< November 9	November 11 >

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:Microkernal-based operating systems. Flowerparty^☀ 10:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty category which is redundant to its parent category, Category:Microkernels. Warren -talk- 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename An operating system based on a microkernel is a completely different thing from a microkernel itself. One is built upon the other, and the same microkernel can support different operating systems. A better name however would be "Microkernel-based operating systems" --Cyclopia (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the difference, but right now there is only one article in this category. Is there any reasonable prospect for growth? Alansohn (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one because User:Warren deleted all OSs belonging to the category: GNU/Hurd (that I restored just now), Singularity and MINIX (these ones I'm checking to see if it makes sense to put them there). Technically all microkernel-based OSs should belong there, so yes, there is a lot of space for growth. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned a bit of OS articles and I added some article to the category (basically all Mach microkernel based OSs and a couple of others). I think this could settle the redundancy and growth issues. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why would we have a category like this? This is the sort of thing we do with list articles, not categories. The fact that a complete operating system is based on a microkernel is a miniscule detail on the grand scale of things. Should we also have categories for "Operating systems that run in protected mode"? "Operating systems with a hardware abstraction layer"? "Operating systems that include a graphical user interface"?

This category was made by a user who made no other contributions, at all, to the encyclopedia, so it's not like there was a lot of understanding of Wikipedia's categorization guidelines.

Cyclopia, please review Wikipedia:Overcategorization, specifically the "arbitrary inclusion criterion". This category falls into that criterion. Warren -talk- 17:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for pointing me at the WP:OC#ARBITRARY page. However I disagree with the relevance of such policy in the case of this category. Being based on a microkernel or being monolithic can be irrelevant on the "grand scale of things", but it is a fundamental technological class of the design and functioning of an OS (more fundamental than the other potential examples of categories you tossed in). It compares with, for example Category:Object-oriented programming languages. Plus, I want again to stress that the category is not redundant with parent category, whatever the opinion is on the opportunity of this category - different OSs can share the same microkernel, and a microkernel by itself is not an (useful) OS. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what you're saying is, "I don't give a shit what established categorization practice is; I'm going to argue in favour of a category made by someone who didn't understand categorization!" Nice. Do you do that often? I hope not... please study Wikipedia:Overcategorization some more -- we're trying to follow one set of organization principles here.

I am all for following (sensible) rules. I just think that the rule you cited does not apply here. Please answer rationally to my points instead of resorting to personal attacks. Who did the category maybe did "understand categorization", maybe didn't: but in my opinion got this category right. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Hurd is a kernel, by the way, not an operating system, so this category wouldn't apply to that article anyways. Warren -talk- 20:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is very blurry here. GNU Hurd is a collection of so-called "servers" (not to be confounded with a web server or something like that) that establish an operating system on top of a microkernel (currently the Mach microkernel; but the Hurd has been ported on other microkernels like L4). Servers work in user space, so the distinction between what is part of the kernel and part of the operating system userland is mostly philosophical. However this does not change the point about the existence of this category: if (in another discussion) we decide that GNU Hurd does not belong to this category, articles like Debian GNU Hurd and GNU surely do, for example. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to assume good faith, Warren. As I understand Cyclopia's point, he's saying that WP:OC concerns are not relevant here because being based on a microkernel is a defining feature of an OS, that it's not an arbitrary characteristic to zoom in on. So that's the issue to discuss. No one's ignoring established guidelines, it's just a disagreement at this time of how to apply them to this category. Postdlf (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the very least, the cat should be renamed so that it's in first-language English. "Microkernel-based operating systems" would seem to work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:03, 12 November 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. Flowerparty^☀ 10:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify / Delete as overcategorization by award. Individuals such as Germaine Greer (included here) receive many such honorary doctorates during their life and it's category clutter to categorise in this way. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, for sure. However, I'm less certain about listifying. It's not uncommon to include a list of such honors in bio articles, but I'm not sure there's any real value in compiling such lists for colleges and universities. Cgingold (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For an example of what can be done with honorary university awards, see List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lists are harmless, sao ok with that. Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This is not an award made so often that a list will be too difficult yo manage. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 15 November 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 for rename. Flowerparty^☀ 10:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Fictional characters in comics who use magic to Category:Fictional characters in comics and animation who use magic

