Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 25
March 27 >

March 26

[edit]

Category:Photography games

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photography games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Very broad subject that isn't notable for a category. Photography is in a few games, but to categorize games with minor photography seems a bit pointless. Overall: there hasn't been many pure photography games released. A list wouldn't even be useful in this case (unless in the slight chance the category just isn't populated enough, but I don't think so). RobJ1981 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made the category's thinking that people looking up games like Pokemon Snap or Dead Rising might want to know if there were any other similar games. I figured the rarity of the gameplay type might stimulate interest and a category would help. If that's not enough to have the category then deleting it is fine. ♦TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Handheld electronic games

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Handheld electronic games to Category:Standalone handheld video games
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name is too vague, it needs to be more specific. I won't oppose the use of "electronic game" or "dedicated" so long as we get across in the category name that this is for dedicated/standalone electronic/video game devices. I appologize for my poor articulation. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former parks and open spaces in London

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Former parks and open spaces in London to Category:Former parks and open spaces of London. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former parks and open spaces in London to Category:Former parks and open spaces of London
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Things which no longer exist are not "in" London. The proposed name matches category:Former buildings of London. Postlebury 21:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Open Spaces in Croydon

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Open Spaces in Croydon to Category:Parks and open spaces in Croydon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Open Spaces in Croydon to Category:Parks and open spaces in Croydon
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per parent Category:Parks and open spaces in London. Postlebury 21:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Awards of the Vatican

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Vatican noble titles. These seem to be titles rather than awards, and this should meet all concerns. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Awards of the Vatican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Note: Previous rename attempt

Delete This category drew my attention because it does not match the convention of Category:Awards by country, so at first I thought renaming might be in order. But on looking at the three articles, I found that they related to offices in the papal household or to peerage titles bestowed by popes rather than to awards, so I have moved them. However it is possible that there are some articles that are about awards bestowed by the papacy, so if anyone can find any, this category should be populated and kept. AshbyJnr 21:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cinemas and theatres in Canada

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Cinemas and theatres in Canada to Category:Cinemas and movie theatres in Canada. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cinemas and theatres in Canada to Category:Cinemas and movie theatres in Canada
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, so as to make it clear that this is not for theatres where plays are performed (Category:Theatres in Canada is separate). AshbyJnr 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Iwerks

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iwerks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another eponymous category without sufficient material to warrant it. The articles on the various people and businesses are all interlinked so there is no need for the category for navigation. Otto4711 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Diabetics

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was RENAME to Category:People with diabetes. Well this is a tough one, with a triangular structure (Keep-Rename-Delete) rather than binary. Looking at the raw totals FWIW, we have 5 Rename, 2 Keep, 7 Delete. So right off the bat we don't want to Keep it as is, absent a really compelling argument to do so, which I don't see. So, Rename or Delete? The nature of the discussion changed as it went on, from Keep-or-Rename to Rename-or-Delete. The last eight commentors fall out to 7 Delete, 1 Rename, which looks like a consensus to Delete emerged. On the other hand, comments should not necessarily be weighted by temporal order. So with 7 Keep-or-Rename against 7 Delete, I don't see a numerical consensus to delete. So on to the arguments. WP:OCAT is strong argument, and the Delete commentors mostly made this argument. This was not really refuted, as the Rename commentors mostly made arguments in favor of Rename but didn't address whether the category should be kept or not; they probably mostly assumed that this option was not on the table, as it was not offered in the nomination. We cannot know if they would actually prefer Delete to Rename.

