Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 23 September 25 >

September 24[edit]

Category:Songs by Shelton Brooks[edit]

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: rename. Kbdank71 13:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Shelton Brooks to Category:Songs written by Shelton Brooks
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naming conventions for songwriter categories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (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:Songs by Bob Merrill[edit]

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: rename. Kbdank71 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs by Bob Merrill to Category:Songs written by Bob Merrill
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naming conventions for songwriter cats. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:38, 24 September 2008 (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:Host cities of the Francophonie Summits[edit]

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: delete. Kbdank71 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Host cities of the Francophonie Summits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation on the basis of a non-defining or trivial characteristic. None of these cities (the list includes several national capitals) are defined by having been host cities of the Francophonie summits. A list of host cities already exists at Francophonie#Summits. (See also the related TFD.)
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:Stock characters by narrative structure[edit]

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. Kbdank71 13:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merge Category:Stock characters by narrative structure and Category:Fictional characters by genre to Category:Characters by genre
Nominator's rationale: Those categorised in "by narrative structure" aren't narrative structures, they're genres. The "fictional" in the "by genre" is redundant, as characters are by definition fictional. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not all of these may be considered "literary" - they are, rather, theatrical. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They may be either, actually. But anyway, anyone may contact a WikiProject if it's appropriate. (See Wikipedia:Canvassing.) - jc37 08:24, 28 September 2008 (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:BlackHawk (band) albums[edit]

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: keep per questionable consensus of the article rename. Kbdank71 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:BlackHawk (band) albums to Category:BlackHawk albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Parent article was moved to BlackHawk.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – and put the article back where it was. There was no consensus for the article move according to Talk:BlackHawk; and I too would oppose the move, per the disamb page Black Hawk which contains several uses of BlackHawk. Occuli (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and move the article back to match the category. It is not clear that there is a primary use for the main name space so it should be a redirect to the dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's the only spelling to use that case, thus it makes sense to have it at BlackHawk rather than BlackHawk (band). Just stick an {{otheruses}} tag on it. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if the band's page is moved back to BlackHawk (band) (ugh, WHAT A STUPID NAME!!!!), I still see no need for (band) to be in the category name too either way. The albums are, without dispute, by a band named BlackHawk, not by a Stutz automobile, an Indian chief, or a shopping mall in California. It's a lot more clear-cut than, say, Category:Alabama (band) albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's the only entry capitalized in this manner and the only one that would have albums. Unless the Chicago hockey team starts branching out, there would seem to be little reason to include the disambiguator in the category. The unique spelling applies to the article title, as well. Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2008 (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:Documentaries alleging war crimes[edit]

