< December 14	December 16 >

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:O'Hare International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Another airport category that is main based on the airlines that fly out of there. All of this is already covered in the article. If this continues, how many categories would an airline like United Airlines or American Airlines have? Clearly not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, airlines are already listed in parent article MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and MilborneOne. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is just an airport, not much to place there that isn't already there. Marlith ^T/C 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization. Maralia (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ocat for this purpose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young Fine Gael Branches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Contains one article only, which has been tagged for deletion (by myself). Generally local branches are not notable enough for separate articles, thus the scope for expansion is extremly limited. Soman (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom. (Also includes inappropriate "recursive" categorising.) Guliolopez (talk) 02:08, 20 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename to Category:Domestic animal breeds from Iceland. Prune at your leisure. Kbdank71 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Now pruned. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals of Iceland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Most species listed are not endemic to Iceland - and this category is out on a limb (its only supercategory is for Environment of Iceland, not "Animals of Europe"). Probably should either be deleted, consistent with some previous decisions, or merged into Category:Fauna of Iceland? Purgatorio (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, prune & rename Category:Domestic animal breeds from Iceland for the four domestic breeds with Icelandic in the name. The Fauna article is probably on shaky ground for the same reasons nom gives - I see one of the two bird articles is the Bohemian waxwing! Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Iceland is a well separataed and isolated island. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well most of the animals are fish or birds, so that is even less relevant than it would be otherwise. We try to restrict these cats to either biozones or endemic species. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename & repurpose per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Denver International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Stapleton International Airport

Nominator's rationale: This contains mostly the airlines that serve the airport. They are already included in the article in a list. The same is true for the transportation related information. Also included is the airport that it replaced which was in a different location. Maybe if there were more articles directly about the airport a category could make sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added Category:Stapleton International Airport here since these two categories form a nice recursive category loop. It also has the same problems as mentioned above. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, airlines are already listed in parent article MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom and MilborneOne. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maralia (talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was already renamed here. Kbdank71 17:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fort Wayne television anchors to Category:Fort Wayne, Indiana television anchors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since I created the article and did the most of the work myself, I believe the article should be renamed. It's just too bad that if some Wikipedian has his way, I may not be able to add the articles to add to that category until at least 2009. Aeverine Frathleen Nieves (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Are there really enough notable local anchors to justify a category? --Lquilter (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure if there are enough or not. However I don't see a small market news anchor as a defining characteristic for individuals. If kept, then Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if that's the pinacle of their careers, unlikely to be notable; if on their way up (or down) likely to be non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename all. Kbdank71 17:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New York road accident deaths to Category:Road accident deaths in New York

Propose renaming Category:California road accident deaths to Category:Road accident deaths in California

Propose renaming Category:Florida road accident deaths to Category:Road accident deaths in Florida

Nominator's rationale: Rename [[Category:Foo road accident deaths]] to [[:Category:Road accident deaths in Foo]] to match parent category Category:Road accident deaths in the United States. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename and close as per consenus of previous discussion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & prior result. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional students (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The schoolgirl category became overcrowded and ended being deleted because there the category was overpopulated. I feel that the student category could end up in the same way as that one. Hmrox (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - just like the schoolgirl category and the various categories for fictional children. Otto4711 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto4711. Luckystars (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining category. Everybody has been a student of someone or something. Doczilla (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename to Category:People convicted of the international crime of aggression. Kbdank71 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People convicted of aggression to Category:People convicted of the crime of aggression

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity and conformity with definition of category and parent Category:Crime of aggression. Snocrates 09:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining. Note that Crime of aggression is a redirect to War of aggression. Otto4711 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, or ideally to a slightly clearer name, if: "(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; ; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i)." from War of aggression.