Taken all together, it really tends toward Delete, with strength of argument and the way the comments were tending. However, not strongly enough in my view. We have to take the Rename commentors on face value, and they did not suggest Delete, which they could have. In this situation, the less destructive option is preferred, thus rename, but with no prejudice against an immediate renomination to Delete rather than rename. Herostratus 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Diabetics to Category:People Living with Diabetes
Nominator's Rationale: Rename Current title lacks neutrality. Princess LJ 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Diabetics" is an inappropriate term to label individuals who happen to have diabetes. Diabetic is an adjetive and not a noun. The term "diabetic people" or "people with diabetes" or "people living with diabetes" is more appropriate and of course less offensive. Princess LJ 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there is nothing inappropriate about calling a diabetic a diabetic. "Diabetic" as a noun has entered the vernacular and no one, upon being told that someone is a diabetic, is going to respond by asking "a diabetic what?". Given that a subcat of this category is "Deaths from diabetes," renaming this cat to "people living with diabetes" is absurd. The idea that the current name "lacks neutrality" is less than compelling. Otto4711 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is I'm with Otto on this one. Pascal.Tesson 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no problem with deleting the category which is what the debate has now turned into. If kept, I do favor "diabetics" but it is indeed a non-defining characteristic. People primarily known for having the disease (if that makes any sense) can always be added to category:Diabetes. Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this comment puzzling because that category also includes Category:Synesthetes, Category:Bearded women, Category:Hunchbacks, Category:Albinos. The reason why there are so many "people with problem x" subcats is that there is no word such as Parkinsonists, hypertrichosists and so on, not because the cat strives for some uniformity on that matter. A shorter, to the point, cat name seems much more appropriate. Pascal.Tesson 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason there is no such word as "parkinsonist" for people living with parkinson's disease, or "canceric" for people living with cancer, or anything else like that is because it would be offensive; the fact that "diabetic" is often used as a noun does not make it a noun. Princess LJ 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sort of cite that anyone would find a word like "canceric" offensive or is this just an assumption on your part along the lines of your assumption that "diabetic" is offensive? As for "diabetic" not being a noun, the dictionary seems to disagree with you. This nomination is coming off more and more like POV pushing by a nominator who takes personal offense at the term. Otto4711 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first source suggests that "People with disabilities" is a disfavored construction because "‘People with disabilities’ suggests that the disability ‘belongs’ to the disabled person, rather than ‘disabled person’ which accurately infers [sic] that society disables the individual, thus adopting the social model of disability." Your second source contradicts this, stating that "people with disabilities" is the preferred construction. And your third source suggests that the preferred construction is not "disabled person" but "Person with rights under the Disability Discrimination Act." None of them appear to mention "diabetics" and none of them appear to claim that use of the word "diabetic" is "offensive." Otto4711 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you miss one of the point about the first source, although its not spelt out: that the primary noun should be "people", with the illness as an adjective rather than a noun ... so in this case the usage would be "diabetic people". And no, they don't use the term "offensive": they try to explain why language matters, and why some formulations are problematic; some people will find inappropraite usage offensive, others but won't. This is an evolving area of language, but he one thing you won't find support for anywhere in the literature on disability and language is referring to people with a disease or disability as the only noun. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People with diabetes for consistency with the majority of other categories for people by medical conditions, e.g., Category:People on the autistic spectrum, Category:People with bipolar disorder, Category:People with motor neuron disease. The names go on and on. The exceptions are a minority. "Living with" is inappropriate for Wikipedia style because we're not supposed to classify people as "living", but the name does need to change. "Might be offensive to some" is a weak reason, though. In fact, as we've seen before, that argument will just rile some people up over issues of censorship and political correctness while distracting from professional issues. Using "diabetics" pushes a personal preference rather than the medically specified term. "People with diabetes" is the medically preferred phrase, not the only phrase, but the one the modern diagnostic manuals use most consistently. Even if someone doesn't agree with the problems with the word "diabetics", I haven't seen a sensible argument directly against "People with diabetes". We should defer to the American Medical Association and American Diabetes Association on this. I have trouble enough trying to teach my students to use the field's preferrred terminology without Wikipedia confusing the issue. Doczilla 08:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have checked Cassell's new English dictionary (1949), The New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (2003), m-w.com, dictionary.com - all of them say that someone with diabetes can be called diabetic. None of them say anything about the term being offensive. I would say therefore, that this isn't an argument against using the term. Then, consistency: the consistency appears to be in that the shortest viable name is taken for the category. That canceric is not a viable term should not influence the decision on whether diabetic is. The important question, I think, is whether the term diabetic is precise. "Category:People on the autistic spectrum", for example has a cumbersome name, but it would otherwise not be precise. "People with diabetes" is not in any way more precise than "Diabetics". Finally, political correctness. We should not, in my opinion, in pre-emptive political correctness rename a category that hardly anyone will find offensive. --rimshotstalk 09:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - People generally are not notable for having diseases. People are instead notable for other achievements. If people want a category for diabetes activists, then a Category:Diabetes activists would be appropriate. Also note that several other related categories were deleted following a 7 Feb 2007 discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleted categories were intersections of disease and nationality. I submit that it is not necessarily reasonable to infer from those deletions that this category should also be deleted, especially in light of there having been no consensus the first time this category was nominated and this category having been excluded from the second round of nominations. Otto4711 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The "no consensus" from the first set of nominations was because the first set of nominations was about renaming. The second set of nominations were to discuss deletion. The reasoning there (or at least my reasoning there) still applies here; the only difference is that diabetics/people with diabetes are no longer sorted by nationality. Dr. Submillimeter 20:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Most of the disease and death related categories are just clutter. Haddiscoe 12:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People with diabetes The main things are 1) the category naming scheme should be consistent, and 2) only articles which specifically talk about the person's diabetes should be included. Since most of the similar subcategories use "People with X" format, rename to that. Deletion isn't necessary assuming inappropriate articles are removed. Dugwiki 15:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have three kinds of opinion here: Keep, rename (although generally not to the nominator's suggestion), or delete. I just hope that the admin who closes this doesn't settle on "no consensus" because of the rename vs. delete discussion. Either way, there is a strong consensus to change and not keep as is. Doczilla 18:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining characteristic. If kept, either keep the current name or use Category:People with diabetes, as the extra word "Living" is unecessary and/or improperly limits the category to living people (not to mention the improper capitalization). Xtifr tälk 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OCAT. >Radiant< 14:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a defining way to categorize people. It's on the level with "people who have had heart attacks". Some medical conditions are particularly notable. Wilford Brimley's eccentric pronounciation aside, diabetes is not notable. If kept, this should be renamed to "people with diabetes" (the "living with" thing is unnecessary), but this should not in any way be construed to mean that I would endorse any keeping. Deletion is really the only sane option. — coelacan — 20:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Science and technology in the European Union

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Science and technology in the European Union to Category:European Union and science and technology. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Science and technology in the European Union to Category:European Union and science and technology
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per items below to reflect that this category is concerned with the interaction between the EU as an institution and science and technology. Ravenhurst 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Environment of the European Union