This is reflective of Category:Fictional characters in anime and manga who use magic. See also WP:NCC#Lists. - jc37 19:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as nominator. - jc37 19:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Are you sure we want to do that? Wouldn't that mean we'd have to merge all articles and sub-categories in Category:Animated characters with all articles and sub-categories Category:Fictional characters in comics into Category:Fictional characters in comics and animation (or something to that effect)?--Nohansen (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the intention. The problem is that many fictional characters in animation also are in comics, and vice-versa. This just makes it easier to categorise the "in-universe" features/abilities/powers of such characters together. And if you look in Category:Animated characters, only 2 categories maybe would meet in-universe criteria: Human, and Child. And I'm not sure I would even call either of those a "feature" of a character. This is solely about trying to make the Category:Fictional characters broad in-universe cats more easily navigable, by merging in-universe "in animation" information from the broad cat, to a more specific "in comics and animation". And this is not unlike the current situation with anime and manga. This is just intended as an aid to navigation. And as I noted in the nom, this is already something done for lists.

For example, in this specific case, a reader is more likely to look for a magic-using character in animation in the target cat, than in the parent: Category:Fictional characters who use magic. Note also that there aren't many examples in comics and animation separately (especially if we exclude the Marvel and DC examples, which are already subcatted). - jc37 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this is best, why don't we discuss doing it from the top down: starting with the parent categories and working our way down to the sub- and sub-sub-categories (not the other way around). Merging one comics characters category with one animated characters category doesn't make sense to me. I oppose.--Nohansen (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like it makes sense if you haven't actually looked at the categories in question. (Which I am guessing, based upon your comments, you haven't.) This category is a unique example. - jc37 00:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the idea of merging the two separate trees is not a good one. Otto4711 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the response/comments above. - jc37 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think the anime/manga approach is the wrong one as it lumps together characters who don't might only appear in one or the other. I'd prefer them to be separately categorised unless it can be shown that 100% of comic characters who use magic also appear in animation. It may be that in manga/anime this could be said to be the case - it isn't in comics. It strikes me as being a poor solution to a problem that doesn't seem to exist. (Emperor (talk) 20:01, 14 November 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: SPEEDY DELETE, empty, only author requested deletion. Postdlf (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete I accidentally duplicated the pre-existing Category:United States Marine Corps Commandants, having looked for and could not find (until five minutes after creating the duplicate); my apologies! bahamut0013 ♠♣ 16:21, 10 November 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: keep current title. Flowerparty^☀ 10:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People convicted of murder by Arkansas to Category:People convicted of murder in Arkansas

