< December 16	December 18 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Deleted

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is primarily an essay, apparently created by a Berlin-based company for the purpose of self-promotion. It is not useful for navigating the encyclopedia. Stepheng3 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this is an article. Move it to article space and see if it survives afd in some abbreviated form. Occuli (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I speedy deleted it per G11 and G12 (copy of http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/elearning-20-applied-to-the-language-learning-market-71648.php). — Sebastian 07:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete for now, but if someone objects to the name in the future this discussion should not be used as a "precedent" for rename consensus due to the unusual way the process unfolded. A redirect can be created by any user if desired. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete I've replaced this cat with Category:People associated with The Beatles. I've moved those articles in the cat into the new cat. I've now realised that I should have put this up for renaming. I feel it might be inappropriate for me to delete this myself. SilkTork *^YES! 22:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and place ((category redirect)). I did just that and Cgingold suggested I revert, so I did. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TPH. To clarify, I suggested reverting the close in order to allow for the normal CFD discussion to proceed, instead of summarily preempting it. As I explained, even though both TPH and Silk Tork were undoubtedly acting in good faith, it still amounted to an end run around the CFD process. So I think SilkTork absolutely did the right thing by bringing it to CFD. Cgingold (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or replace with redirect). I agree with Cgingold re process, although this one seems non-controversial unless someone wishes to delete Category:People associated with The Beatles (and much stranger things have happened). Occuli (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat more likely possibility is that some editors might express a preference for the original category over the new one, because both formulations are used extensively, so we don't really have a concensus on this question. Cgingold (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might this be a UK/US preference? Special:PrefixIndex/Category:People_associated_with are mostly UK, as are The Beatles ... not sure how we can readily list those with format Category:XXX people. Occuli (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I really don't know for sure, but I can't say as I've ever noticed any particular tendencies with respect to UK vs US preferences. Cgingold (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US usage seems more forgiving re concatenations such as 'University of XXX YYY, zzz alumni' whereas the UK preference is for 'Alumni of ...'. This is a similar construction and looks to be missing an apostrophe to me. Occuli (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Attending a particular boys' summer camp is not a defining characteristic. If kept, the capitalization should be standardized. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the related article Camp Rising Sun leaves much to be desired and in any case contains a list of 'alumni' (I had no idea that a summer camp had 'alumni'). Occuli (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stromg delete -- University and (selectively) High school alumni are OK, but not those for boys camps, unless it is a thoroghly defining category. UGH. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overcategorization. I'm sure many kids' lives are changed by attendance at summer camps, but overall it's not a defining characteristic. Maralia (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete this and all subcategories. "Invented in", as in the title, is a possible characterisation. "Popular in" is much too subjective for any sensible discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other categories are:

Comment. Possibly move the "popular" ones to the corresponding fads category, and the "invented" to corresponding "inventions" categories. 2010s is separately nominated below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Products and technologies can be categorized using the existing Category:Introductions by year scheme, but there is no chronological tree associated with Category:Inventions.-choster (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Introductions" is probably better than "Inventions", anyway. I'm afraid that, if this CfD results in a delete, each article's history would need to be checked to see which category it was moved from. Sorry to make more work for the closers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If an editor stands up to make those moves, then this could be closed as a manual move and a delete if not completed within, say 30 days. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see that any articles were moved, just technology decades categories appended. While not all articles are or can be listed by introduction year, we don't lose previous such categorizations with this delete.-choster (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's rationale shows no evidence that it's worth the cost of more than one person-hour and prima facie, this is a useful system of categories. — Sebastian 23:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC) (I am open to changing or amending this vote or statement. If you feel facts changed sufficiently after I posted this, please let me know, as I may not be watching this page.)[reply]
- Comment. The CfD nomination cost more than one-person-hour, but the work required to maintain the categories far exceeds the (possibly negative) utility in keeping them if maintained. As the categories are clearly not well-defined, if anyone cared, there would probably be edit wars over which decades a specific technology might belong to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what is the basis for this keep opinion? Are you referring to the table that is your guess as to what some of the times are and for the number of editors involved? If so that is no reason for a keep decision. The table is so wrong, in my opinion, that I did not take the time to point out the number of errors. As one point to show this, personal experience has shown the number of editors that watch category pages is tiny as I found out after nominating some that affected Wikiproject Australia. As to the prima facie case, I don't believe that has been established. In fact every example of a problem with the category contents makes the case against keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category structure captures a strong defining characteristic of technologies that reached the public at varying points in time in the past century. I would agree that the definition would benefit from improvement, but the navigation benefits for readers is strong enough to justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Third Level Gaa Teams to Category:Third-level Gaelic Athletic Association teams