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Environment of the European Union to Category:European Union and the environment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Environment of the European Union to Category:European Union and the environment
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity to emphasise that this covers the interaction between the European Union as an institution and the environment, not the environment of the EU as a geographical area. Ravenhurst 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us what categories you're thinking of? I mean we have Category:Foreign relations of the European Union, Category:Geography of the European Union, Category:Politics of the European Union, Category:Energy in the European Union, Category:History of the European Union, which are all (conveniently I might add) following the set conventions. Pascal.Tesson 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Here also, there is no solid reason to stray from the convention of Category:Environment by country. Let me simply cut and paste the argument above: this list of renaming of EU categories looks politically motivated. Our readers are smart enough to understand the difference between the EU and a country and keeping a uniform nomenclature for categories should be a much higher priority than nitpicking about whether the name overstates the importance of the EU. For people doing categorization work for instance (such as myself) unexpected category names are an unwelcome headache. Pascal.Tesson 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The convention of Category:Environment by country is not relevant, because the EU is not a country. There is no reason to use the convention of that category unless one wishes to misrepresent what the EU is. Choalbaton 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repeating myself, let's not assume that all Wikipedia users are idiots: they know that the EU is not a country and they understand full well that this category is meant to include articles discussing environmental issues that are handled at the EU level (of which, of course, there are many). Now I don't quite understand why we should rename this one and not rename the national categories. There is more value to uniformity in names than a slight semantical twist to make sure people realize that the EU is not a country. Pascal.Tesson 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aspects of the EU function in a manner similar to that of a nation. That's why I decided to follow the naming convention for nations. --Hemlock Martinis 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But why are you assuming that following the convention set for countries will lead people to get confused and think "Oh so it must be a country then"? This is why I'm saying we have to trust that are readers know the difference between the EU and a country. Pascal.Tesson 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Pascal was calling me an idiot at all. Furthermore, parts of the EU act very much like a country, so it makes sense to maintain the uniformity of the categories by keeping the category as-is. --Hemlock Martinis 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. I created the category and named it as such to bring it in line with Category:Environment by country to maintain uniformity within the topic. Also, although it is true that the EU is not a nation, it often produces policies and makes decisions similar to that of a nation through its directives. Thus, I felt it was reasonable to name the category similar to other categories. --Hemlock Martinis 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the renaming, though I do like the container idea proposed by BrownHairedGirl. I oppose the renaming because maintaining uniformity in naming conventions reduces confusion; though this change is proposed to help reduce confusion, I don't think it will really help matters at all -- you're just confusing a different set of people with the rename. Keep the conventions the same, and if you'd like to clarify, do it in the section header. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Agriculture in the European Union

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Agriculture in the European Union to Category:European Union and agriculture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Agriculture in the European Union to Category:European Union and agriculture
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to reflect that this is properly used just for the EU's own agricultural activities, not for all agricultural matters in member states. Ravenhurst 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The proposed name is more focused on what is relevant. 99% of agricultural history occurred before the EU. Articles about individual countries are easily accessed via [[:Category:Agriculture by country. Haddiscoe 11:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But like it or not (and I understand you clearly don't) EU legislation on argiculture is significant enough to make the EU a natural choice of "region" in which one can expect to find some degree of uniformity on agricultural matters. There is no added value to the name change except to break the uniformity. Pascal.Tesson 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Universities and colleges in the European Union

