Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 26

< March 25	March 27 >

March 26[edit]

Category:Shades of spring green[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. I did some article digging to see if deletion was correct. I saw nothing there to say that deletion here is a reasonable outcome which is the consensus of the editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How is spring green a main color?? Red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, and violet are the main colors. Brown and pink are distinct terms in English. Gray and white are basic as well. Georgia guy (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Spring green IS a major color. It is one of the 12 major colors of the RGB color wheel at intervals of 30 degrees (Note: on the image of the RGB color wheel, the color spring green is mistakenly mislabeled as aquamarine.). I have listed these 12 major colors below. Therefore, this category should NOT be deleted. Keraunos (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended explanation

- On the color sphere, by analogy with the globe of Earth, the color white is at the north pole, the color black is at the south pole, the color grey is at the center of Earth, and the 12 major colors of the color wheel (the 12 basic hues) are spaced equally around the equator. Thus, all other colors can be made from mixtures of these 15 colors. Keraunos (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 major colors of the color wheel[edit]

The 12 major colors of the color wheel, at 30 degree intervals on the HSV color wheel are the following: red (0 degrees or 360 degrees), orange (30 degrees), yellow (60 degrees), chartreuse green (90 degrees), green (120 degrees), spring green (150 degrees), cyan (180 degrees), azure (210 degrees), blue (240 degrees), violet (270 degrees), magenta (300 degrees), and rose (330 degrees). This constitutes the complete set of primary, secondary, and tertiary color names.

The 12 major color wheel colors color comparison chart[edit]

Note: Red is shown twice so it can be compared to both orange and rose.

RED (web color) (Hex: #FF0000) (RGB: 255, 0, 0) (0 Degrees)
ORANGE (color wheel Orange) (Hex: #FF7F00) (RGB: 255, 127, 0) (30 Degrees)
YELLOW (web color) (Hex: #FFFF00) (RGB: 255, 255, 0) (60 Degrees)
CHARTREUSE GREEN (web color Chartreuse) (Hex: #7FFF00) (RGB: 127, 255, 0) (90 Degrees)
GREEN (X11) (color wheel Green) (HTML/CSS “Lime”) (Electric green) (Hex: #00FF00) (RGB: 0, 255, 0) (120 Degrees)
SPRING GREEN (web color) (Hex: #00FF7F) (RGB: 0, 255, 127) (150 Degrees)
CYAN (web color Aqua) (Hex: #00FFFF) (RGB: 0, 255, 255) (180 Degrees)
AZURE (color wheel Azure) (Hex: #007FFF) (RGB: 0, 127, 255) (210 Degrees)
BLUE (web color) (Hex: #0000FF) (RGB: 0, 0, 255) (240 Degrees)
VIOLET (color wheel Violet) (Near Violet) (Hex: #7F00FF) (RGB: 127, 0, 255) (270 Degrees)
MAGENTA (web color Fuchsia) (Hex: #FF00FF) (RGB: 255, 0, 255) (300 Degrees)
ROSE (Hex: #FF007F) (RGB: 255, 0, 127) (330 Degrees)
RED (web color) (Hex: #FF0000) (RGB: 255, 0, 0) (360 Degrees)

WTF? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This initially appeared to be a rather technical issue, and the nominator's listing of RGB and HSV values above made my eyes glaze over, and when I woke up I moved on to other topics.
However, now that Good Ol’factory has kindly collapsed all that data, I went to read the main articles at Spring green (color), which explained things better to me. AFAICS, there are plenty of refs for spring green being, as Keraunos asserts, one of the 12 major colors of the RGB color wheel. However, I see no references for the articles assumption that the colors up to 15° either side of spring green are known as shades of spring green.
So I did some googling:

"shades of spring green" -wikipedia mostly seems to being up results such as "the original shades of Spring Green and Snow White". (Some hits do seem to refer to similar colors as "shades of spring green", but that seems to be a rare usage.)
Searching Google scholar for "shades of spring green" bring up about 7 hits, none of which suggest to me that the terminology is used academic discussion of color spaces.