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hyphenate compound adjective. Capitalize per WP:MOS. Spell out the initialism for clarity. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Deleted Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty and not likely to be used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category can easily be recreated if needed. However, I note that this category wasn't empty as of 23:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC), so it's not yet eligible for C1. Perhaps someone vandalized the pages in this category. - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the category was "decommissioned" by User:Hesperian using AWB. I think I'll have a word ... - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Decommissioned with author's permission. This is pointless bureaucracy. Hesperian 21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (list article upmerged). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete All characters are found in two lists. This category is too narrow to be useful. Pagra shtak 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update—now one list. Pagra shtak 19:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless, only one item. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 06:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Shoals in Oregon to Category:Landforms of Oregon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shoals in Oregon to Category:Shoals of Oregon — of/in distinction between natural and artificial features. Katr67 (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet any of the criteria: please move to full CFD. Cgingold (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still tagged as speedy. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I list things here, I get told to take them to speedy. I won't be doing much more of this sort of thing. I have patience for many of the Byzantine regulations of Wikipedia, but not this... Clean up or ignore my nomination, as you wish. Katr67 (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete old and new ones~~Rename per nom.~~ per Vegas, GO etc. Do we have other shoals categories? No national parent. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We do have List of shoals of Oregon which appears to be striving for a record % of redlinks, particularly in its templates. Occuli (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the only article present—so far—to the newly created category. I expect there is no objection to deleting the old one? —EncMstr (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, doing that is strongly discouraged, as in this line from the CFD notice on the category page: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." But don't feel bad -- you're far from the only person not to have noticed that. (It really ought to be in bold type...) And since in this case there's only the one article, no real harm was done, so I'm just leaving it where it is pending the outcome of this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a Category:Shoals looooong before there is a Category:Shoals of Oregon? It only contains a list full of redlinks, so I don't see a reason for this existing at present, unless we are on the brink of an unprecedented creation of shoal articles the world over. Postdlf (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ocat. Can any of those suggesting a rename explain why we need a category that only includes a list article with only redlinks? While this may be needed in the future, the future has not arrived. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not suggesting a rename -- but I'd like to horn in here, anyway. :) To wit: That's a darn good question. If I hadn't gotten a bit sidetracked, I'm sure I would have asked that myself... Cgingold (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the list article. I recall that it has 4 templates that have, with very few exceptions, only redlinks. Major problems in this area on many fronts. Having said that I'll point out that I have created templates with mostly red links. And I just finished changing the last red link in the largest template one to a blue link after well over a year. So this could be part of a plan to write articles. But with only red links and some questions about the notability or said articles ... Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Y'all might want to ask EncMstr about his intentions re: this article and the templates. Katr67 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Byzantine delete. Only one list article is in question, so it can be upmerged to Category:Landforms of Oregon. Not part of any wider scheme of categorizing shoals. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (creator has merged all contents). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arches in Oregon to Category:Natural arches of Oregon — Merge to existing category. Katr67 (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet any of the criteria: please move to full CFD. Cgingold (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Katr67 (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done as unwitting creator of the duplicate category. —EncMstr (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you proceeded in good faith, EncMstr, but you've unilaterally preempted the CFD process, so please restore the deleted category pending the outcome of this CFD. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, but puzzled. I believe I was the only one who thought the category should be created. Everyone else so far says no—though I was convinced with the first comment. Why can't I just fix my error? —EncMstr (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EncMstr. Now that I can see the edit history, I can understand your puzzlement -- I had misconstrued your comment about being the "unwitting creator". But seeing as you're the creator and sole editor, I agree that there's no reason not to Speedy Delete it. Sorry for the bother -- like I said, here and in the other CFD above, I'm purely concerned about protecting the CFD process. Cgingold (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: convert to an administrative category and include only in the administrative structure. I will move it there, but if users insist on having it as part of the main category structure by moving it back, the consensus here is to delete it as a "main structure" category and it may be speedily deleted by contacting me or another admin and referencing this CfD. Though not discussed, users should consider using the category only on talk pages, like many other administrative categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This depends on speculative "crystal-balling", as well as being difficult to maintain. Why are Norm Coleman & Al Franken listed as "future" candidates? That election just happened, even if the results aren't in yet. The other two currently listed are said to be future candidates, but they could easily change their mind (or get run over by a car, for that matter) prior to the elections. Cgingold (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For something as significant as a future US Senate election or by-election, the new relevant "Category:year State Senate election" should be started if it is not already there. Be bold. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice timing, actually, considering that one of the two "said to be" candidates in question actually does seem to have been reported dead scant minutes after your nomination! But that's orthogonal to the point, methinks; while I do see some value in having a category of this type as a vandal-monitoring tool, I'd also suggest that even if it is kept, people shouldn't actually be added to it until the campaign is actively underway — people who have merely declared their intention to stand as a candidate in an election that hasn't formally kicked off yet shouldn't be added at all. I'd also note, however, that I recently listed this very category for a major cleanup job — weeks after the recent US elections were over, this category still contained well over 100 articles on candidates from that set. And for what it's worth, the associated template describes itself as inclusive of ongoing elections; I think that's the criterion that was deemed to cover Franken/Coleman. Probably valid if used for the right purpose, but possibly not as readily maintainable as that purpose would demand. I'm on the fence, but leaning delete at the moment. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if perhaps this might make more sense as a hidden, administrative category? Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – categorisation by a possibly defining potential achievement at some point in the future seems like a bad idea. Occuli (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the purpose of this category is to assist in watching these highly contentious articles, and identify why bizarre changes are happening, as tends to be common with articles on people in upcoming elections. That purpose is defeated by hiding it, because then you couldn't see, looking at the article, that it involves a future election candidate and say, "Oh, these changes are being done to effect a change in the election". It's certainly not being used to define a potential achievement at some point in the future...there seems to be a misconception as to why this category exists. I have no idea why Franklin/Coleman are still in it. Bastique ^demandez 00:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a special template associated with this category, ((future election candidate)), which sits at the top of the article, so hiding the category wouldn't alter its utility in that way. The template's fairly big and prominent, so it would be pretty hard for the reader to miss. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Bastique. (That's one of the reasons I like to notify cat creators when there's a CFD.) There wasn't anything about the intended use/purpose on the category page, so I had no idea why it was created. If it's purpose is purely to assist with vandalism patrolling, the solution is to move it out of the main category structure and into the administrative category structure. That should leave everybody happy! Cgingold (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that might be the best solution here. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If we have this catgegory at all it should be a parent category only. The special template ((future election candidate)) needs to be deleted (can some one take this to TFD? Inclusion in a subcategory should be done manually and according to the office for which the election is to be held. If this is an adminstrative category for articles on politicians subject to POV-warring, it should be a category hidden on the talk page. It may be legitimate to have categories for (e.g.) adopted candidates of the UK Conservative party for the next general election, but only in a subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge both as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Louisiana politicians and Category:Romanian politicians, respectively. These two are outliers of a sort in the category structure for candidates. As such they could be regarded as something of a test case to at least gauge sentiment and suggest where we might want to draw lines with regard to categories for candidates below the level of chief executive (i.e. president, possibly governor). Notified both category creators with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I am not comfortable in general with categorising people by things they have failed to achieve. I confess to not having a feel for matters US or Romanian but feel that e.g. John F. Schwegmann is not defined by his serial unsuccessful candidacies, some ignominious, for the Louisiana State Senate. (US Presidential elections would be a different matter as these are globally reported, and eg McCain was successful in getting the republican nomination.) Occuli (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all, but all "Kansas" disambiguator to the Manhattan one as suggested. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Cape Girardeau-Jackson micropolitan area to Category:Cape Girardeau-Jackson metropolitan area
Category:Manhattan micropolitan area to Category:Manhattan metropolitan area
Category:Mankato-North Mankato micropolitan area to Category:Mankato-North Mankato metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These three Micropolitan Statistical Areas were designated as Metropolitan Statistical Areas by the Office of Management and Budget on November 20, 2008.^[1] The article pages have been renamed and I think that the category should reflect this change as well. --Acntx (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with one proposed change) I have no objection to the proposed renaming, but I would suggest modifying the second to Category:Manhattan, Kansas metropolitan area to avoid confusion with a similarly-named and larger place in New York City once "micropolitan" is changed to "metropolitan". Alansohn (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with name change caveat Category:Manhattan metropolitan area absolutely has to be changed to Category:Manhattan, Kansas metropolitan area to avoid confusion with Manhattan Island.--Mr Accountable (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Wenatchee metropolitan area to Category:Wenatchee-East Wenatchee metropolitan area to match main article naming. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wenatchee metropolitan area to Category:Wenatchee-East Wenatchee metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The city of East Wenatchee was designated a principal city of the Wenatchee Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) by the Office of Management and Budget on November 20, 2008. The MSA is now officially known as the Wenatchee–East Wenatchee Metropolitan Statistical Area.^[2] The article has been renamed and I thought that the category should reflect this change as well. --Acntx (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Metropolitan area articles and categories do not necessarily need to conform to the OMB or Census definitions thereof (which is why it is Category:Wenatchee metropolitan area and not Category:Wenatchee Metropolitan Statistical Area in the first place). Unless you can convince me that local residents say they're from "the Wenatchee-East Wenatchee area" like Dallas-Fort Worth or Minneapolis-St. Paul, this is needless complication.-choster (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match the lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Already deleted NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete New category, created by a single purpose account KrkFan (talk · contribs) in order to circumvent WP:SPAM policy guideline after the promo link was removed by an admin from the article Krakow with the level 2 warning. Please, see revision history as of 11:14, 17 December 2008 Poeticbent talk 15:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete WP:NOTCRYSTAL. FWIW, this will make sense in another year, but it encourages (I think) too much crystal ball reading. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as safe as the prediction that televisions will continue to be used in the 2010s is, I agree entirely with the nominator. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cable television and transistors? Please, delete and put it out of its misery. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See also Technology by decade above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there ever was a POV category, this is it. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete after making lists, but there seems to be some consensus that some restructuring could be justified. Perhaps if those knowledgeable in the areas created some lists and/or a new categorization scheme, a renomination could occur. Once other users have an alternative to compare the current structure with, it might be easier to decide what is preferred. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete (but not immediatelly. After making lists.) Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. Snek01 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molluscs of Argentina
Molluscs of Australia
Molluscs of Chile
Molluscs of Ecuador
Molluscs of Hawaii
Molluscs of Japan
Molluscs of New Caledonia
Molluscs of New Zealand
Molluscs of Peru
Molluscs of the Philippines
Molluscs of South Africa