[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. >Radiant< 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Universities and colleges in the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete The EU is just a regional body, and it does not run the university and college systems of its member states. Ravenhurst 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see how this disqualifies this category as a meaningful supercategory of the national categories. Pascal.Tesson 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category is simply being used as a parent category for categories on universities and colleges in individual countries. The category is fairly meaningless for organization. However, it does imply that the EU is involved with the operation of educational institutions in its member countries, which is incorrect. If the category is kept, then it should be renamed as Category:Universities and colleges in Europe. However, note that universities and colleges are only organized by country, not by continent. Dr. Submillimeter 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. If users wish to find these institutions, they may do so easily enough at Category:Universities and colleges by country. Haddiscoe 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The European Union has education agreement (ERASMUS, etc.) and is converging towards a general harmonization of diplomas (see the very important LMD reform). Others examples include: (for one, for another, European Parliament on the mutual recognition of diplomas, etc. Tazmaniacs 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The EU's role in education is minor, as is confirmed by the very weak list of influences above. Sumahoy 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The statement that EU's role in education is minor denotes a profound misunderstanding of the fundamental role it plays in funding high-level research in universities. It also, as was pointed out by Tazmaniacs, is striving to create common standards for diplomas in the union. Having a category encompassing high-education institutions in these countries is a meaningful browsing tool and deleting it seems pretty pointless and solely motivated by a need to downgrade the importance of the EU in these matters. The category does not " imply that the EU is involved with the operation of educational institutions in its member countries", it indicates that because of the EU, these universities share a number of institutions that manage collaboration between them, strive to standardize their systems, funds common research projects. Pascal.Tesson 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tazmaniacs. There are a lot of harmonisation of higher education initiatives in the EU. Also I do not think the US runs "the university and college systems of its member states.". In Australia also, the Commonwealth Government funds universities but does not run them and they were established under State law. --Bduke 08:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Education is almost always discussed in the context of nation states - except perhaps in Brussels. This category reflects the EU's aspirations to claim a greater role for itself, rather than current reality. Postlebury 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry but I can't resist debunking this one. Do you really think that this category was created by some EU official to reflect the EU'S aspirations? No, it was created most likely in good faith by someone who felt it was a meaningful classification. Let's leave the politics out of this debate: the sole question we need to worry about is whether the category system is in better shape with or without this cat and so far I haven't seen a convincing argument that deleting the category will serve any purpose but to satisfy those who wish ill to the EU. True, education is almost always discussed in the context of nation states. Occasionally, it's also discussed in the wider context of the EU which is why we have a meaningful Category:Education in the European Union and this cat is a perfectly reasonable and natural subcat of it. Pascal.Tesson 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pro-EU bias is not confined to Eurocrats, and it is naive to think that politics can be left out of the debate on a controversial political issue. It is hard to see that this category serves any purpose other than raising the spirits of advocates of EU-centralization. It serves no browsing function that is not met by Category:Universities and colleges by country (It's pretty unlikely that anyone who doesn't know which countries belong to the EU would be interested in the role of the EU in diploma harmonization). The "propanda of inevitability" is a key technique used by supporters of the EU, ie overstate the gains already made by the EU at the expense of the nation states, or the future EU gains that can be deemed to be irreversible, so that people will resign themselves to ever greater claims by the EU. This category is a speculation about future connections. As of now the connections between the university and college systems of English speaking countries are stronger than those between the systems of EU countries, but Wikipedia does not have Category:English-speaking colleges and universities. Choalbaton 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm Canadian. I couldn't care less about the pro-EU/anti-EU dichotomy but from my perspective as an academic, I see a clear increase in collaboration between universities of the EU through EU-funded programs and as far as I'm concerned it's a useful category for browsing if only because of this. I simply don't see a way to argue that deleting this category makes Wikipedia better. I don't understand how anyone can seriously argue that its existence is part of a pro-EU conspiracy of inevitability. Pascal.Tesson 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by that statement: are you saying that we should delete this category because it's part of a Europhile conspiracy? Let us please stick to the question that really matters here: regardless of what one might think about the EU, is this category a meaningful one that can reasonnably be expected to be helpful to some readers. Pascal.Tesson 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is no serious EU educational apparatus nor is there pan-EU system of educational governance. That being the case I'm afraid that this category (and similar) have the hint of POV and agenda-pushing.
Xdamrtalk 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. That statement is quite simply incorrect. The treaty of Amsterdam says the EU "shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States". There are multiple EU run programs in that respect, ERASMUS, SOCRATES, European Civil Engineering Education and Training. There's a European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System which covers EU universities... Pascal.Tesson 23:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I perhaps wasn't clear. I certainly am familiar with the idea of cooperation, but my criterion is control. The EU is not responsible for the hiring or firing of teachers, neither for paying their salaries, it does not set the curriculum, etc, etc. There certainly are linkages, but these exist in various forms between various states in the world; I do not believe that the links between the EU countries are sufficient to justify a move away from the established by-country categorisation.
Xdamrtalk 23:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm real puzzled by this response. Countries, in many cases, are not "responsible for the hiring or firing of teachers, neither for paying their salaries" nor "set the curriculum, etc, etc."; the universities themselves are or the province, lander, state, city or whatever is. The linkages within the EU are significant. This category should remain along side the country categories. --Bduke 03:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The United States presents a pretty strong example of that. So does Canada. As for setting the curriculum, EU leadership has played a key role in the move towards a Bachelor/Masters/PhD structure in EU universities and in many countries this has been the most significant change of curriculum in the last twenty years. Pascal.Tesson 05:17, 1 April 2007 (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:Christian FRSs

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian FRSs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete? Not sure about this one. The category has been very recently set up, I presume in response to the AfD debate at List of FRSs with public religious stances, which looks as if it's heading firmly for a delete. The list is a clear breach of POV. Is the category also? I am worried about the very specific nature of it. Why pick on this particular combination of attributes from two unconnected aspects of a person's life? Why FRSs but not Nobel laureates or ex-Manchester United players? Why Christians but not Muslims or atheists or keen gardeners? What about a category for "Bishops of the Church of England who have a degree in history", etc, etc? I get a strong whiff of POV-pushing here. I can't quite work it out, though, and I would be interested to see what others think. Snalwibma 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For one thing, if this category is to be kept, its name needs to change as there is no reason to assume that people know what FSRs stands for. In any case, looks like overcategorization with a POV undertone. Pascal.Tesson 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as overcategorisation and random intersection. While some of the FRS fellows may well have been religious, the contention that religious belief is directly relevant to FRS has no apparent referenced support, and the only purpose of the category appears to be to make some point about scientists not necessarily being atheists (it there is something to be said on that subject, it belongs in a properly referenced article, not in a category). If properly used and parented, this category would also have the undesirable effect of sub-dividing on religious grounds Category:Fellows of the Royal Society. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this category beacuse the stated objection of several editors on the AfD debate at List of FRSs with public religious stances was that this could be done with categories. So it seems (shall we say) a trifle inconsitent for the community to say that the category belongs in an article. It is perhaps worth remarking that Richard Dawkins signs his letters to newspapers "Richard Dawkins FRS" thus emphasising his scientfic credentials, as do other scientists who oppose Dawkins's views. I would of course have preferred to have a list which allowed for the variety of religious stances that FRSs publicly espouse, which would give the same prominence to Humanists, Christians and people with other public religious views. But this was AfDd! NBeale 05:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lists that are deleted in AfD nominations often are inappropriate as categories as well. The intersection between Fellows of the Royal Society and Christianity seems inappropriate, and inclusion or exclusion in this category could be the subject of lengthy POV debates . Moreover, this type of information definitely needs to be referenced, which means that the category is probably inappropriate for listing these people. Dr. Submillimeter 09:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As POV classification by opinion. Haddiscoe 11:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as irrelevant intersection. -- Prove It (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a very good rule of thumb that if something isn't appropriate as a list, it is even less appropriate as a category. The minimal standards for lists are lower than that of categories, because a bad list mainly impacts the list article but a bad category results in inappropriate tags in multiple articles and creates greater problems. So given that the list is likely to be deleted, the category should almost certainly be deleted as well. Dugwiki 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sets a bad precedent for POV categories - as per nom - why pick on these two attributes and combine them? Sophia 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list is bad. This category is worse. Gnusmas 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone has added Jocelyn Bell Burnell to this category. She is a Quaker but does not necessarily subscribe to orthodox credal beliefs, for instance in the pre-temporal creator God (Listen to Ext Link - Bakewell belief's interview). I suspect Professor Bell Burnell would prefer NOT to be described as a "Christian FRS", for the purposes of some WP editor's argument with Prof Dawkins. How do we know the other entries in this thin category would want to be described as "Christian". === Vernon White (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dugwiki. Choalbaton 21:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ethno-cultural groups