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. Kbdank71 15:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes to Category:War documentaries
Nominator's rationale: Merge - the category along with its antecedent Category:Documentaries about alleged war criminals were each considered for deletion once separately, with the latter deleted per this CFD and the former closed as no consensus. The problems inherent in this category are numerous. First, they were created to push the POV that Henry Kissinger is a war criminal and that the film The Trials of Henry Kissinger is a film about a war criminal. Per WP:BLP this is unacceptable and the persistence of this category, which despite the one step's removal, still offends BLP. Second, this suffers from many of the same issues of other "Films about..." categories that appear at CFD periodically and are generally deleted. How much of the film needs to be "about" the allegations to qualify? Third, the inclusion standard is vague. Any documentary about World War II could conceivably end up here if it discusses atrocities committed by the Axis or the Allies. Fourth, "alleged" by whom? An international court? A human rights organization? A random hippie at a peace rally in the next Michael Moore film? I'm sure there are films out of Germany and Japan that call FDR and Winston Churchill war criminals. The BLP, NPOV, overly broad inclusion standard and lack of restriction on the accuser all make this category untenable. Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The last attempt at eliminating this category had a rather broad number of participants arguing for retention of the category and nothing appears to have changed that would support a consensus for deletion. While I agree that the title may be unclear and that a more objective inclusion criteria should be agreed upon and specified for the category. The proposed merge target of Category:War documentaries includes films like The Heroes of Desert Storm which have almost absolutley nothing in common with a film like The Trials of Henry Kissinger. At a minimum, the many participants in the original CfD should be notified and invited to revisit the arguments made here a second time. Alansohn (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's rather the point of the renomination to see whether or not consensus has changed. I also note that there is nothing in the CFD process that requires anyone be notified of a second CFD. If you wish to do so, feel free, just be sure to contact people on both sides. BTW, you do realize that you've not actually refuted any of the premises of the nomination, right? Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I have. Your various hypothetical circumstances would be addressed by a more objective inclusion criteria that would, at a minimum, include reliable and verifiable sources supporting a description of the film as alleging war crimes. Feel free to draft one that addresses your concerns. I thank you for your concerns about canvassing and will be happy to make a genuine effort to reach out to all participant in the original CfD, beyond the handful of usual suspects. Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, see, you're the one arguing to keep the category. It's your responsibility to defend it. I don't believe the category is redeemable, for the reasons laid out at length above. Don't expect me to do your job for you. By the way, The Trials of Henry Kissinger is already in Category:War documentaries, so I guess the idea isn't so far-fetched after all. Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have defended the category, fulfilling my responsibility, and did so by rebutting your arguments. The illogical inclusion of The Trials of Henry Kissinger in Category:War documentaries, a film that does not document the conduct of any war but focuses instead on the conduct of individuals, demonstrates why a separate category needs to exist rather than tossing a whole bunch of unrelated entries into a single category. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point out which bits of your comments rebut which bits of mine? And...a documentary about war crimes is not a documentary about war? What a...novel...idea. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of endlessly attacking the same objections over and over and over again (and over again), how about making a really clear explanation in your remarks and then leaving each individual to make their statement without making the same rebutted objections over and over again. What a...novel...idea. Your objections seem to relate to the fact that you believe that the category lacks a definition. I have proposed that a clear definition can be built based on reliable sources describing the film as making allegations of war crimes. War documentaries are films usually devoted to stories about battles and soldiers; films making allegations of war crimes are primarily about the conduct of political leaders who are not directly involved in battle.
  • Was there some part of my objection to the category that was unclear to you? Please let me know and I can try to restate it. Perhaps using smaller words... Otto4711 (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your argument, I just disagree with it based on my interpretation of relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Feel free to restate it, if you insist. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd that if you understand my arguments you would suggest that my arguments need clarification. As to the notion that the decisions of political leaders who are engaged in waging war are somehow divorced from the wars about which they are making those decisions, where specifically is it written that documentaries about wars are limited in scope to those documentaries that are specifically about combat? Would you suggest that a documentary about Harry Truman's decision to use the A-bomb against Japan is not a war documentary because Harry didn't pick up a gun and try to personally hunt down Tojo? Nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can come up with a hypothetical marginal case for any category, and you have come up with one for this one here. I have no trouble understanding your arguments I just disagree with them and all the more so with the repeated iteration of the same argument ad nauseum. Further badgering is not going to convince me othrewise. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh huh. Whatever sweetie. You keep on keeping on. Otto4711 (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All participants in the original CfD have been duly notified of this new CfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, changing my view from "Keep" in the previous discussion. Never mind why the category was created; is it useful? I added the other two films which are currently in this category (Darfur, Fallujah) to see if it would prove useful. No-one has since added any further films, so the answer is: apparently not. Let it go. Consider making a list of war documentaries instead, noting allegations of war crimes as a section of the list/article. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Only three articles included after seven months of existance. The category seems to have little to no use. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Good specific topic. By no means all war films deal with this, and there will be interest in them will be for many who would not be interested in the more general genre==to a certain degree, the intent of the genres are even opposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A crucial element has been completely ignored in this discussion, because the category was missing an obvious and critically important parent cat -- Category:War crimes -- which I just added. Now readers who are browsing that category will see that there are documentaries dealing with the subject. Three articles may be a bit on the small side, but hardly impermissible. And I would be stunned and amazed if there were really no other films that rightly belong in the category. Cgingold (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: With respect to The Trials of Henry Kissinger, which seems to be the lightning rod here, I submit that the suggestion that this category raises WP:BLP issues is entirely misplaced, since it's not being used for the bio article about Kissinger. The film itself has a clear POV, and certainly raises highly contentious issues, but the category merely informs readers that the film deals with allegations about war crimes -- a straightforward factual description. Cgingold (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evan assuming that BLP isn't implicated here, there still remain the issues of the vague inclusion criteria, how much of the film has to be "about" the allegations and the source of the allegations. Otto4711 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I never really understood this "delete because it doesn't have enough articles" rationale. What are the priorities here? Good subcategories or well populated "fat" categories? I think a "fat" category automatically defeats its purpose. Because the more populated a category is the more difficult it is to find the articles you are looking for. A good subcategory acts as a shelter, if you will, where you can highlight rare and worthy articles instead of burying them in the closet of a bigger category. So yes, a smaller category is actually a blessing, especially for specialty articles such as these. Why would someone want to bury these specialty documentaries in an avalanche of general war articles? It doesn't make any sense. In addition making a list to replace this category is not a real option because a category can be more easily and intuitively found than a list by going through a category tree rather than a whole article to try to find a link for the list. So keep it is. Dr.K. (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: I'd be more persuaded if this was a sub-cat of a broader category:films about war crimes, with parallel sub-cats for propaganda films about war crimes and documentaries about war crimes trials. List of Holocaust films and Category:World War II trials films might help with populating these. Anybody want to build and populate these? - Fayenatic (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Except I'm not sure if we can populate all of these. I we could it would be an excellent idea. Dr.K. (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly speaking, this suggestion has a lot of merit, and I would be more than happy to put some work into it. But I don't think that retention of this category should be contingent upon the creation of a whole new category structure. Let's keep this category and build on it. Cgingold (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that too. One way or the other this category provides a useful classification system for a meaningful class of films. Dr.K. (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep. I have started off that structure now. Please help to populate it. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2008 (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.