Reasons:

overlapping WP:OC#OVERLAPPING (too many states, too many possibilities)
there should be no species in such categories (I have put template for discussion into categories of molluscs but there should/can be broder discussion about categorizing species.)
there should be lists of molluscs, see Category:Lists of molluscs by country
Molluscs of Europe can be deleted immeditaelly. Categories starting "Molluscs of ..." in Category:Molluscs by country can be deleted aftem making articles "List of marine/non-marine molluscs of ...".
detailed reason: Some species live in many countries. There can not so be many categories in articles about species. There are really many possibilities how a species can exist in one country, for example it can be native there, it can be nonindigenous there, it can be extinct there, it can be for example living in greenhouses only there and really many possibilities. Such information can and should be in lists in wikipedia. This matter was surely discussed many times. Does no matter if a list contains red links. Even category Molluscs of Europe is useless, because such information that a species live in Europe will be surely written in the article. There is no need categories with thousands of aticles inside and there is no need articles with tens of categories. Lists can be complete. But a reader can never be sure that a category is complete. It is not easy to make complete lists but it is possible and it is the only right way. For previous discussion see for example User talk:JoJan#List of molluscs... --Snek01 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Much of your rationale is simply repetition of your opinion, rather than reasons for deletion: e.g. "there should be no species in such categories", "there should be lists of molluscs", etc. Another portion is composed of spurious arguments that, if valid, would result in the deletion of every category we have; e.g. "category Molluscs of Europe is useless, because such information that a species live in Europe will be surely written in the article", "A reader can never be sure that a category is complete". When you filter out the dross, your argument boils down to "This is over-categorisation because two or more categories have a large overlap" (from WP:OC); you haven't presented any evidence for that premise, and I dispute it. Hesperian 22:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I am not very good at English and not good at this process. Are your notes formal or factual? What should be the solution? (For example if a species live in for example 50 countries, should I start 50 categories and add them to the article? Should there be ~1500 species in Category:Molluscs of Europe and few thousands of marine species in that category? and so on.) (Is there necessary to present and evidence for nomination? It is not easy to present an evidence that such categorization of species is untenabille. YOU - if you vote - should consider all possibilities. Would you vote to keep a Category:123456abcdstupid if I will not present an evidence?) --Snek01 (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominators appears opposed to categories in general, rather than these categories in particular. That may be a valid view but CfD is not the place to progress it. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the right place to discuss? Feel free to move it there. --Snek01 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC) This process in the only way how to delete any category at wikipedia. It is good place to discuss about deleting 12 categories. (I have put an information to 3 related wikiproject discussion pages.) --Snek01 (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep, but restructure -- There is nothing wrong with the principle of this categorisation scheme. Many of the items listed are currently mere stubs, which describe them as "endemic to (e.g.) Austria". This suggests a split to categorise by country. However those occuring in many countries should not appear under every country, but only in the European one or a regional subcategory. For example "Southern Europe" might cover species occuring throughout the Mediterranean litoral. Marine molluscs will also not be endemic to a single country but to the seaboard of certain seas; I would suggest that these be categorised by the sea or seas where they occur. This category be a parent category to these but contain those molluscs that are common throughout the continent. I suspect that this difficulty has occured in relation to other kinds of fauna and flora, and would suggest that a similar solution should be adopted here. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we should use this categorization scheme, there can be categories containing marine species according to oceans and/or seas. But it will not help to practically categorize all species anyway. Do you want to categorize only endemic species in this way? This categozation scheme could be good if a species would live on one or in very few countries. Such categories wear no much information, they can contain only those species which have articles in wikipedia allready, and they can be in alphabetical order in categories only. On the othe hand, a list can contain everything in whole the great diversity of possibilities - and such lists should be on wikipedia. Look at, for example List of non-marine molluscs of the Czech Republic. Should I add a (nonexisting) category Molluscs of the Czech Republic to all of those 243 species? If we accept a categorzation scheme according to a few areas, for example according to continents only, there should not be geographical categories for smaller areas for species. (Such large categories will be ovepopulated.) If we accept to categorize species according to all states, that will be too many categories in articles (containing too small information). If we accept combination of large areas and small areas categories for species, then such categories can not be complete. So why to waste so much time and resources to make something incomplete and unhelpful? There is no reason to categorize molluscs according geography. It is unsustainable, unmaintainable, it brings no much information to a reader. It is no possible to categorize all 80.000 species of gastropods in this way! (For example there is no categorization of Bacteria according to country. They are very different from molluscs, but you can see, that there no necessary to categorize everything according to country.) I would like to categorize molluscs in usefull way, but usefull way does not exist for mollusc in this case. --Snek01 (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In fact the categories seem to be more usefully arranged than the articles, as most of the categories are for islands or groups of them, while the list articles cover mostly smallish East European land-locked countries - no doubt molluscs do show little respect for the borders of Latvia, but I expect categories on New Zealand and Philippines molluscs make some sense. There is in fact little overlap between the two groups. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they SEEM useful for somebody, there is no reasoning to keep them. You EXPECT something from categories, but they have no value if their content is incomplete and chaotically organized. You can not recognize marine and non-marine species in category Mollusc of the Philippines, you can not recognize indigenous and non-indigenous ones, you can not recognize extinct and living ones, and so on. You can not check content of categories if you do not check all of its articles. There are very few categories meantime and they really are mainly for islands. It is because nobody tried to make a category for any other country, beacuse nobody supposed its usefulness. So does it mean that we should to have categories for islands only? Could not I rather do a List of non-marine gastropods of New Zealand and List of marine gastropods of New Zealand - there can be some additional useful notes. I can do such list. You wrote "some" sense. What the sense exactly is? Especially when I will make these two lists? --Snek01 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but not immediately) I apologize for being late weighing in on this, but I do tend to agree with Snek on this. There are not many lists yet, but those that do exist are well-organized. They are very clear as to what is what when you look at them. The Categories however, (especially for marine faunas) will steadily become larger and larger until they are extremely unwieldy to consult, (non-marine species in the hundreds, marine in the thousands) and worse yet, the names will be organized only alphabetically. Thus it will be impossible, when you consult a category, to know if you are looking at a name of a marine bivalve, a land snail, a freshwater limpet or an octopus. And the point that Snek makes about what to do when you have a species of snail that occurs in 30 different countries is a good one: are we going to list 30 countries as separate categories at the foot of most of the species articles? To me it seems to make more sense to have country lists; there are far fewer countries in the world than there are species of mollusk by at least one or two orders of magnitude. Mollusks are really a huge group. What might make sense for birds for example, does not apply so well to mollusks. Hope I have been able to make the points more clearly. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