So I am leaning towards a delete, unless someone can provide some evidence that these other colors really are known as "shades of spring green". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I have just notified the good folks at WikiProject Color: see my note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color#Deletion discussion of Category:Shades of spring green.
  I noticed that this category doesn't seem to fit into the color category structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Color#Color_subcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Georgia guy, it is not one of the main color terms. Not sure I agree with BrownHairedGirl on the refs at Spring green (color) as it suffers the OR problem common with many of the color pages. Traditionally a RYB and not a RGB color wheel was used which referred to colors as blue-green, or yellow-red, see also the Munsell color system. More recent models like the CIE color spaces in lieu naming colors, gives them coordinates (or limit equations see UNECE Amber). For comparison this picture shows the CIE 1931 XYZ color space with the Munsell color names. PaleAqua (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parks and commons in Bedfordshire[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 as proposed. I would also suggest renaming Category:Parks_in_England. Ruslik_Zero 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parks and commons in Bedfordshire to Category:Parks and open spaces in Bedfordshire

And for all of the following:

Extended content

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Create consistency and more inclusive naming. Follows current Category:Parks and open spaces in London. "Commons" does not need to be included in the name of the parent category. MRSC (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to be able to say "yes" to a big piece of standardisation like this, but I am concerned that "open spaces" may be too broad a term. Is a farm open space? A moor? A beach? A town square? I have feeling that in a rural context, the naming convention which works well in London may turn out to be too inclusive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think our notability guidelines kick in there. For "open space", read "notable open space". MRSC (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a notability test helps evade the the problem. I could give you a long list of notable open spaces in West Yorkshire: moors, town squares, a few farms which would be notable. Do we want Ilkley Moor, City Square, Leeds, Centenary Square, Bradford, Chesil Beach in this category? What about the National Parks? I really think we do need to clarify what we mean by "open spaces". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- A consistent naming is advisable. In the United States articles, for example in Arizona, the main grouping is Category:Protected areas of Arizona with the a definition of protected area that includes many types. Sub categories in the states in general include arboreta, gardens, national parks, national forests, parks (with subsections for state and a general grouping for local and municipal), nature reserves, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, nature centres, trails, etc. I suggest the broad category Protected Areas by county, then it can include Parks (with a subsection for National Parks, Gardens (with a subsection for Botanical Gardens and Arboreta) and Country Parks), Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Caves, Nature reserves, Nature centres, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, National Trails, forests and woodlands, etc. There should be a broad way to identify protected natural areas by county. I am not from the UK, so are commons easily distinguishable from parks or open spaces in visitor guides? Should they have a separate category from Parks? Common usage here would help the average Wikipedia reader. Jllm06 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Common land was important in UK social history especially when popular rights and livelihoods came under attack through the Inclosure Acts so, without having checked the content of the listed categories yet, I wonder if if something worthwhile is lost by substituting the politically neutral(ised) term "open spaces"? AllyD (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but inclining towards ~~Keep~~ Rename. Commons is a very particular term and has a very important history particulary in relation to the 'rights' associated with those commons. We could be throwing away a very important distinction by renaming. I live in England so know about the rights here, but not about elsewhere. Is this just an English thing or does it apply to UK, British Empire, english-speaking countries also? Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing list of counties. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC) But got it wrong, sorry. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Got it right on the second attempt. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename US analogies probably will not help us here, due to a different legislative system. The samples that I have looked at have two subcats - gardens and country parks. Articles directly in the category include municipal parks. However, country parks is a mishmash of disparate elements - country parks, areas so designated un Countryside Act 1968 (or a successor); gentlemen's parks being the grounds of their mansions and often open to the public for payment; in addition there are National Parks designated under Countryside Act c.1948. In addition, there are other varieties of Public Open Space, such as the gardens in London squares, which are usually now small municipal parks. Commons are now access land under a recent Countryside Act, but originated as land available to the farmers of the area for grazing. I would suggest we rename all to "Open Spaces", but provide a headnote defining the category as "land accessible to the public, though sometimes only at certain times or for payment, including arboreta, commons, country parks, gardens, municipal parks, national parks, national forests, parks for mansions, and so on". Some one (not the closing admin) will need to do a lot of work on creating subcategories covering each of these items: arboreta might be placed with gardens; National Trust countryside properties with country parks; and the National Forest with National Parks (though strictly it is not one) or it could be left in a parent category. However, we need subcategories for each county for commons and municipal parks. National Parks often extend into several counties and should be left in the parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Rename. Having thought about this a bit more I have come to the same conclusion as Peterkingiron: the category needs to be renamed to something simple like 'Parks and open spaces in foo'; and there needs to be a header to try and encompass the complexities of land access in England and Wales. I would keep Gardens and Arboreta separate – they seem to be more about the inspection of plants rather than walking. There are also separate head categories i.e. Category:Parks and Category:Gardens. How about:

