< December 20	December 22 >

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 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mortification DVDs to Category:Mortification (band) DVDs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article is at Mortification (band) and removes the ambiguity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think there's any ambiguity, so matching the lead article isn't important here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it's worth, the first thing I thought of when I saw this section header was DVDs portraying mortification. –Pomte 07:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess that makes sense. OK, let's rename this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Clearly there's the potential for ambiguity and matching the lead article removes it. Otto4711 (talk) 03:36, 25 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 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unnecessary eponymous cat for a band. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After removing articles that belong in subcats, there are not enough left to warrant existence. –Pomte 07:32, 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 15:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German loanwords from Czech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete we have a few loan words categories - regardless of the wisdom of those (I'd prefer lists that can be sourced rather than burden articles about the subjects with categories about nomenclature, but I digress) - this is a step too far, this is loan words from one foreign language into another and with a few thousand languages each with loan words from thousands of others, this quickly gets out of hand - should we get hotel and taxi tagged with probably a category for thousands of languages as these words have been loaned to most of them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Let's nip this in the bud before it turns into a trend. These categories should be reserved for the other languages Wikis. Cgingold (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both. Only contains polka! Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are few loanwords (more in Austria), often related to food (kolatche) but these words are unlikely to have an article. A list of Czech words used in English is in List of English words of Czech origin, German equivalent would be useful. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just discovered existence of Category:Czech loanwords which should be deleted as well (it just mirrors the list mentioned above, created by the same author on the same day). If they won't get deleted together perhaps someone will willing to go through the CfD process? Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:19, 26 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 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:FIFA Club World Cup Finals to Category:FIFA Club World Championship

Nominator's rationale: Merge, one article in this cat, really belongs at the target. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 23 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 16:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Death metal musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete found this in the orphanage; not sufficiently well defined to objectively know who is in and who is out. If kept, parents need to be found for this cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it is clearly defined - Musicians from the death metal genre. For parent cats, try Category:Heavy metal musicians (parent cat of Category:Black metal musicians and sub-cat of Category:Musicians by genre) and Category:Death metal. Lugnuts (talk) 09:57, 22 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 15:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daz Dillinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary eponymous category for a musician. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 18:43, 23 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 15:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete one article and "Christian pop" is a redirect and Christian Contemporary Music to which it points is a wide ranging area with no clear boundries. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:14, 21 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 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Candyman albums to Category:Candyman (rapper) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Candyman (rapper). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 21 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 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cambridge Images to Category:Images of Cambridge

Nominator's rationale: Rename convention of Category:Images of cities in the United Kingdom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 21 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 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battle Arena Toshinden characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Contains only a list. Delete and recategorize the list in Category:Lists of video game characters. Pagrashtak 20:39, 21 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 16:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Maryland Congressional delegation navigational boxes to Category:Congressional delegations from Maryland navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Makes more grammatical sense; avoids capitalization debate over "Congressional" (although that's settled, now. —Markles 20:09, 21 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 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blac Haze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary eponymous cat for a musician. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 21 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 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alternative rock groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Alternative rock is not clearly definable and what makes these 2 groups the poster children for the mushy-defined genre. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 21 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. Wizardman 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barry Bonds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Everything here is or can be linked through Bonds' article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 21 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:SAP (company). Kbdank71 16:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SAP to Category:SAP AG

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, SAP AG. Snocrates 03:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the whole - article is only so named for disam purposes, which is not a problem here. Everyone just uses SAP, & SAP AG is bound to confuse far more people than it helps. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, SAP is an ambiguous TLA. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"SAP (computing)" or something would be preferable. It is a big brand worldwide (just using SAP) & AG means nothing to most people outside Europe if not Germany Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 18 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, Kbdank71 16:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:SAP (company) since AG isn't part of the name. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a very reasonable compromise. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Johnbod. AG = Inc. (US) or Ltd (UK) and is not used usually in categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per 132.205.44.5. Not "everyone" knows about SAP, just software specialists and those unlucky to work with a system based on R/3. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:SAP (software) as it currently includes entries which appear to be connected with the software but not the company, e.g. implementors IBA Group. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:08, 26 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 15:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Public relations specialists to Category:Public relations people