section break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (relisted per nominator's request) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Group by Continent / Seek Further Input I would lean to keeping the categories, as long as they meaningfully group mollusks. Are these mollusk unique at the country level, or should we group them, say, by continent. Should we trust this to us all-shells-look-alike folks who spend all day staring at a computer screen, or would it help to get some input from a marine biologist who actually knows something about the subject? Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent idea. You could leave a note at the relevant WikiProject -- hopefully there's one for Marine Biology, if not then WP Biology would be better than nothing. I have to run right now, or I'd take care of it myself. Cgingold (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about other editors but those two who supports deletion are active members of Wikiproject Gastropods. Alansohn, what certain information would like to know to be able to decide? --Snek01 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An example how to not categorize a species is for example [[1]]. Ther are no references for countries in that articles and if there will be references in text, then why to check it twice for categories too? This horrible example could be considered as vandalism but nobody rather removed it for nearly a year yet! And the same too carefull behave we can see in comments above. There is not possible to categorize species in all countries and if categorizing in generalized categories it is not much useful or sometimes incomplete. For such group with so many species as molluscs, editors are not even able to check all or try to optimalising categories. --Snek01 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment flora and fauna categories are difficult to break down. If a species is endemic only to one country (or two), it is easy. New Zealand has its own terrestrial flora and fauna, so does Madagascar, but elsewhere national categorisation is unsatisfactory. I am not a biologist but support Alansohn. I ssupect that the initial solution needs to be to Upmerge to continental categories and then leave the specialists to devise a suitable system of subcategories. I would suggest that widespread species should only be in a higher category and rare species only in a more specific one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread species already have its own Category:Cosmopolitan species. No other geographic categories for molluscs are needed because nobody will look for a certain species living in a continent in a category with thousands of articles. --Snek01 (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we need to be looking not so much at what we have now in terms of lists and categories, but more in terms of planning for the (near) future: the mollusk part of Wikipedia is currently expanding very rapidly. With mollusks we have to bear in mind that there are thousands of land and freshwater species and many more thousands of marine species. In answer to Alansohn's question: only a limited number of species of mollusk are endemic to one small area. The distribution of the great majority of mollusks does not fit neatly into countries (the exception being some land snails of isolated large islands, as mentioned by Peterkingiron.) Countries are usually not good boundaries for mollusks. Even in the case of land snails, for example: many species are palearctic in distribution, ranging over numerous countries and more than one continent. The reason there are country lists available which we at Wikipedia can make list articles from, is simply because that is the way that most malacologists work, within their own countries, so that's often the way the data is available, whether it makes sense or not biogeographically. Bearing that in mind, I do feel that list articles for countries can be quite useful. Creating categories out of country lists however (which is what some editors have done previously) usually does not make any sense biologically; it is very often at root just based on nationalism rather than a neutral point of view. Country categories also have the potential to demand an enormous amount of work from editors (having to constantly add dozens of categories to species articles) without that work yielding anything much at all in the way of useable information. I hope I have been able to clarify what some of the issues are. Best to all, Invertzoo (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Cannabis political parties. "Cannabis" is the standard generic term, whereas "marijuana" is something of a slang term more akin to "ganja", "weed" or "pot". The word "political" is required because, of course, the category name might otherwise be construed (understandably) as referring to some other sort of "Cannabis party".
Support to match parent article of Cannabis political parties and avoid any possible confusion as to what articles are included. Alansohn (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I meant to point that out. Cgingold (talk)