This category is for areas to which the general public may have access including Common land, country parks, municipal parks, national parks, national forests, etc but excluding gardens, and arboreta. There may be restrictions on that access; and payment may be required. The land may be in private or public ownership.

Category:Male canoeists[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 Category:Male canoeists and merge Category:Canadian male canoeists to Category:Canadian canoeists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Male canoeists

Propose merging Category:Canadian male canoeists to Category:Canadian canoeists

Nominator's rationale: Canoeing is a predominantly male sport; Olympic canoeing has so far been entirely male, and the first womens canoeing event at the Olympics will be in 2012 (see Canoeing and kayaking at the Summer Olympics). In a male-dominated sport, a Category:Female canoeists would make sense ... but even if that category existed, per WP:CATGRS it does not need to be balanced by creating a male category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per nom. I'm no fan of these by gender categories anyway, but separating the males in a predominately male sport doesn't suit the category system. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Avant-garde persussionists[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: speedily deleted as spelling error. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Misspelled; correct category is Category:Avant-garde percussionists. This had one article, which I've just moved to the correct category. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed. Is it obligatory for such people to have a surname beginning with B? Occuli (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per speedy criteria C2.A (typographic and spelling fixes). Yes, I know that C2.A is for renaming, but since the category is emptied we can just deleted. And since there was only one article, we can probably skip the WP:TROUTing of the nominator for emptying the category out-of-process :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a C1 if nothing else. Oppose trouting ;) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Neurooncology[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. I will upmerge the article Neurooncology to Category:Neurology and Category:Oncology, and perhaps it and the articles Giant cell glioblastoma and WHO classification of the tumors of the central nervous system should be placed in Category:Nervous system neoplasms. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overly broad, underpopulated, and already covered under Category:Nervous system neoplasms. Immunize (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it should be Neuro-oncology anyway? I spent several seconds wondering what these Neuroons might be. Otherwise I am happy to accept the nom's assertion that Category:Nervous system neoplasms suffices. Occuli (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, category was created and populated by one user whose only contributions were on the articles of this category over a few days last July-August. The exception of the eponymous stub, Neurooncology, which the nom recently created (and maybe should be deleted as well). --Scott Alter 19:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page Neurooncology before I realized that this category was actually a hopeless case that needed to be deleted, as I felt most categories should have parent pages. However, on further thought, I realized that this category needed to be deleted. Immunize (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the article, I would not object to it's deletion, because I created it when I felt that the category in question could be salvaged. Immunize (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Capri[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:People from Capri. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of Capri to Category:People from Capri

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of people from place categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per naming convention. Could be speedied under C2C criteria? Tassedethe (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could be speedied under C2C. I should have used the speedy process, and probably would have done if I wasn't editing in a bleary-eyed state after a sleepless night. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editing while sleep deprived? You too, eh? (Anyway, Support per convention of the tree.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support is more rationale rename as Category:People from Capri User:Lucifero4