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete CSD G7 author request. -- Prove It (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethno-cultural groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created, but think now it is improper. Mukadderat 19:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Incidental musics by Marc-Antoine Charpentier

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Incidental musics by Marc-Antoine Charpentier into Category:Compositions by Marc-Antoine Charpentier. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Incidental musics by Marc-Antoine Charpentier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-informational (and non-grammatical) pseudo-category with only one entry and no prospect of any others. Delete.Smerus 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Arnold Schwarzenegger

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arnold Schwarzenegger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - yet another eponymous category whose contents are extensively interlinked and whose lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Insufficient material to warrant the category. Otto4711 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that's necessary. Most of these are sub-articles of the main article and have a "see also" link, and the main article already has three nav templates on it. Navboxes for everything end up just cluttering the articles. Anyone at one of the sub-articles just has to click the link for Schwarzenegger. Otto4711 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that I wouldn't be surprised if you could delete or merge the Bodybuilding article, since it's literally just a list of the competitions he took part in. The political career article is more problematic. Dugwiki 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:War criminals

[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. >Radiant< 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:War criminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:French war criminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category lacks any objective inclusion criteria; we already have Category:People convicted of war crimes which offers an objective test for inclusion. Retaining this category when we already have the convicted category makes leaves this one as an "alleged war criminals category", which will serve as a magnet for attacks. How long before someone adds it to George W. Bush and Tony Blair? The categ already includes Lenin, even though there a search of the article for "war crim" finds nothing. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that:
  • Delete per nom. The mentioned category is much more objective and definitive than this one, and the broad inclusion criteria does leave it open to POV interpretation. Arkyan • (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an appropriate subcat of Category:Criminals. I have WP:BLP concerns about any category for criminals but until such time as the entire category tree is addressed I see no reason to cherry pick "war criminals" out of the tree. I suggested in a previous CFD that categories for criminals should all be changed to "convicted..." but there was no consensus. Otto4711 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply the same cherry-picking concern could be applied to the previous nomination, but I think that the other issues here are sufficiently different to justify it as an exception to the rule (esp a rule without consensus support). "War crime" is a charge which is prosecuted in only a small fraction of the cases where there appears to be prima facie evidence, and the difference is often due to the politics of the situation (in most cases, it is only the losers who get charged with war crimes). While that may appear to be an argument for keeping the category broad, the problem is that the low prosecution rate means that "war criminal" is a tag used in a POV way much more than in other categories of crime, such as rape, murder or assault. It seems to me that Category:War criminals is better compared with Category:Traitors, where similar political issues apply (the CFD on that one ended after an apparently out-of-process deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A quick glance through the category's present entries makes it obvious that it is too often used as a vehicle for POV pushing. There's really nothing else that can be done about it due to the lack of objective criterias for inclusion (the only possible meaningful criterion is already covered by Category:People convicted of war crimes). -- int19h 06:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change name according to proposition (to Convicted). PS: I created the category:French War Criminals on the model of "War Criminals". Tazmaniacs 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. We already have Category:People convicted of war crimes - it's a different, existing category. So renaming is not an option here. It's whether we need these two as two distinct categories, or whether Category:People convicted of war crimes is sufficient, and Category:War criminals should be gone. -- int19h 10:24, 28 March 2007 (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:Bing Crosby

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bing Crosby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another eponymous category whose lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub for its contents. The songs and albums subcats are appropriately categorized in their respective "...by artist" category trees and the Arrangers subcat is up for likely deletion. Insufficient material to warrant the category, and people persist in adding Crosby films and TV shows to it (I cleaned it out before nominating). Otto4711 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Alpha Delta Gamma brothers, Category:Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters, Category:Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, Category:Chi Omega sisters and Category:Chi Psi brothers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was listify and delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per earlier discussion here that resulted in consensus to delete a bunch of fraternity membership cats, I am nominating these as well. See also Category:United States student societies for several dozen more of these cats. >Radiant< 15:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kappa Sigma Fraternity