- which is the formal definition, can be boiled down a bit. It seems highly defining to me! Note War of aggression is an article about the crime. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. or to Category:People convicted of the war crime of aggression to make it perfectly clear what is being discussed here. Hmains (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People convicted of the international crime of aggression might be more accurate since "war crimes" are a distinct category of international crimes that are separate from the crime of aggression. Snocrates 22:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of law, but I'm not sure about the term "international crime" -- the international war crimes tribunals are properly thought of as "international 'war crimes' tribunals". I think "war crime of aggression" is clearer & fits more closely into the terminology as I understand it. --Lquilter (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for the WWII tribunals; not so much anymore with the International Criminal Court. They are quite clearly distinct areas of law and crime now. That being said, everyone who has been convicted thus far was convicted by the WWII tribunals. Snocrates 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. As a member of one of the abstaining nations (roll eyes) I forget about the ICC. Has the existence of the ICC made the term "international crime" a common term of art? Because to me (a non-criminal lawyer (ahem)) it sounds weird because "crime" is usually jurisdiction-specific, and except for war crimes (and its offspring, genocide & crimes against humanity) I'm not accustomed to hearing the phrase "international crimes". It suggests, for instance, piracy or smuggling and also some independent enforcement, and I didn't think that was how the ICC worked. But maybe I have US bias? --Lquilter (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I chose "crime of agression" initially was because the ICC Statute refers to it using that terminology so I assume that's the accepted term in the field. I'm interested in what others might think, but I did some quick google searches and came up with the following: "international crime of aggression" = 7690; "war crime of aggression" = 85; "crime of aggression" (not including the ones with "international" preceding it) = ~52,000. Snocrates 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Ghits have it, I think -- if that's the preferred terminology I believe we should go with it. --Lquilter (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something that includes "war crime" or "international crime" to keep out bar brawlers, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People convicted of the international crime of aggression. I had this on my "to-do" list, so I'm glad Snocrates beat me to it. And "international crime of aggression" was the choice of wording I had in mind, as well, because that is how I've seen/heard it referred to by various experts. Cgingold (talk) 03:57, 20 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ESO Director Generals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category, and it is also one of only two articles in parent category Category:European Southern Observatory. Snocrates 09:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice to recreation if needed in future. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename all. Kbdank71 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ASEAN laws to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations laws

Category:ASEAN events to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations events

Category:Sports events of ASEAN to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations sports events

Category:ASEAN meetings to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations meetings

Category:Heritage parks of ASEAN to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations heritage parks

Category:Secretaries General of ASEAN to Category:Secretaries General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Category:Organizations revolving around ASEAN to Category:Organizations associated with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Nominator's rationale: Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and to match main article Association of Southeast Asian Nations and parent category Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Also some tweaks to the wording of some. Snocrates 09:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename. Per previous discussions on expanding this acronym. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:D8 nations to Category:Developing 8 Countries member states

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and to match article Developing 8 Countries. Snocrates 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:OECS to Category:Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT to match main article Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. Snocrates 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename to Category:Organization of the Islamic Conference members. Kbdank71 17:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:OIC members to Category:Organization of the Islamic Conference member states

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match parent Category:Organization of the Islamic Conference. Snocrates 09:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. --Soman (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Organization of the Islamic Conference members. Several current and former members, such as the PLO and Zanzibar, are not states, and there is no need to make this distinction.-choster (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "members" per Choster. Johnbod (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "members" per Choster. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Like Minded Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No articles in category except for Like Minded Group. Not necessary for any larger scheme of categorization. Snocrates 08:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The template ((Like Minded Group)) serves for navigation. Country articles don't seem to be categorized based on associations to the UN. –Pomte 06:26, 24 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GUAM countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Organization only has four member states, and information on current and former members is set out well at GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development. If no delete, at least use full name and rename to Category:GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development member states. Snocrates 08:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OCAT; if kept, rename to Category:GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development members as non-state entities are members of several international organizations and "member states" itself would represent an OCAT scenario.-choster (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All 4 members of this org are states, so the issue of non-state membership does not arise. Snocrates 05:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining for the member states. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization. –Pomte 06:28, 24 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CCASG members to Category:Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf member states

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation in name per WP:NCCAT. Or delete and listify. Snocrates 08:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overcategorization; there is only one CCASG-related article. If kept, rename to Category:Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf members considering non-state entities are members of various international organizations primarily comprised of states.-choster (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All 6 members are states, so the issue of non-state membership does not arise here. Snocrates 05:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was merge. Kbdank71 17:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Wiki to Category:Wikis

Nominator's rationale: essentially the same category; better name The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per conventions. Marlith ^T/C 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per naming conventions for categories. Maralia (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was merge both to Category:Erotica and pornography websites. Kbdank71 17:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Erotica websites to Category:Pornographic websites