Webby Award[edit]

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: relisted on oct 3. Kbdank71 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Webby Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Webby Award People's Voice Winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Does not rise to the level of an award winner like the Nobel Prize which seems to be the consensus for keeping award winner categories. There are various articles in the parent Category:Webby Awards that include these, including a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is the most notable award for these entries and a defining characteristic covered at length by the media. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn's valid input.--VS talk 22:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify -- This is the usual solution for awards categories, and has the advantage that a date can be attached the the item in a list, whereas in a category they are (unhelpfully in alphabetic order. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#AWARD and add any that are missing to the existing list. Otto4711 (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think the Nobel Prize should be what's setting the bar for category inclusion here. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 26 September 2008 (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:Graduates of Dallas ISD[edit]

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: delete, not defining. Kbdank71 13:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Graduates of Dallas ISD to Category:Graduates of Dallas Independent School District
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Match name of district for consistency, and allow readers to better guess what ISD means. Alansohn (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would support the expansion of the abbreviation. However, do we need an alumni category for run-of-the-mill high schools? We have them for univerities and major English Public Schools, such as Eton College and Westminster School, but I think that is about as far as it should go. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While combining all alumni to the district is in some ways better then having individual categories for the schools, I'm not sure that this is a good thing. It shows the folly of the argument that the school a person went to is defining for that individual. Right now, I'd be leaning delete. If kept, rename to Category:Dallas Independent School District high school alumni to limit membership to graduates of the high schools and match the name for the other US categories that have alumni categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will also note the existence of Category:Graduates of Houston ISD. The introduction there says that for some of those listed, their only association to the city was having attended school there. Not really anything defining for these people and a very good reason to nuke the category. Almost makes these the equivalent of the old 'born in' categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support expansion. The abbreviation was used to keep the category from taking up a lot of room in the listings, but it's true that "ISD" isn't universally understood. However, I oppose the other proposed name and oppose deletion. Maybe where you live, the local public school system isn't a defining characteristic for its graduates, but for this large urban school district, it's a key part of their biographies. The category is intended to tie together that common ground, and I consider it no less relevant than the Eton and Westminster categories you mentioned, simply because those are older. This is not a category for "run-of-the-mill high schools," which implies one category per school. This category has 182 members; that suggests to me that it's neither so comprehensive as to be useless, nor so small as to be superfluous.Lawikitejana (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorization by non-defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The number of entries in a category is not a factor in a deletion decision. The fact that it is populated is not an indicator that the category should exist. The logic to retain appears to be based on the significance of the school district. I don't believe that a convincing case has been made that the city you graduated from high school in is a defining characteristic for most of those listed. Maybe if the case was made as to why this is defining I might have considered a different option. But given the facts, deletion seems to be the best choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2008 (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:Fictional Gulf War Veterans[edit]