Nominator's rationale: Merge - no objective criteria as to what differentiates a "specialist" from a regular ole publicist. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 21 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 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism to Category:Emigrants from Nazi Germany

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rather than using the category to subscribe an intent to the emigration, it would be more neutral to simply have a category for people who left Nazi Germany. Snocrates 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - they do all seem to be from Germany, so no need for W.H. Auden etc. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC) see below[reply]
• Comment - what about Stefan Zweig? He clearly fled to escape Nazism, and even killed himself in fear of its triumph, but it would be four more years before his country was taken over by Nazi Germany. On the other hand, yes, the proposed rephrase is more easily subject to verifiability criteria. Biruitorul (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zweig wasn't in the category when I was examining it; all the ones who were in it seemed to meet the definition of the revised name. Does anyone know if there are a lot more like this? Snocrates 08:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, Einstein left Germany in late 1932 to "travel"; when he "emigrated" is subject to debate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I created this category precisely because the then-existing categories (which are now sub-cats of this one) were restricted to people from Germany. Apparently, nobody noticed Wilhelm Reich sitting there; or perhaps you assumed that he was German, when in fact he was Austrian (or more accurately, Galician) -- certainly not German. At any rate, I've now added both Stefan Zweig and the eminent Holocaust scholar, Raul Hilberg. No doubt there are others, as well. Cgingold (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - As I've said previously, it sure would have been nice to have been notified about the CFD. I nearly missed the opportunity to participate in the discussion. By the way, there is now a lovely, easy-to-use template for notifying Category creators when there is a CFD: ((cfd-notify)). Please do make use of it! Cgingold (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm - I've added Sigmund Freud + another, and there is a need for such a category, but I'm still not sure about ascribing motivation in a category name, even when it is clearly justified in most or all cases. Can anyone think of a rename? Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is interesting -- it really hadn't occurred to me that the cat name could be perceived as subtly ascribing motivation, rather than simply stating a known fact. I'm still really not convinced that it's an issue that we need to be seriously concerned about, especially since the reason these people emigrated isn't mere speculation. I'll give it some more thought, though. Cgingold (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing very subtle about it! For example, does it apply to Marlene Dietrich? Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per Cgingold, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 21 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, Kbdank71 15:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, to what? I'd actually prefer the slightly POV-ish Category:People who fled Nazism, this way it really isn't limited to Germany (1933 borders), but would include those who left (current and impending) invasions/takeovers, like Austria; this would also avoid the ambiguity of (a) why they left, (b) precisely when they left, (c) whether "emigration" was the intent at the time or became so later. A less POV-ish but longer winded version could be Category:People who left Nazi-threatened or Nazi-controlled territories Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. in the name of the category there is also written that they escaped from Nazis so please mantain it.The name of the category explain well the subjevt of the category.User:Lucifero4
• Further comment: The fact that these individuals were "escaping Nazism" is the very raison d'etre for this category. That is, well, inescapable -- so I think it's kind of strange to insist that we're somehow divining their "motivation". But if somebody can come up with a superior way of articulating this, that's fine with me. Likewise, if there's a better term than "emigrated", please suggest one. But, again, I'm not really convinced that it's necessary. All we're saying is that they left and did not return, regardless of their plans or intentions, regardless of whether they considered it permanent emigration or merely temporary. To me, both of these terms (emigrate & escape) are simply descriptive -- not analytical. We know that they left, and we know in broad terms why they left. If those facts aren't clear from their biography, there's no reason for them to be in the category. Try as I might, I'm just not seeing where there's a serious problem that needs to be fixed. Cgingold (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People, including Jews, leftwingers, homosexuals and gypsies have emigrated from Europe to to the Us, or left one part of Europe for another in large numbers throughout the last several centuries. No doubt the numbers increased considerably during the Nazi period and its run-up, but no doubt also many people would have made the same moves even if the Nazis had somehow not happened. So there is an issue, which Marlene Dietrich, though a tad early, must exemplify, unless anyone can think of a better example. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could, I suppose, speculate as to whether various individuals would have left Europe in any event -- but really, that's something of a diversion. All we need to concern ourselves with is what did in fact take place in the actual history of that era. And again, we don't need to infer anything: only people who are known and understood to have left for that reason belong in this category.