Nominator's rationale: Two pages are of the same content. In fact, the two pages list each other as subcategories. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - preferably to Category:Erotica websites, as the less pejorative name. Grutness...wha? 19:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to merge to combined name, as below. Grutness...wha? 23:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom - and not per Grutness - the term pornographic may be pejorative but it would also be more accurate I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is all erotica pornographic? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erotica: Erotica is a modern word used to describe the portrayal of the human anatomy and sexuality with high-art aspirations, differentiating such work from commercial pornography. Yes, there is a difference, so I am rethinking a bit. However, the category may be unsustainable (they're easy to mix up, and people will miscategorize). Maybe we could try something like Category:Erotica and Pornographic websites? The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to some combined form of the names, such as Category:Pornography and erotica websites. Aleta (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to combined form - whilst nearly all are pornographic, the odd one like Fictionmania is probably best described as erotica. This will at least prevent forking in the future.Johnbod (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Erotica and pornographic websites. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The terms 'erotic' and 'pornographic' are adjectives; 'erotica' and 'pornography' are nouns. The parallel forms should be used, rather than mixing the two. Aleta (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - "Erotic and ..." I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment isn't erotica more inclusive? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Erotica and pornographic websites per discussion above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Erotica and pornography websites - Please note: the category name must use the nouns for clarity and specificity. Category:Erotic and pornographic websites could include ALL websites that may, for whatever reason, be perceived as "erotic" or "pornographic". Cgingold (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned if nouns or adjective are used, but it should be n+n or a+a. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Erotica and pornography websites as there is a distinction between the two, and the noun form is more appropriate. –Pomte 06:31, 24 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename all. Kbdank71 17:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SAARC to Category:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

Category:SAARC members to Category:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation member states

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Snocrates 08:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and Category:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation members. I would avoid using "states" in general for international organizations as they can have members which are not states, such as Hong Kong being a member of APEC or the PLO being a member of the CAEU; or whose statehood is not widely recognized, for instance Western Sahara being invited to the AU or Taiwan being a member of the ADB.-choster (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All members of this body are states—none of the "controversial" variety à la Taiwan—so the issue doesn't really arise here. Snocrates 06:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining for the member states. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Special Rapporteurs to the United Nations to Category:United Nations Special Rapporteurs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match format of article name United Nations Special Rapporteur. Snocrates 08:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UNESCO Prizes to Category:UNESCO awards

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use "award" to conform with parent Category:Awards by awarding entity. Not all are "prizes", some are "medals" or simply "awards". Snocrates 08:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - As Snocrates points out, awards is the broader term. --Lquilter (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was relisted on dec 24. Kbdank71 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FSF/UNESCO to Category:Free Software Foundation and UNESCO

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation for "FSF" per parent category Category:Free Software Foundation and main article Free Software Foundation. Don't expand UNESCO as parent category is Category:UNESCO and main article is UNESCO. Snocrates 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; if not deleted, rename per nom - The category is an intersection that is apparently intended to capture free software (such as GIMP and Mozilla Firefox) that are or have been supported or recognized by UNESCO (the so-called "Free Software Directory, formerly named "FSF/UNESCO Directory"). As such, it is overcategorization by membership in a published list, basically -- UNESCO sponsorship or recognition is certainly not a defining element of the nine pieces of software included in the category. (Eclipse, GIMP, Gnuzilla, K3b, K9copy, Firefox, MySQL, OpenOffice, and OpenSSL are the 9 pieces of software categorized here. The tenth article in the category is the Free Software Directory which is sort of the head article, but it's lame.) Their position as part of the debate about various governmental/international entities sponsorship or promotion of free software is not a useful categorizing scheme. An article should be written that discusses this issue and links to relevant software -- there isn't such an article now. People who visit the category will note that it lists as main articles "FSF/UNESCO Directory", FSF and UNESCO. FSF/UNESCO Directory is a redirect to Free Software Directory, but that article is minimal and doesn't really address the significant aspects of this issue. (All that said, if somehow this category is kept, it should at least be spelled out.) --Lquilter (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lquilter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-free media rationale templates to Category:Non-free use rationale templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Non-free use rationale is the now-accepted way to refer to these templates. As illustrated by the generic one: ((Non-free use rationale)), and by scattered discussions about non-free/fair-use content. -- Pepve (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - clearer title. Addhoc (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - agreed. Also be on the look out for the now-deprecated "fair use rationale." You can also use "use rationale" for short in cases where it gets too long.Wikidemo (talk) 02:23, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British early music performers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:British performers of early music, consistent with this recent discussion on related categories. Cgingold (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, & previous one. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per precedent. Maralia (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Physical sciences to Category:Natural sciences - This is another "mergeto" template.