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Kappa Sigma Fraternity to Category:Kappa Sigma. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Rename to omit "fraternity", per standard. >Radiant< 15:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:African women in war, Category:Nubian women in warfare, Category:Japanese women in warfare, Category:Turkish women in warfare, Category:Indian women in war and Category:Women in European warfare

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize. Rename all to "Women in war in <foo>". Split per BHG's remarks. >Radiant< 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Sorry, I was going to say "support", but deleted all that I had typed out when I realised that tying the categories to the theatre of war rather than to the nationality of the women concerned completely changes the basis of the category. I think that it is more useful to tie the nationality to the person than to the war, because many countries whose citizens were involved in major wars did not have much conflict on their own territory: e.g. WWII in the USA was a short-lived affair which which consisted of Pearl Harbour; however the USA was involved in WWII for nearly for years, all over the globe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on reasoning above, though I'm not sure about the Pearl Harbor logic - wouldn't articles on "the war at home" and Rosie the Riveter still belong in a Women in War in the United States? I still think, however, that the category more likel to be useful is the current one. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Reply you're right Sam, the nominator's renaming would still allow Rosie the Riveter to fit in a Category:Women in war in the United States] ... but is there really any benefit in restricting the category to include only those who remained within the borders of the USA? --17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women in the Canadian armed services, Category:Puerto Rican women in the military

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize. Rename all to "Women in war in <foo>". >Radiant< 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women in ancient Egyptian warfare

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Women in ancient Egyptian warfare to Category:Ancient Egyptian women in warfare. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize. Rename all to "Women in war in ancient Egypt". >Radiant< 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Or rename per BHG, I don't mind. >Radiant< 07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women in war in South and Central America

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Women in war in South and Central America to Category:Women in war in South America. The Latin American idea is reasonable, but would mean that the whole system would need to be rethought. That's a bit too radical for this narrow discussion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the "by continent" tree, so rename to "South America" since that's what the continent is called. There's already a cat for north america. >Radiant< 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where were decisions made on how to group continents/categories? It strikes me that culturally, "Latin America" is a more useful category for most cultural/historical subjects. Likewise, there are regional areas like the "Middle East" that defy continental/national categories, and I'm curious as to whether they have been dismissed? A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Category:Latin America - why not make this a subcat of that one and follow this cultural categorization scheme instead of the arbitrary "continental plate" approach.A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:North American colonial women in warfare

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much redundant with Category:Women in warfare in North America; dividing between "colonial" and "non-colonial" is rather pointless. Merge. >Radiant< 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this seems like a useful division by era, and also provides a distinction from native Americans. --16:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems consistent with splitting out "ancient" versus modern Egypt, per above. Where is the dividing line? This is the kind of question that is best dealt with by those who are creating and populating the category, who usually have some expertise in the subject. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Central Asian women in war

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. The category does not contain any articles which are about Central Asia according to geographical definition. Given the multiple definitions of Central Asia, WP:OCAT#Subjective inclusion criterion is a problem here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly redundant with Category:Women in war in Asia. Splitting Asia into the "central" and "non-central" parts isn't all that useful. Merge. >Radiant< 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women in war in Scandinavia

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Women in war in Scandinavia to Category:Finnish women in war. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "in Finland", since it has only one woman in there who happens to be Finnish. Create cats for Denmark/Sweden/Norway as necessary; no need for a "broad region" cat. >Radiant< 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scandinavian archaeology

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with the by-country cats for Denmark/Sweden/Norway. We cat by country and occasionally by continent, not by sub-continental region. Delete. >Radiant< 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This analysis continues to baffle me. What about Category:Middle East or Category:Southeast Asia? It strikes me there are important regional divisions other than continents. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that in general it's better to stick to country and continent categories,but there are circumstances where other regions are the logical way to organise things. In this case, the history of the area is not always mappable to the current nation-states, and some of these articles do seem to me to be best classified as Scandinavian rather than by country: e.g. Pitted Ware culture seems not to fit the national boundaries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Economies of the Caribbean

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Economies of the Caribbean to Category:Economies of Caribbean countries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only serves as a placeholder for categories of the actual countries in the Caribbean. We cat by country and continent, not by sub-contintental region. Delete. >Radiant< 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm also ok with the proposed renaming although I still slightly favor a simple upmerge. Pascal.Tesson 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:High School Musical

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High School Musical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - all of the contents are easily accessible through the main article and the template, making the category unnecessary as a navigational hub. Similar to deleted categories for the Charlotte's Web, Stuart Little and Poltergeist series. Otto4711 14:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Songs parodied by "Weird Al" Yankovic

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete; already listified. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs parodied by "Weird Al" Yankovic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listify and delete - trivial subject for a category. Perfect subject matter for an annotated list (which could then also include links to the articles on the parodies). Otto4711 13:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rage guest programmers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rage guest programmers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Categorizing musical artists by performance. Already has a list article. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if it's deleted. But how long do these usually take to decide? Farsouth 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rage has been going for about 20 years, AFAIK, and pretty much every band in the world would have guest programmed it at some time. This is really not a defining feature that anyone would need to categorise a band by, and it means nothing to non-Australians. I am also concerned that the list article is a wholesale copyvio of the ABC website, these should be an external link from the Rage (TV program) article. --Canley 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, they dont do guest programming every week. Identities as well as bands have guest programmed. I think a category is better than a list. Metao 05:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guest Programmers on the rage site does go back to 1990 so thats about right. And if it is actually a copyvio well then I guess that is that. Though to me it was just a list. My thought was i would include subcategory by year but it seems no one wants such a category. Farsouth 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most bands that tour Australia program rage. --Peta 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40 bands or musicians last year guest programmed rage. How many toured in that time? Farsouth 11:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Myx Music Awards by Year