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: somewhat complicated, but for now merge the 3 categories for the specific years 2000, 2004, and 2006 into Category:Marijuana Party candidates for the Canadian House of Commons. Since everyone seemed to want a wider discussion of the vast Canadian structure of House of Commons candidates, this close is without prejudice to an immediate (or later) renomination of this category, even if the proposal is identical to the original one here proposed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Canadian Marijuana Party politicians (or some variant). I think the current name is too narrow in scope -- we don't normally specify a political office, "politicians" is standard for such categories.

Rename but to Category:Marijuana Party (Canada) politicians or perhaps Category:Marijuana Party of Canada politicians (per www.marijuanaparty.ca). We need to pay special attention to official names in political categories, as the American Republican Party is unrelated to the Republican Party (United States), and then there is the Judean People's Front.-choster (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I of course agree with you that it's very important to use exact party names. But I wasn't quite certain about the right name for the category -- primarily because there seem to be several Canadian "Marijuana Parties". That's why the name I suggested is worded generically, so to speak. (One variant that crossed my mind was "Canadian marijuana parties politicians".) Are the provincial parties considered to be part of the national party? If so, one of your suggestions would probably be the solution. Cgingold (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, hadn't thought of that angle. But then, if the parent is being renamed, wouldn't they all just be Category:Cannabis political parties in Canada? -choster (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a viable option. I was basically trying to incorporate the actual term that's used for all of the Canadian parties, but in the end I'm good with whichever name we settle on. Btw, it just occurred to me that this discussion re generic vs. Canadian terms is pretty similar to the discussion that's going on re Category:Tar sands & Category:Tar sands of Canada. Cgingold (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all three into the (future) parent, Category:Canadian Marijuana Party politicians. This kind of category intersection -- for party and specific election -- is too narrow. Moreover, each of them has a main article which includes a list of candidates -- though there appear to be more names in the categories than on the lists, so the missing names should be added to the lists before merging.