As for Marlene Dietrich, by my reading of her life she falls outside the scope of this category. She didn't need to escape from Nazism -- she was free to come and go as she pleased. Apparently the Nazis wanted her to return, but she chose not to -- rather like Pablo Casals and Franco's Spain. Does that help to clarify things? Cgingold (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a defining characteristics (e.g. for Freud), overcategorization. Where important it should be mentioned in the text. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Not a defining characteristics"?? Are you serious??? I think anybody who left Europe to escape from the threat of Nazism would gasp in disbelief at that assertion. And speaking of Freud, what on earth are you talking about??? He had visits from the Gestapo, and went into exile "to die in freedom" (as he's quoted here on Wikipedia. What more do you want?? Cgingold (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I've just spent the last 2 hours locating and categorizing a dozen additional articles about individuals who fled Central Europe to escape Nazism. Cgingold (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm sorry if the nominator thinks this category unfairly implies that Nazis were worth fearing. But the nominator's suggestion that this name is POV is extremely misplaced. If someone merely speculated that a person who left Germany, at the time of the Nazi, fled Germany in order to flee the Nazis, that would be POV. But it is a matter of public record that great scientists, like Leo Szilard, fled Germany precisely to flee the Nazis. Because it is a matter of public record the name of the category is not POV. As others have written above the renaming would seriously undercut the utility of the wikipedia's coverage of these notable individuals. Geo Swan (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I applaud Cgingold's efforts. There were two categories that I spent dozens of hours populating which were nominated for renaming, with no input from my just a few days ago. They were nominated by the same nominator who made this nomination. I am willing to acknowledge that this nominator followed the letter of the existing guideline or policy. And I believe this illustrates Cgingold's point -- the existing policy is deeply flawed. FWIW, I strongly object to one of those other renames. No offense, but, as in this case, the nominator seems to have simply lacked the background to recognize what was and wasn't POV. The replacement name they picked, Category:Bagram Theater detention facility detainees, contains the highly politicized word "detainee" -- a word popularized by spin-doctors who want to wrap a controversial process in an aura of normalcy.
• Comment - FWIW, there is another problem with how categories are renamed. I raised this yesterday on WP:AN/I. The current procedure erases the edit history of the moved article: [1], [2]