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: rename to Category:Fictional Gulf War veterans to fix capitalization. Kbdank71 13:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional Gulf War Veterans to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Rename - at the very least the capitalization needs to be fixed, but since there are multiple "Gulf Wars" I thought it would be worth running it through here instead of just speedying it. A look at the included articles does indicate that they are all referring to the war we have located at Gulf War. Otto4711 (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2008 (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:Louisville myths and legends[edit]

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: delete. Kbdank71 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Louisville myths and legends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Inclusion criteria is overly vague and has OR written all over it. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Original research indeed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What inclusion criteria? Currently human figures, local cuisine, urban legends and local landmarks share a category only because there are stories circulating about them. I don't see any myth/"sacred narrative" at all included here. Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2008 (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:Mathematical components[edit]

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: delete. Kbdank71 13:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mathematical components (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No unifying theme for the members of this category other than they contain "component" in the title. All articles have other categories which fit mathematical usage. Salix alba 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Before I created this category, mathematical components were mixed up with automobile components. If we accept the need for a generic Category:Components (see Category talk:Components), then we need a meaningful way of subdividing it. I accept that the Mathematical Components category may not seem very useful to mathematicians, but its primary purpose was to allow non-mathematicians (or mathematicians from other branches of maths) to know what kind of components these were. However it might make sense to subdivide the category (e.g. statistical, topological, and so on). I already explained this in the Category talk:Mathematical components, and nobody has discussed it there. --RichardVeryard (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is some merit in your view but the most articles are listed in the Component disambig. which should serve. --Salix (talk): 17:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this suggested renaming. --RichardVeryard (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no":
  • Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
  • If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
If there is a problem with random senseless additions to Category:Components, then it should be solved. But this is not the way to do it. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I found the right policy page. This category fits both WP:OCAT#Non-defining or trivial characteristic / WP:OCAT#Unrelated subjects with shared names and WP:OCAT#Trivial intersection. (Intersection of articles that have "component" in their name for random reasons with Category:Mathematics.) --Hans Adler (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to consist of all mathematical articles containing the word "component" in the title, with a couple of exceptions, which may be redirected from such a term. Overcategorization. Possibly add items to the mathematical section of the disambiguation page component. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) Hans Adler said it better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arthur Rubin and Hans Adler. The only other option is to rename: the current name is terrible (these aren't mathematical components) and Category:Components (mathematics) is not much better. An honest rename would be Category:Mathematical concepts involving the word "component". Is this defining? I don't think so. Geometry guy 22:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arthur Rubin and Hans Adler. Not a meaningful category from a mathematical perspective. VG ☎ 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hans Adler. I don't agree with the keep comments. Firstly, I don't accept the need for a generic Category:Components which mixes automobile parts and mathematical terms that are in some (undefined) sense a component. Secondly, I don't see why it's useful to know what kinds of components there are in mathematics. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hans and Jitse. linas (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my view to delete, persuaded by the comments of Hans Adler and Geometry guy. (Hey guys, I learnt something today.) I agree now that the member articles should not be categorised as components at all. Each one is already categorised by at least 1 more (valid and meaningful) mathematical category. I would not go so far as to delete the parent Category:Components which seems valid for elements of various physical technologies. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do seem to be strongly outnumbered here. The consensus appears to be that there is an metaphysical distinction between "real" components (such as automobile or software components) and more abstract things that merely have the word "component" somewhere in the name, and that the component category and its subcategories should be reserved for the "real" components only. In which case, I think this needs to be explained somewhere in the Component Category itself, so that readers looking for abstract things that happen to be called Components can be redirected to the Component disambiguation page, and also so that future editors don't make the same metaphysical error that I seem to have done. --RichardVeryard (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2008 (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:Songs from Cinderella to Category:Songs from Cinderella (Disney film)[edit]