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Myx Music Awards by Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, the main article serves as navigational hub (at least it should ...). If kept, rename to Category:Myx Music Awards rimshotstalk 13:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politicians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Martin Van Buren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:William McKinley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - A few more eponymous categories which appear to have insufficient material to warrant them. Articles are interlinked, allowing the lead article on the politician to serve as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant weak delete; may be worth putting a notice on the Van Buren and McKinley article, in hopes that someone will populate these categories. Van Buren, in particular, could be useful if it were better used. But those in the category are for the most part either debateable or easily navigated from the main article itself. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking through these I agree with the nom. All the articles I saw seem to be reasonably indexed elsewhere already and are also interlinked in the main articles. The only one that seemed borderline was the article about the 2008 presidential campaign of Mitt Romney, but I'm ok with keeping that specifically in the 2008 presidential campaign category. Dugwiki 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hills in Longford

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge of Category:Hills in Longford into Category:Mountains and hills of Longford. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hills in Longford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The potential for growth of this category seems limited. County Longford is described as hilly, but only one hill is named as notable. rimshotstalk 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Organisations in Dorset

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Organisations in Dorset to Category:Organisations based in Dorset. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Organisations in Dorset to Category:Organisations based in Dorset
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with the general practice that organisations are categorised by the place where they are based, rather than to all the localaties where they have a branch. Hawkestone 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mike Gravel

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mike Gravel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - as with recent CFDs for Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani's categories, Gravel has insufficient material to warrant an eponymous cat. Articles are all interlinked so his name article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 12:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If those other cats got junked, this one certainly should. Wasted Time R 14:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Short-lived television shows

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Short-lived television shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) needs to be renamed.

  1. "Television shows" should be "television series" instead, to match the parent Category:Television series.
  2. "Short-lived" is POV. However, the category's description page states that it is for programs canceled after one season or less, so the title of the category should be changed to reflect that.

— CharlotteWebb 11:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete as an arbitrary inclusion standard (although I find the category interesting personally and am fine with people wanting to keep it). The television debut and cancellation/ending category trees, if placed appropriately, would tell people looking at the articles that the shows only lasted one season or less. Otto4711 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perceptions of what "short-lived" means will vary from country to country. Dominictimms 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbitrary inclusion standard. However, I could possibly see a practical use for a category that includes series which ran long enough to go into syndicated reruns, if you could come up with an appropriate definition. (Whether or not a show's reruns lasts long enough to get picked up in general syndication is an important facet in judging the overall financial and popular success or failure of a series.) Dugwiki 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category with vague title and arbitrary inclusion data. Doczilla 08:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dugwiki. Pavel Vozenilek 12:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Adult models

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose renaming.--Wizardman 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Category:Adult models to Category:People in pornography[reply]

So call it "Performers in pornography", or make that a subcat of the "parent" category.——Chidom talk  12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The models aren't pornographic, by the way—the medium is. So "performers in" is better if you want to avoid having directors, etc. lumped in. "Models in erotica"? Are people who just pose for a picture "performing"? Are there actors who perform in erotic works?—Chidom talk  21:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two people having sex are not "models". An argument can be made for an individual posing for erotic photos being referred to as a "model"; "adult models" isn't as clear as "models in erotic photography". They don't necessarily need to be in the same category.—Chidom talk  12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why are they all in the same category now? Adult model redirects to Erotic photography; call them "Models in erotic photography" and "Performers in pornography" (what constitutes a porn "star", anyway?). Some will be in both categories, some in one and not the other.—Chidom talk  12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename because "adults models" sounds like they're models who aren't children. Any of the "pornography" or "pornographic" titles would be more accurate and apparent. Doczilla 09:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a common phrase. Anyone who speaks English knows what it means. Haddiscoe
  • I speak English and I've never heard the construction "adult model" outside of this category. "Adult entertainment" or "adult film" or "adult subject matter" or "adult themes" yes, but not "adult model." Which, come to think of it, is another argument for renaming to something other than "adult." An "adult film" in the vernacular is not the same as a film with "adult themes." "Adult" has different connotations so calling models "adult" is ambiguous. Otto4711 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming, as it would overwrite the distinction between (hard-core) pornography and glamour photography, which is conventionally used in the real world. Haddiscoe 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it universally "conventionally used"? Apparently not. This is an encyclopedia; meanings should be clear.—Chidom talk  12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Domesticated animals by country