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:Holmen[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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small company with only two articles in the category. While there are articles that could be added, everything is well linked in the main article of the company. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to navbox? Peterkingiron (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While a separate category may be a bit of an overkill while there's only two articles, I would not call a turnover of 2 billion euros and 5,000 employees (and remember that process industry is very low in employee intensity) "small company", and with 135 years of history I'm sure the subject has some potential. Tomas e (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This won't delete the article, don't worry. But that article could use a major improvement on the sourcing. For this discussion, Delete Two articles don't need a separate category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jadever[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; as the article already is in the parent category, Category:Electronics companies of Taiwan, an upmerge is not required. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category is OCAT at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that nom says everything there is to say. very unlikely any more suitable articles will show up, either. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York state journalists[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: merge to Category:New York journalists. As noted during the discussion, a broader rename of New York fooers to Fooers from New York, or vice versa, or of Category:New York to Category:New York (U.S. state), will require a separate nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:New York state journalists to Category:New York journalists

Nominator's rationale: Merge per convention of Category:People from New York by occupation, which is to use "New York" rather than "New York State". This category was created by an editor who blanked and depopulated Category:New York journalists. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:Journalists from New York per most in Category:People from New York by occupation (it is not Category:New York people by occupation). Occuli (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at the moment is exactly a 50-50 split (7 "Fooers from NY", and 7 "New York fooers"). Llooking more broadly at Category:American people by occupation by state, I see for example that Oregon is 10/17 "Oregon fooers", Louisiana is 5 out of 11 "Louisiana fooers", and California is 24 out of 29 "California fooers". I think that we do need some standardisation here, but since there is no de facto standard at the moment I suggest that we just do the simple merger as nominated here, and that the wider renaming really should be considered in a big group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both -- 1 -- Sorry, my mistake about the depopulation. I think I had mistakenly thought that I had created "New York journalists" and that the rules allowed me to undo that. 2 -- But differentiation between the state and the city is warranted, one way or another. Differentiation allows easier maintenance. Let's say there is a category clearly indicating the state, a category clearly indicating the city, and category that's just "New York." When any articles are added to the general "New York" category, the maintainer knows they need to bec checked to see which more-specific category they should go in. If there is not a separate category for the state, any articles in "New York" that are not in subcats must be repeatedly check to see whether they belong in a more-specific cat. 3 -- In reply to Occuli, Category:New York journalists is for journalists who work in New York. The "from" in Category:Journalists from New York makes for a broader category, and at least implies "people who left New York" or "people who originated in New York." Journalists tend to move more than most people. Maurreen (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping both is pointless. If we keep "NY state journalists", then "NY journalists" can be a disambiguation category between Category:New York state journalists and Category:New York City journalists (see {{category ambiguous}}).
However, I see no point in adding "state" as a disambiguator to this category when it is not use for any of the other NY categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:New York (U.S. state) journalists and rename the entire NYS heirarchy to match, per heirarcies for Category:Washington (U.S. state) and Category:Georgia (U.S. state). 05:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.192.73 (talk)
I'll go along with that. Maurreen (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to open a group nomination to rename the entire NYS heirarchy, then we can consider that. But in the meantime, please lets keep consistency by naming this category in the same format as the other New York categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom Category:New York journalists will cover journalists from the whole state; Category:New York City journalists should be a subcategory. The addition of "(U.S. State)" is inappropriate - that us done with Washington and Georgia (only) to disambiguate from Washington DC and the country in the Caucasus. No disambiguator is needed for NY becasue the city is part of the state. Jounalists from upstate NY will go in the parent category; those from the city in the city category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. No disambiguator is used for people from the state. If this is to be changed, we need a broad nomination or an explicit test nomination of Category:People from New York. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Spriggan characters[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: merge to Category:Spriggan. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Spriggan characters to Category:Spriggan

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent category recommended: category contains only one article after all member articles were merged to a list. G.A.S ^talk 04:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with the merge. Ominae (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for all, all for merge. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeper nom. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no point in having a category with only a handful of articles. Even Category:Spriggan may get deleted once all of the cleanup is finished because there will only be two articles, three if you count a potential list of volumes, in the series. —Farix (t | c) 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ISS Experiments[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: Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Improper title, moved content to Category:International Space Station experiments ThorX (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ISS Facilities[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: Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ISS should be International Space Station, made an article, this is orphan ThorX (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.