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: rename to Category:Songs from Cinderella (1950 film). Kbdank71 13:09, 30 September 2008 (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:American Theatres or Theaters?[edit]

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 conszenzus. I recommend a renom with just the top-level Category:Theatres in the United States as discussed below. There is consensus (I mean cunczinsahs) to have differences based upon UK/US usage (see "Sport in foo"/"Sports in foo" and "Transport in foo"/"Transportation in foo" category discussions). Kbdank71 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Theatres in Houston, Texas to Category:Theaters in Houston, Texas
Category:Theatres in the United States to Category:Theaters in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Category:Theatres in Houston, Texas should become Category:Theaters in Houston, Texas because of WP:ENGVAR - Since we are talking about American theaters, as "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." and categories should also follow these naming conventions, we should rename the category. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) - EDIT: By extension Theatres in the United States and its daughter categories should also be renamed. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I note that in this category 8 theatres are spelled theatre and only 2 are spelled theater. So while obviously 'theater' is an American spelling, it is not exclusively used at the expense of theatre. All other U.S. cities (except for Washington) (see Category:Theatres by city) also have their theatres listed under the spelling 'theatre'. Taking a very large category of U.S. theatres Category:Broadway theatres 2 are spelled 'theater' and 52 are spelled 'theatre'. The spelling 'theatre' is obviously the common usage for the names of U.S. theatres, so WP:COMMONNAME should apply. Tassedethe (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because things are that way is not a rationale that should be used. Tassedethe, we should be using policy to make decisions. All this does is prove that these names ALSO need to be changed to conform to WP:ENGVAR. Plus, "theatre" is okay when using it as part of a proper name (i.e. River Oaks Theatre), but as a "common name" (i.e. to describe any theater) it is not acceptable as the American English word IS theater. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, an essay (yes, I know it isn't policy, but still), says to avoid using other stuff exists as a rationale. This is the same principle here. Since my nomination is based on Wikipedia manual of style, it ought to be passed. You said: "I note that in this category 8 theatres are spelled theatre and only 2 are spelled theater" - these article names have no bearing on policy because they are proper names (names of specific entities) and distinct from common names (a name used to describe any thing, like a wolf or a nugget). Our category titles are based on common names. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since both forms are in use, in the US, either one can be used. If the case to change this one is valid, then it would be better to try and change the US parent one. If the argument would work for the city, then why not the country. Otherwise, I would be hard pressed to support a change that is out of step with most of the other US like named categories. BTW, did you make the proposal? It is not signed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both forms could be used in the US, Vegaswikian, but in the English language "theater" is the preferred spelling (as per SUNY New Paltz [1]). Other style guides say to use "theater" in all common noun references to theater (See Buffalo State SUNY, and University of Texas) See, "theatre" is used in proper names as a "British-ism" to make the theater sound more sophisticated. You said: "If the argument would work for the city, then why not the country." - Then by all means we should change the country too. Yes, I made the proposal. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SUNY New Paltz ignore (very rightly) their own style guide by having a "Department of Theatre Arts"! Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SUNY New Paltz's degree is a proper noun - A theater can be named whatever name, but the common noun is still the same. We are talking about common nouns, not proper nouns. Just because SUNY New Paltz's degree uses "Theatre" doesn't mean SUNY New Paltz's style guide is invalid. If you find a clause that explicitly states "in stage theatre 'theatre' is preferred" then your point will work. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly not a proper noun! Do they only study one theatre? Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the context. From this: http://www.newpaltz.edu/admissions/applied_transfer.html - "School of Fine and Performing Arts" would be a proper noun in the sense that it is New Paltz's "School of Fine and Performing Arts." "Theatre Arts" is a subject within this school. Of course the students study multiple theater styles, but "Theatre Arts" is the name of SUNY New Paltz's theater department. I.E. "Theatre Arts" is the name that SUNY calls its department. SUNY New Paltz itself says: "Use the spelling "Theatre" only if part of proper name of a performing arts facility or company – as is the case with all SUNY New Paltz theatres: Julien J. Studley Theatre, McKenna Theatre, Parker Theatre, Summer Repertory Theatre, as well as the Department of Theatre Arts." - Therefore SUNY itself must consider this department name a proper name. You need a source that explicitly states that "theatre" is approved over "theater." WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ADD: SUNY itself says: "as well as the Department of Theatre Arts." - So SUNY itself considers "Theatre Arts" to be a proper noun in that context. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (with gigantic caveat) I agree that the word "theater" is the preferred term in US English, despite the fact that many such theaters use the UK English variant "theatre" in their title in what has always appeared to be a rather shameless pretention. While I do support the rename, we must be aware that this little category is part of a broad system of parent categories that goes first to Category:Theatres in Texas and then Category:Theatres in the United States, which includes categories for almost all 50 states (Delaware and one other appear to be missing). If we are going to use the spelling "theater", it should be considered as part of a global change for all such categories, not just this one. Alansohn (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And your caveat is why starting at the top is needed. If there is support there, and there could well be support, then the others can renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that this was handled properly in adding the top category after the CfD had already started, but this would address my caveat and Vegaswikian's concern. I would have started a new CfD for the top category and all included subcats similarly named and closed this as moot. Alansohn (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oppose. I don't believe that we should be renaming this one to go against the parent at the country level. I think this nomination should be withdrawn and a new one for Category:Theatres in the United States be submitted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not oppose a rename starting at the top category and permeating through the sub-categories. Citing of appropriate style-guides makes it clearer than saying 'theater' is the American spelling when most Theatres seem to disagree. Who knew the US theater community was so Anglophilic? :) Tassedethe (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am cool with renaming the top category and the sub-categories and citing the style guides. This is extended to all like categories regarding American theaters. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Both spellings are perfectly acceptable in the US and neither has priority. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. Your source needs to state explicitly that the style guides for those particular universities indicate the generally-accepted usage across the country, which they do not. One of my degrees from an American university is in "Theatre and film", and I see no reason to assume that that institution is any more or less correct than those you mention. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: SUNY New Paltz refers to its "Theatre Arts" department as a proper noun, so a university's "theatre and film" degree in that context would be a proper noun. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With two universities in New York and one in Texas, I would say they do reflect what is generally accepted around the country. I found the sources from Wiktionary's wiktionary:theater entry, which uses the style guides as references. If Wiktionary is able to continue saying, full stop "In United States English, theater is the preferred spelling," by using those references, then Wikipedia should as well. I've never heard of two major U.S. universities having a difference such as "theater" and "theatre" in their style guidelines; yes, I know there is no one institution that governs use of the English language, but I would feel university style guidelines are probably the closest guidelines that we can use. Dionysos, is there an MLA or APA style guideline that refers to this "theater" vs. "theatre" debate? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It would be fine if this renaming request is "extended" to all like categories relating to U.S. theaters, correct? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it would. However there is no assurance that it would be approved. So rather then tag a very large number of articles now, I think it would be best to close this discussion and create a new nomination for the top US parent category making note that if approved at that level, then all of the lower level categories would be renamed in a follow on nomination. Another option might be to simply add the top US category to this one with the same comments. If you did the latter, I'd be forced to strike my vote. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I decided to do the latter and add the top US category; this is what I meant by "extending" the scope of this CfD entry. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cleaned this up a bit so the intent is clearer. If this passes only those two should be renamed. If the parent is renamed then all of the other ones can be tagged and included in a multiple nomination. Good luck. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support modified nomination per Alansohn. It is reasonable for the US category to use a spelling that works with US spell check dictionaries. This can be deemed to be support for the future renaming of the remaining subcategories, with an exception for any that may use the British spelling by local convention. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please provide the evidence that "theatre" is not acceptable in the US except in proper names. This is categorically incorrect. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contention is not that "theatre" is not acceptable, but that "theater" is the preferred spelling. This article ("Americans Hold Tight To Spelling Peccadilloes") discusses the long history of this US/UK variation. This link lists "theater" as the preferred spelling, citing the Online Etymology Dictionary, which states that "Spelling with -re prevailed in Britain after c.1700, but Amer.Eng. retained or revived the older spelling in -er." Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of those sources support the case you're making! Firstly, that online dictionary is clearly unreliable when you compare its etymological history with an authoritative dictionary like the OED (which, by the way, identifies both -re and -er spellings as legitimate, without ANY suggestion that this represents a UK/US variation--when that is the case, it says so). It quite incorrectly implies that the -er spelling was in place long before it was first suggested in the 19th-century. It derives from the French (from greek orig.), which is -re and there is no preference generally agreed upon in the US. And the article you cite explicitly states that the suggestion "didn't catch on"! Again, as the holder of an American degree in "theatre" the idea that "-er" is the correct/preferred/American whatever is simply incorrect. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dictionary.com says "Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006." - So we need to look at the Random House Dictionary. -- this only applies to the specific "dictionary.com" entries and not those copied from other dictionaries/ WhisperToMe (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As much as I love the OED, it is clearly a British English source. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling), the relevant Wikipedia guideline on the matter lists both, but places "theater" first, indicating that "the one listed first is more widely used" when two variants appear. Alansohn (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not in large part the difference between movie-theaters, tv (etc) and theatres where live drama is shown? Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain if there is a difference in style guide standard between these venues; if you find a university style guide that states that the word "theater" when in terms of live drama venues is treated differently than when in terms of theaters and television in the American English language, then this will help your case. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above, from your own example SUNY New Paltz ! Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my reply above I said that SUNY New Paltz can give its degree whatever name, but that does not invalidate its own style guideline. What will help you make your point is if another university style guideline states that an exception would be made with "stage theatre" WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SUNY New Paltz itself says that the "Theatre Arts" degree context is a proper noun. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't see any links above to the previous discussions on American threatre categories, where the Wiki-specialists have assured us that "theatre" is the preferred term for US live drama auditoria. Anyone? One short project discussion is here. Has anyone notified the project of this debate? Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnbod, in terms of Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia cannot cite itself. WP:RS applies to talk page discussions when deciding which standards are correct. The talk page discussion you cited was made in 2006, before Wikipedia adopted more stringent standards. I don't think a Usenet post is necessarily a reliable source, while the university style guides are certainly reliable sources. We should use reliable sources, so we should use the university style guides. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Do please stop cluttering up the debate with repetitious arguments. Cfd precedents are valid here. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"You're missing the point." Which point is it? "Do please stop cluttering up the debate with repetitious arguments." Johnbod, these are not repetitious arguments. They are valid arguments that need to be addressed. I told you "What will help you make your point is if another university style guideline states that an exception would be made with "stage theatre" - So what will help you win this discussion is if you find a style guide or a reliable source that states explicitly that there is no preferred usage regarding "theater" or "theatre" in the U.S., or that "theatre" is preferred usage within the U.S. stage community. As for precedent there is no hard and fast rule that says that precedent must win in this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to add I have proven that SUNY's "Theatre Arts" mention was a proper noun in that context, as SUNY New Paltz said it was in the style guide. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can assure the editors arguing for this change that "theatre" is a very common spelling for venues that host live dramas in the United States. Try taking a look, for instance, at the spellings used for almost every theatre listed in Category:Broadway theatres. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr. Anderson, as I have said earlier, "theatre" being used in several proper nouns does not mean that we should use "theatre" as a common noun (category names reflect common nouns, not proper nouns). I have proof that U.S. university style guides say that "theater" as a common noun is preferred, so unless I find evidence to the contrary, the university style guides stand and Wikipedia consensus will side with the university style guidelines. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what could help decide this. I'll see if I can get a copy of an MLA format handbook and see if it says anything (also using an APA handbook will help too) - I suspect that the university style guidelines may originate from either MLA or APA, but I want to make sure that they do so. If I confirm that "theater" is the preferred spelling and there is no exception for the stage (especially if this is so with MLA and APA), then the case is set. On the other hand, if MLA or APA say the opposite (or maybe if they disagree) then the moves won't happen. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • So far all I found regarding this is in the Chicago Manual of Style: "Variant Spellings - Spellings peculiar to particular disciplines. Where a variant spelling carries a special connotation within a discipline, the author's preference should be respected. For example, "archeology," though it is listed second in Webster, is the spelling insisted on by certain specialists. In the absence of such a preference, spell it "archaeology." (Spelling, Treatment of Words, and Compounds 7.4 pgs. 278-279) The Chicago Manual of Style 15th Edition, University of Chicago Press - Chicago and London, Published 2003. - It doesn't specifically address theater and theatre and I don't see how this exactly applies. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (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:Amerasian[edit]