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. For example, Category:Domesticated animals of the United States will be renamed to Category:Animal breeds originating in the United States; Category:Domesticated animals by country will be renamed to Category:Animal breeds by country of origin; Category:English dogs will be renamed to Category:Dog breeds originating in England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15 in order to generate further discussion - jc37 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Domesticated animals by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • This is actually a proposal to rename the subcategories of the parent category. Domesticated animals by country. I think the content of the category would be more apparent if the subcats were all in the format Domesticated animals bred in X, which appears to be how the categories are being used; and since very few of the animals were technically domesticated in country X, but are rather breeds created from already domesticated species, the name change also clear up a misconception. As is the category name is fairly ambiguous and could really be stuck on any domesticated animals that occurs in a country. The parent cat may also need to be renamed to reflect the actual content as well.--Peta 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename, no preference as to how it's worded. Perhaps the parent could be renamed to Category:Domesticated animals by country of origin? Postdlf 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename proposal is reasonable, although there are probably other clear ways of wording it, eg. something like: "Animal breeds domesticated in foo", because the sheep was probably only domesticated in 1 or 2 countries (which are probably long-since defunct), whereas these cats are actually about breeds of sheep (etc.), not the species itself. Someone started this with Japan a long time ago, and then the dog breeds more recently, and I was just trying to put it all in a broader framework. (There is a bit of problem with a lot of the African and Asian breeds, because our articles do not state their country of origin - modern countries did not exist when many breeds were developed - and it is probably not even known exactly where they 1st emerged anyway.)-- Mais oui! 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with your suggestion is that it perpetuates the problem of the original name, breeds aren't typically created from "wild" animals - they are created from already domesticated animals. The simplest solution would be to drop domesticated from the name all together, and to just go with Animal breeds from X, or Animal breeds originating in X--Peta 23:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Animal breeds from X, I think, is ambiguous. It could either mean animals bred in X or animals breeds originating in X. How about something closer to the original suggestion, either Animals bred in X or Animals first bred in X. I support the notion that the adjective domesticated is not necessary, once animals are bred, they are, for all intents and purposes, also domesticated. Domesticated as a verb is problematic for the two reasons pointed out already: (1) Existing domesticated animals were usually domesticated before the existance of our modern countries; (2) New animal breeds usually originate in existing domesticated breeds of animals. --Rimshots 10:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no opinion on this yet, but please include Category:Hungarian breeds in the discussion. The Hungarian category is named differently from everything else, and its name should be changed to match other categories (although it cannot be named until a decision is made on the other categories). Dr. Submillimeter 09:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: domestication is not equal to breeding a new subspecie of already domesticated animal (that would be "breed by country" category), the name suggests often non-existent relation between domestication of an animal and a modern state, categorising of animals by political entities is generally wrong (this is, AFAIK unsolved problem) and there's very little relation between the categorised items to make such category useful. Pavel Vozenilek 11:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aviation lists

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Aviation lists into Category:Aviation-related lists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation lists to Category:Aviation-related lists
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wharton Infosys Business Transformation Award winners

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wharton Infosys Business Transformation Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Minor award and the list in Wharton Infosys Business Transformation Award is really much better for providing information and listing the winners then you could get with a category. Vegaswikian 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per many other award categories; this is not a defining characteristic of the companies involved, and only creates category clutter. The existing list in the article does the job more effectively, because (as with other awards) the information is generated as a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List about Disney

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:List about Disney to Category:Disney-related lists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List about Disney to Category:Disney-related lists
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Simply put the current name is a mouthful and has grammatical issues. Vegaswikian 00:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American ice hockey people by state

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Consensus was clear even with strong opposition. Previous discussions about the significance of birthplace and future success in a particular career have generally gone in the direction of delete. The one for Canada mentioned below being one of the exceptions and that one probably should be reconsidered in light of this discussion and its result. Vegaswikian 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American ice hockey people by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Category and all Subcategories, Categorizing hockey persons by US state is not useful. These individuals are better categorized by the team or organization that they have been involved with rather than their state of origin. After Midnight 0001 00:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: "no consensus": Fair enough, but it seems odd that we would expect consensus here when it wasn't forthcoming there.
  • Re: Not being a part of the other discussion: Sorry I didn't take the time to look more closely. I still feel that both sets need to be considered together not separately. It's clear Canadian editors came out with powerful defences of the by province categories. Just because American editors thus far haven't done so this time, doesn’t mean they should be deleted.
  • Re "relative importance": I'd argue that it's even more defining for American players since it is highly notable to be a hockey player from a sun-belt state. Kevlar67 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion in the category tells us nothing about the player or what he had to go through to be a hockey player. Being born in Hawaii and moving to the mainland at the age of two would qualify the player for the "from Hawaii" category. In some ways your suggestion is an argument against categorizing by state, because it can lead to unfounded assumptions which are unsupported by facts. Otto4711 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be one of the rare professional hockey players from a sunbelt state in and of itself is defining. Even if he did move at the age of 2 he still came from an area that its not played (normally) and thus him picking it up when he moved to the mainland is still remarkable. --Djsasso 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I'm not at all convinced by "Even if he did move at the age of 2 he still came from an area that its not played ..." and where this might have some slight impact, every state has indoor ice rinks, so it's rather minor. — coelacan — 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivia. Doczilla 07:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though cats by team is most useful (per nom), by geographic area does is telling of the player. Agree with Katr67 that wording is awkward. Mitico 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Besides being useful for categorizing the state/province of origin of individual hockey players, it's also useful as a subcategory of "People from (whatever state/province)" or "Athletes from (whatever state/province) -- which is where I'm coming from as a member of WP:ALASKA. --Yksin 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FSA debit card provider

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FSA debit card provider (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only one entry. If kept, needs a rename. Vegaswikian 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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/2007_March_26&oldid=1140169003"