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:35, 27 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 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tom Cruise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete overcategorization. There's nothing here that isn't or can't be linked through Cruise's article. No justification for an eponymous category. Otto4711 (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keep. this category is simple, to the point, and has a clear purpose. Why delete something which is clearly useful and convenient? that's what categories are for. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:USEFUL does not address the overcategorization issue. There is nothing in the category that is not accessible through the article Tom Cruise. Otto4711 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so what? that The Tom Cruise article is not a catgeory, it is an article. categories such as this one have their own useful function. thanks for your reply though. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...this is a category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i reworded my comment to be more clear, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, I agree with everything said by Steve, Sm8900. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. If nothing else, it's a poorly named category.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These eponymous categories create many more problems than they solve. Imagine categorizing everyone by who they are related to, who they were married to, etc... It is rare that a defining characteristic of one individual is their relationship to another. Even when they are, they are usually part of a class of individuals (such as "spouses of...") that is a better way to categorize. If something isn't worth mentioning in the article about Tom Cruise, then it isn't worthy of a categorization. If it is worth mentioning, it can be linked. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No offence, Steve! I support some eponymous categories, but not this one. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:14, 26 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 15:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues to Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Nominator's rationale: This category is a silly blunder. "Issues" are not different to the actual topic. It is the same thing, so the need for this category makes absolutely no sense and is totally unjustified. The "instructions" that accompany it [3] are dizzying, like a recipe for a complicated pudding (why not use the standard ((catmore)) like the rest of the Wikipedian world?) and it appears that its creator is violationg WP:NPOV as all the focus seems to be on Israel's practice (implying non-compliance) with "human rights" (no category of Palestinian terrorist attacks anywhere in sight) which only proves that such a category will invarioubly fall victim to each succeeding editor's POV and hence will become a POV magnet and edit warring which its editor has already displayed. It is a shame that the category's creator feels the need to create redundant categories merely to further what obviously appears to be an anti-Israel POV. This category should be merged back to Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict where it belongs. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, that;s totally irrational. I am totally pro-Israel. that doesn't make much sense. sorry. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey did you just accuse me of edit warring? I don't know where you get that from. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IZAK (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per IZAK. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems appropriate although I cannot see why the nominator regards the category as being anti-Israel. Is it the name? Is it the instructions? Is it what is included? The articles included in the subcategories do seem to me unbalanced however, if this is of any relevance. Thincat (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Hello I created this category, and I am an Orthodox Jew and a amember of AIPAC, ZOA, and numerous other groups. the reason I created this group was to have a place to gather articles which are broad overviews of specific issues, as opposed to articles detailing a specific event at a particular time and place. There are numerous such overviews, as you can see. I feel this should be kept. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's already a subcategory of the Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is very large so a subcategory on issues is warranted. NPOV seems no issue to me; IZAK can add articles to the category if he wants. --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I'm not sure why it was necessary to bash Israel and its supporters in the "Nominator's rationale," but the rational bits of the rationale are convincing. --GHcool (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. For keep voters, I'm wondering if there's a better way to define the category. It sounds like the main purpose is to exclude articles that focus on specific events, time periods, persons, etc. However, it's too vague to say that you want "broad overview" articles -- that's a bit like saying, I want the best or the key articles on the IP conflict (and WP doesn't choose best/key articles for categories). So, what can you suggest as clear criteria for inclusion here? What would you imagine as the "main article" for this category? If you can't think of a main article, then this category might not make sense. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HG. Thanks for your useful input, as usaul. to answer your question, here are some of the specific entries which show why it is good to have all overview articles in one place. each ofn these occupies a category of its own, but each is an overview of many events and people within the conflict. Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian political violence, Palestinian textbook controversy. hope that is helpful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, thanks but. How can anyone define what is an "overview" or not? Why isn't Battle of Jenin an overview of many discrete associated events? You don't need to give examples (though I am casuistic), give us an operational definition (or at least a main article). Thanks. HG | Talk 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, sorry, you kind of misunderstood me. i didn;'t mean any article which refers to a multitude of events, i meant articles which have no specific event as its subject matterm, but rather an abstract issue. So obviously (it seems to me, at least) that the overview articles relate to a broad abstract issue only. they do not have as their sole focus a dioscrete or set of related events such as battle of jenin, six-day war, etc etc. so i hope that helps. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misunderstand at all -- I mentioned Jenin as a counter-example. You can't define a category solely in terms of excluding events. (Exclusion isn't adequate and "events" is too open to interpretation, imo.) Likewise, it's too vague to try to define "overview" and "abstract" articles. Don't forget, too, that you're dealing with a highly disputatious group of editors. Give them a clearcut and well-defined category, or you'll just set this up for endless wrangling. Pls. HG | Talk 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, fair enough. i didn't mean to exclude necessarily anything--I only meant that the only thing which this includes is broad overview articles in regard to abstract issues. hope that helps. i will discuss more at your talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge. Our guidelines indicate that inclusion in a category should be self-evident, but this category is too vague. Words like "issue," "abstract" and "overview" are inadequate. Our guidelines ask these questions: If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? If the answer is no, as is the case here, then a category is inappropriate. Indeed, what article discusses this category at all? Sorry, the motivation is good but the category needs more careful delineation. HG | Talk 19:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "XYZ issues" should nearly always be merged to "XYZ" that's what the category is for. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. `'Míkka>t 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I understand the purpose: to make category more manageable. But the proper approach would be do separate specific topics into subcategories, leaving general topics. For example I see reasonable subcategories "Violence", "Political processes", "Economics", etc. Since the topics is covered in huge number of articles, I would suggest instead of randomly adding new subcategories, you better spend 3-4 days of discussing the whole reasonable structure of subcategories here: topics, purpose, naming, etc., bearing in mind the major categories of the whole wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'll try to give that some thought. Feel free to add further suggestions as long as we're all focused on this discussion for the moment. Some group discussion of how to approach this goal might be somewhat ebenficial. thanks for your help and input. glad you see what i was trying to do here. keep looking to see the best organizational, topical, and informational "hooks" to hang some further delineations on. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: While I believe I understand what Steve, Sm8900 was hoping to accomplish, I'm afraid the boundaries of the category are too fuzzy, and thus not not sufficiently distinct from the main category to serve a useful purpose. Here's an idea (off the top of my head) for helping to organize the main category and reduce the clutter: How about Category:Events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This would include all of the attacks, massacres, military operations, etc., etc. Not entirely sure if this is a sound approach, but something to consider. Cgingold (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Cgingold. --Shuki (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this cat and merge articles into Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --MPerel 19:23, 27 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 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Key Performance Indicators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - category is not required and is under populated. Chessy999 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete if kept, something about financial ought to be in the title, unless we want to add things like earned run average which is key performance indicator in my book. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 21 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 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish political status (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This well-meaning but hopelessly vague and broad self-defeating category starts out with a wrong name. The "commands" that accompany it [4] are dizzying, like marching orders for a marathon (why not use the standard ((catmore)) like the rest of the Wikipedian world?) If this trend would be followed then there must also be Category:Christian political status; Category:Islamic political status; Category:Hindu political status; and then Category:Russian political status etc etc. This is not needed. It should really have been called Category:Political status of Jews which would basically mean that thousands of articles in all of Category:Jewish history; Category:Antisemitism; Category:Holocaust; Category:Israel and many, many others could willy-nilly be squeezed into this Über-category, and then would follow categories like Category:Political status of Christians; Category:Political status of Muslims etc etc. The problems here gyrate between WP:NOR and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, since how does one judge the "political status" of Jews during three thousand years of history, as they have lived through monarchies, exiles, persecutions, denial of rights and granting of rights, that are all covered in relevant and specific categoroies already, besides not throwing everything into the pot as this super-duper-category does. There is not even a parent Category:Political status of ethnic groups or Category:Political status of religious groups. IZAK (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though open to rename. There are over 200 articles in the main Jewish history parent category, which needs diffusion, & this is a fairly obvious & useful sub-division. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As per Johnbod. Instructions with a category may be unusual, but they are not unacceptable. If you think they should be shorter, feel free to revise them. This is a very useful sub-category within a very large category. there are numerous articles and topics which could be usefully placed here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your point, there are the following categories in existence: Category:Men's rights Category:Women's rights, Category:History of African-American civil rights, Category:Native American law, Category:Romani rights etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'd think that the category could work if it's limited to the civil rights and political status of Jews. So, I'll go ahead and edit the category's introductory definition. (Thereby excluding general events etc of political significance.) If such limitations aren't acceptable, it seems like this category would be too vague. thanks. HG | Talk 17:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I accept and appreciate your changes to the category. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable concept (if not this particular terminology) and per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category is helplessly over-generalized and thus useless for any classification purposes. You can put almost whole Jewish history there. Coming to category:Jewish history, I cannot help but notice that the whole categorization of Jewish-related topics is quite chaotic. I recognize that the history of Jews 2000 years without home leaves this topic without certain focal point based on home country: unlike category:History of Hungary, category:Politics of Hungary, taking Israel as a root of the category tree will cover at most 100 years. At the same time I may agree "politics" + "Jews" must be somehow placed together somewhere. Therefore I would suggest to delete this one for now and start a discussion (1) which category is necessary (2) why it is necessary, (3) what's it proper name. Finally, (4) define and maintain it carefully: I have just deleted category:Jewish society from this one: I find it weird to see, eg., category:Jewish surnames within "Jewish political status". `'Míkka>t 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category's title implies a different standard to Jewish political status than to non-Jewish political status. These issues are usually discussed under the Category:Anti-Semitism, Category:Jewish history, and Category:Jewish history by country. I support deletion on the basis of redundancy, but I don't take offense to the category because its intentions are not anti-Semitic. --GHcool (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The political status of Jews is a significant and clearly-defined topic in Jewish hisotry. It's a notable topic in the study of Jews in Roman society, in pre-modern Christendom and Islamic lands, and especially significant as a marker of European Jewry's shift into modernity (aka Emancipation of Jews). Pls look at the revised category for what is now an adequately defined scope. While I agree with Míkka that editors should assign the category properly, poor assignments do not detract from the fundamental adequacy and notability of the category. HG | Talk 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Keep. The political status of Jews has been questioned more often then any other religious or ethnic minority in more places then any other religious or ethnic minority. It is still being questioned. This is not the case with any other religious minority with the exception of Christians in Muslim states. The category is quite apart from History which deals with is the chronological recording of the phenomena and not does not seek (or should not seek) to deal with the ethical, moral, legislative and institutional factors that underpin political status. These are outside of the scope of the study of History.--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Odd, vague, and confusing category. And I agree with Mikka that the whole Jewish history cat in general is a bit chaotic and could use some reorganizing. --MPerel 19:19, 27 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 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics spin-offs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete mostly unpopulated category that would be difficult to define exactly. Inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Exactly how much does a comic have to influence something for it to be categorized as a spinoff? Doczilla (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 21 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 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Homogeneous mixtures to Category:Homogeneous chemical mixtures