• Neutral - jc37 07:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ask the Project (thanks Cgingold for actually doing this - now see below) Both articles have main articles with the same titles, according to which "Physical" should perhaps be a sub-cat of "Natural". Johnbod (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ask the Project per Johnbod. Termonology in this context can be complicated, with teems such as "natural and experimental philosophy" used for physics in older universities, but "Natural philosophy" appears to be somewhat broader than physical sciences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment one includes living things, the other doesn't... 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree that Category:Physical sciences can logically be considered a sub-category of Category:Natural sciences. But I'm not entirely sure that that is the entire answer here. Since the only thing missing from Category:Physical sciences is Biology, the obvious question is, Do we really need to maintain both categories?? I'm not sure what the right answer is. However, I just followed through on Johnbod's suggestion and posted a request for input over at WikiProject Science and also at WikiProject History of Science. Cgingold (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Request - This CFD has attracted very few comments despite being open for an entire week. So I think it should be relisted to start a fresh discussion. Cgingold (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have relisted this because it affects two of the parent categories in the sciences and it is fairly clear that few people know about this proposal. Some attempt has just been made to put information on the talk page of some of the Science Projects, so hopefully it will get more attention. --Bduke (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also put a note on the Projects for Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geology and Physics. --Bduke (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I just saw the request at the Science Wikiproject. There is great overlap of the two categories currently, and I can think of no good reason for keeping them separate. The physical is natural, and vice versa. Aleta (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The overlap clearly is large. To be inclusive should they both be merged into a new category - Category:Natural and physical sciences. Let me make that a firm proposal. --Bduke (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bduke's suggested title, because "natural sciences" also has a narrower meaning that excludes the physical sciences. I came here from the Geology Wikiproject; thanks for the notice. -- Avenue (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Natural sciences. Cgingold's proposal below has led me to change my mind. -- Avenue (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what is the distinction? Nergaal (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral thanks for the note on WP:CHEMISTRY. My first degree from a small university north of London was entitled "Natural Sciences": it allowed me to combine Chemistry and Zoology. I don't think the category title is a serious matter either way: if people want to merge, that's fine by me, if they don't thant's fine as well! Physchim62 (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep them separate. Classification is fundamental in science. The objects in natural science are 'equivalence classes' of specimens, those of the physical sciences (abstracted from the natural sciences) are identical objects or phenomena (changes in objects) found everywhere throughout the know universe. Natural scientists apply the physical sciences, as one uses a tool. Neither is a subset of the other: the classes are distinct. Such a natural classification clarifies ones understanding of science, correlates well with methodologies & methods, and can be expected to correlate with other aspects of science not yet thought of. The natural sciences & physical sciences are different, and using them so could illustrate the proper use of natural classification. Geologist (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I support the merger of the two to the title suggested by Bduke. I think that there are differences but strongly doubt that we will ever get agreement as to where the boundary lies. Mikenorton (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Overlap. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep them separate. Natural science is a field that includes two separate subfields that are mostly distinct - physical sciences and biological sciences. So for example, genetics is natural science and a biological science, but not a physical science; and geology is a natural science and a physical science, but not a biological science. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reorganise per Edgar: Natural science as (largely empty?) head cat, physical and biological sciences as its sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I understand that they are not exactly the same, but they have such a large overlap that IMHO keeping both doesn't help navigation or organization and borders on overcategorization. --Itub (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per bduke to Category:Natural and physical sciences 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Natural and physical sciences - Bduke's proposal is a good one, and where there are two long-standing synonymous terms, each with a good claim to prioritizing, there's no reason not to consolidate to avoid pointless back-and-forthing and recreations. (Plus a cool acronym.) --Lquilter (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate Proposal: Delete Category:Natural sciences and rename Category:Biology to Category:Biological sciences.

• Rationale: After looking at this from every angle, both in terms of how the various fields and sub-fields relate to one another, and in terms of what makes sense for for navigational purposes, I arrived at two conclusions: 1) Category:Natural and physical sciences really does not make sense logically or semantically, since the "Physical sciences" are already a sub-set of the "Natural sciences"; and 2) Category:Natural sciences is basically an unnecessary intermediate category which actually serves no discernible purpose and impedes navigation.

