - deletion on the basis that this is non-defining and is a categorization scheme that only works for a tiny fraction of articles about microorganisms. It should also be noted that van Leeuwenhoek's article is a better source of info about what he observed (e.g. because it can include things such as muscle fibre) than this category. DexDor(talk)12:38, 5 March 2020 (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.