Propose renaming Category:Heterogeneous mixtures to Category:Heterogeneous chemical mixtures

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match its parent Category:Chemical mixtures. Our article mixtures describes what could be homogeneous & heterogeneous mixtures which include "salad". Let's let this stay focused on chemical mixtures, not whether a cobb salad is homogeneous or heterogeneous (does it matter if it's tossed?) and the heterogeneous category tells us that pizza is also heterogeneous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like a term of art might be in play here. We should relist to generate broader discussion, and maybe post on wikiproject chemistry. --Lquilter (talk) 23:53, 18 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, Andrew c ^[talk] 04:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming per nom. --Bduke (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom. Otherwise hybrids and other things could be added, with no gain. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:10, 26 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 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space biology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete: Overcategorization. This category seems to have been created purely for a single article. No need for it at this time; if & when the need arises it can be re-created, hopefully with a more illuminating name. Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is not to be confused with the category Category:Astrobiology, which is well-populated. Snocrates 07:32, 22 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 create Category:Open source video games and populate per Mike Selinker (which doesn't need CFD to do). Kbdank71 15:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's way easier to move the contents by bot, then pick up the stragglers. So I'm putting it in Working, and then will complete the transition for the three outliers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, good point. --Kbdank71 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Open source games to Category:Open source video games

Requested for speedy renaming by SharkD (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object — This category does not seem to meet any of the criteria for speedy renaming. A proper discussion should take place. — Val42 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved from speedy. I'm biased on this, but I would suggest that the non-electronic Stonehenge (game) and Open Gaming License belong in the category called Category:Open source games, along with a new category called Category:Open source video games, which would contain everything else in the current category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Piecepack should remain in Category:Open source games if the video games move out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with move for above reasons. I just objected because it didn't meet speedy criteria. The two items that you mentioned should go in Category:Open source games and the new Category:Open source video games should be in Category:Open source games. — Val42 (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 21 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 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deceased Mutants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete As per standing precedent that we do not categorize characters in works of fiction as living or dead since this is a transitory state. J Greb (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious delete. We do not categorize as alive/dead - period. That's policy. Incidentally, the category is in correctly capitalized. Doczilla (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Doczilla. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 21 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 15:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Depowered Mutants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Recreation of a category deleted in October 2006. Previous CfD found here. Even with the intervening year the premise still has the flaw of being a transitory condition for characters in fiction. J Greb (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete recreation. The same arguments apply. Categorizing by a fluctuating status is impractical and pointless. Who created this thing without knowing how to capitalize categories correctly? Doczilla (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & Doczilla. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 21 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 upmerge per nom. Kbdank71 15:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German ministries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Upmerge Category:German ministries to Category:German Federal ministries. This one is very simple & straightforward: the parent cat is clearly the appropriate home for all of the articles, each of which is about a different Federal ministry. Cgingold (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 21 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.