What is of paramount importance here is how these higher-level categories fit under and function within the super-category, Category:Science. I just finished doing some cleanup of that category, moving a number of sub-categories into other sub-cats (such as Category:Applied sciences) where that was appropriate. And I added sortkeys in order to group the five broad sub-divisions of science together under the asterisk at the head of the display of sub-categories. Of those five, two fall outside the scope of this particular CFD discussion. That leaves the two named in this CFD, plus Category:Biology. Given that Biology is such a vast field, I think it would make good sense to rename it to Category:Biological sciences, which also puts it on a par linguistically with Category:Physical sciences. If we eliminate Category:Natural sciences we will then have four major sub-divisions, each of which should be readily understood by readers. Cgingold (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is renaming Category:Biology really a critical part of this proposal? I would rather we agreed here to simply delete Category:Natural sciences and then debate the case for renaming Biology on its own merits, in a separate CfD. -- Avenue (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite right. The proposal doesn't hinge on renaming of Category:Biology, I just think that makes good sense. It will, of course, need to be dealt with in a separate CFD, as you suggest. Cgingold (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Cgingold's Alternate Proposal. Cgingold's sortkey work is a good stating point. Keeping Category:Physical sciences is needed to make this work. Also needed is reorganization of content at Fields of science and addressing the use of Template:Natural_sciences-footer and Category:Natural_science_and_nature-related_navigation_templates, but definitely do-able. Changing Category:Biology to Category:Biological sciences, as proposed by Cgingold, is needed regardless. -- Paleorthid (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both Neither are useful, informationally or organizationally as categories. Until there is a consensus on the definition of natural science and physical science, making them categories just confuses people and leads to ambiguous arguments like this one.Pckilgore (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My sense of things is that "natural sciences" is open to interpretation and not all that familiar to people who are less knowledgable about science in general, whereas "physical sciences" is a widely used term -- and there is a clear concensus on what it means. I think it therefore serves a very useful navigational purpose by funneling readers to that grouping of major scientific fields. Cgingold (talk) 10:02, 20 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was relisted on dec 24. Kbdank71 16:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lake Worth, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category has two mainspace members, Lake Worth, Florida and Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church (Lake Worth). The latter is currently nominated for AfD as a WP:COATRACK. -- Donald Albury 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Brand new category. Large city in Palm Beach county. See the big picture here. This is a no-brainer despite the possibility of a disappearing church. No city in Palm Beach county has it's own category for reasons that are not known. As a result, all article defined have categories that are too far-reaching, such as "schools in Florida" or "Baptist churches in the south." Need local collectors to narrow these selections down early so they won't have to be changed later. Having said that, it's defining category may need to be changed to "Cities in Palm Beach County." Student7 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Lake Worth, Florida. Being brand new is not in and of itself a reason to delete. However, a near empty category that does not have obvious articles that can be added is. I did some digging and found additional articles that could be included. Based on that I think a rename is the better choice. The radio station can be upmerged to the county cat and everything else should be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough there to support a cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there is no fixed number of articles needed for a category, 910 seems to be sufficient. Especially when my suggested rename would make it part of a series. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 20 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soviet and Russian rockets to Category:Soviet rockets

Nominator's rationale: Category can be restricted to rockets first built in the Soviet Union; a separate category exists for Russian rockets, and the apparent overlap is undesirable. RandomCritic (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - presumably these are all Soviet? Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom created Category:Russian rockets. The template ((Russian launch vehicles)) doesn't distinguish between them; a rename may be warranted here. –Pomte 06:36, 24 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 17:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Territory South of the River Ohio to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives from Southwest Territory

Nominator's rationale: Historical U.S. territory can go by either name, but main article is at Southwest Territory. Snocrates 02:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: Your rationale is correct, but the Bioguide lists the position as being from the TSofRO. You might be able to convince me to change my vote, however.—Markles 15:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care which it is, but they should be consistent one way or the other. Right now the article and all associated categories use "Southwest Territory", and my only rationale was it's easier to change 1 category than an article plus several categories. Snocrates 06:01, 17 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whistle register singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: The ability to sing in the whistle register is common but not a defining characteristic for a voice. Singers are continually being put in/taken out of this anomalous category for lack of verifiable information. We have other, much better documented categories for singers (sopranos, mezzos etc.) and it would be better to use those. Kleinzach (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree. This category should be deleted for its presentation of information that not only lacks citation but is inaccurate. Furthermore, the category is on a topic that does not meet the notability requirements of wikipedia, as the ability to sing in the whistle register is quite common.Nrswanson (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note- The actual article on the whistle register was seriously flawed until recently when I practically re-wrote it. It had no sources before and it now has several thanks to me. This category page was built off of the bad whistle register page and I think for this reason the category page is not salvageable. I should note that I am a vocal pedagogist and quite knowledgeable in this field, holding a Bachelors in Music Education and in the process of completing a Masters in Vocal Performance and Pedagogy.Nrswanson (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree! ` Jay (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nrswanson and Kleinzach. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a classification generally used to divide up singers. I suppose it might be notable in dividing up people by way of becoming a countertenors or something, but it's pretty much unverifiable subjective judgement, and we're unlikely to find sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 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 debate was rename (already taken care of).--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crumlin; Crumlin is a redirect page. Category:Crumlin, Dublin created instead. - Sarah777 (talk) 02:43, 15 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.