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: delete. Kbdank71 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Amerasian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems redundant to Category:Asian Americans. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2008 (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:Washington State legislation[edit]

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: rename. Kbdank71 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Washington State legislation to Category:Washington statutes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency within Category:United States state legislation. Washington State is a university, Washington is the state, and no Washington cats use "State". Katr67 (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose or Rename I think that legislation generally speaking can be construed as pending laws (bills) and is still under consideration. It isn't the same thing as a statute. A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs after it has been published by the code reviser's office. The use of Washington State is apropos when referring to the State of Washington. Bdelisle (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If your definition of legislation is true, then the entire Category:United States state legislation needs to be revisited and perhaps all the subcategories renamed. But this nom is simply to clean up the inconsistency of the naming of one category. Can you show me where "Washington State" is the appropriate way to refer to Washington? That seems to go against the naming conventions used in all the subcategories in Category:Washington. Katr67 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We had a very similar CFD a few months back, and again, the bottom line is that, aside from the US federal level, articles about proposed or pending legislation simply don't get written. As far as I'm aware, all of the state level articles are about legislation that has been signed into law, i.e. "statutes". Cgingold (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, & Cgingold. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to match the 19 other state entries in the form "Foo statutes". Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to ambiguity with Washington DC, and the possibility that Federal legislation emanating from Washington might be so categorised. This is a special case where disambiguation is needed, as with Georgia (US State) and Georgia (Country). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consistency, and also that there's no actual ambiguity with Washington DC, given that the Council of the District of Columbia is the lawmaking body in that entity. Orderinchaos 23:29, 25 September 2008 (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:Wikipedia featured topics all articles[edit]

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: delete. Kbdank71 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedia featured topics main articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedia featured topics good articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedia featured topics featured lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedia featured topics featured articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedia featured topics main good articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedia featured topics main featured lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedia featured topics main featured articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories were used by Wikipedia:Featured topics for tagging articles via Template:ArticleHistory, but we have recently overhauled our categorisation system to accommodate good topics, and also so that we can use WP 1.0 bot. And hence, these cats have become obsolete - rst20xx (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems uncontroversial, cat's have been depopulated and have no further use. Franamax (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - it's almost a project-level G7. Orderinchaos 23:27, 25 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_24&oldid=1138391585"