Cgingold (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't fundamentally object to the mergers, but I should note that the merger as proposed would remove the articles from Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons all together, which I do object to. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per one of Choster's suggestions. Cgingold's objections apply to anything in Category:Candidates in the 2000 Canadian federal election ... actually I'm not sure that merely being a candidate is defining so perhaps we should discuss this more widely. I see no evidence that this is done for other countries (except for presidential elections, a different matter). Occuli (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see that I've opened a major can of worms here. After reading Sarcasticidealist's comment, I took a thorough look at the entire Category:Political candidates structure, starting of course with Category:Canadian political candidates. In case there was any doubt, we clearly have a very dedicated Canadian contingent! The Canadian cat structure goes way beyond any other country in both complexity and level of specificity -- especially Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons, which includes the 31 sub-cats of Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons by political party and the 40 sub-cats of Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons by election. The only things that even come close are the 36 categories for Mexican presidential candidates by election and the 56 categories for US presidential candidates by election -- which I consider fairly dubious.

Occuli's observation is clearly on target -- except that the scope of the issue is greater by a couple of levels of magnitude! So clearly this needs to be discussed more widely. But we can at least get that discussion started. At a minimum, we should start putting the nails in the coffin for categories that are intersections of political parties and specific elections. Cgingold (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened Stage One of the wider discussion (above on page). Cgingold (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soccer players from Washington (state) to Category:Soccer players from Washington

Nominator's rationale: Rename. References to the state are not disambiguated in categories. See example CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename Maybe a principal situation of disambiguation is Category:Soccer players from Washington, DC; so maybe disambiguation is not an issue. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, 'Category:Soccer players from Washington State' is very ambiguous with regard to Washington State University.--Mr Accountable (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some places require disambiguators, including Washington and Georgia. This seems clumsy but it is unavoidable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the point of the nomination is that none of the other categories for Washington state use a disambiguator. Are you suggesting that all should be renamed to this format? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the cat pages for Washington state should ultimately use the disambiguate 'Washington (state)'. I ll get around to it in the coming months but if someone wants to get to it sooner? Mayumashu (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Images of explosives fuses. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fuze to ~~Category:Images of fuzes~~ Category:Images of explosives fuses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contains only images so that needs to be added to the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Images of explosives fuses (or "fuses for explosives"), so those wishing to change the fuse on their toaster don't waste their time here. Main article is at Fuse (explosives), & I've never seen "fuze" before - it's unknown in UK English & doesn't seem standard in US English. Johnbod (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, modified the nomination. I had only noticed the image only category. Never considered the spelling of the subject. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Fuze" might be very non-standard US English, maybe even archaic, maybe from the 1700s, can't even be sure of that... I'm pretty sure "Fuze" is a band without a Wikipedia article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a smoothie-like drink. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the main article does say "fuse (or fuze)..." so someone must use it. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 17

Category:ELearning 2.0

Category:The Beatles people

Category:Camp Rising Sun Alumni

Technology by decade

Category:Third Level Gaa Teams

Category:Wildflowers of Texas

Category:Crash Bandicoot characters

Category:Shoals in Oregon

Category:Arches in Oregon

Categories for candidates

Future election candidates

Specific offices

Micropolitan area categories

Category:Wenatchee metropolitan area

Category:City tours

Category:2010s technology

Molluscs of country

section break[edit]

Marijuana parties (it's not what you think)

Marijuana Party candidates

Category:Soccer players from Washington (state)

Category:Fuze