Nominator's rationale: Proper grammar. Padillah (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This category follows the uniform standard of all the other subcategories of Category:People convicted of murder by United States jurisdictions. The difference is not one of grammar in this case, but one of meaning—the category is intended for those convicted of murder by the jurisdiction (the State) of Arkansas—in Arkansas state courts applying Arkansas state law. The rename would cause the category to include those convicted of murder by the federal government, under federal law, where the federal court merely happened to sit in Arkansas. Postdlf (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Postdlf and consistency across the US in Category:People convicted of murder by United States jurisdictions. The "by" serves a specific role that "in" would only confuse. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As the creator, I can say that Postdlf has set out my intentions perfectly. The category refers to those convicted by a legal jurisdiction, not those convicted by a court located in a geographic location. The former is defining, the latter much less so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose' No change is warranted. The meaning of the category name and all its sister categories is clear, purposeful, and defining. Hmains (talk) 03:21, 11 November 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: keep, no consensus for rename. Flowerparty^☀ 10:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category only has one article and will only ever have one article as there is only one prison in Somerset, Shepton Mallet (HM Prison). So I would question its usefulness. Dmvward (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of wider scheme - other cats, like Berkshire, have only one article. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept to Category:Prisons in Somerset, England since the category name is completely ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally do this for English counties. I'm wondering how one might come across the category in a context where it could be confused with Somerset, Kentucky say. Johnbod (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of a wider context. Do not rename, since main article is Somerset, not Somerset, England. Bencherlite^Talk 14:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not make the category unambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 11 November 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:Student quiz competitions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Ugh - something needs to be done with this category but I don't have the expertise to figure out precisely what. Currently it's capturing everything from competitions which apparently have some official affiliation with organizations which may or may not be actual governing bodies (such as PACE) to TV game shows that have a "quizbowl-like" format but may have no other affiliation with the sport/competition to international competitions which do not appear to have anything at all to do with "quizbowl". I'm at a loss as to what combination of actions may be needed to establish some kind of organizational structure. Otto4711 (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Quizzes for students , with a tv sub-cat carved out, might be the way to go. America & India seem to be the hot-beds, so could have national sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:School and University quiz shows. Quizbowl is I assume a US brand for this. Some one will need to go through and weed the category (i.e. recategorise) of any that do not quite fit this name. In Britain there have been some on radio; others on TV. University Challenge is (I think) the only one currently running here. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact most of these are not broadcast in any media. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Quizbowl, create parent cat for school and university quiz competitions; there is also a tv sub-cat, ((Game shows)), which should do on top of that. Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename I know what this category is intending to capture, but I agree with the nominator that I'm not sure that the current title is appropriate. I don't know if Quizbowl is trademarked or operated in any central structure, but even if this is the right title for an article I don't think it should be the category title. Nothing hits me as "the" correct title, but variants of the ones proposed such as Category:Quiz shows for students, Category:Student quiz shows, Category:Student quiz shows and competitions might be more generically appropriate for a category. I offer this as a toss up for 10 points, and ask the judges to consider if these answers are correct. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, most of these are not "shows" on tv or radio at all. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take another crack. How about any of Category:Quiz competitions for students, Category:Student quiz competitions or Category:Student quiz shows and competitions for a rename. Category:Quizbowl is probably not the most accurate description of this category, even if it is accepted by the judges. Alansohn (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Student quiz competitions" per Alansohn. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me too. Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Student quiz competitions" per Alansohn. -choster (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support REname to "Student quiz competitions" per Alansohn. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 15 November 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) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow, consists only of singer, discography, albums and songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I don't mean this to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment, in looking over Category:Categories named after musicians, you've just described nearly every category I randomly looked at. And there were some which don't even have that many. So is the intention to delete every example? Or just singling this one out? I ask also because according to WP:OC#SMALL, it doesn't apply to a "scheme", and this could conceivably fall under that description. - jc37 09:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per any number of precedents and prior discussions. No indication that the compromise/consensus that led to several hundred of these categories being deleted over the past couple of years has changed. When most of these eponymous musician categories come to CFD they end up deleted because there is simply not the material to warrant it. Anyone interested in Kid Rock is going to start at Kid Rock and from there can access any of dozens of links throughout the article to get to a complete discography article, links to singles, films, tours, etc. Category does not function as a navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If not for navigation, what do you see categories for? - jc37 12:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I make no general statement about the role or function of categories. My remarks are regarding this particular category and others substantially identical to it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comment - In all cases like this where there are two closely related sub-categories, but not enough contents to warrant having a super-category, the sub-cats should be linked to one another horizontally (using ((CatRel))). This should be standard practice, imo. Cgingold (talk) 09:22, 10 November 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) 02:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category has only two articles in it, the rest are redirects. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all concepts associated with a sci-fi series are too overly minute. in this case, the Star trek delineation of regions of space has achieved iconic status...indeed, it's the only sci-fi series whose cartographic process has acheieved such overall literary prominence, and entering into other sci-fi works, films and games, such as "Neutral Zone", etc etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would be more than supportive of this subject as a category structure, but as of right now, this is List of Star Trek regions of space and redirects to it, plus one other article. If there is any evidence that this can be expanded further in the near future, just let us know what the stardate is of the expected completion. Other than that, this appears to be rather WP:OC#Narrow. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with little likelihood of expansion with articles that meet WP:WAF or WP:GNG. I would note that the concept of a neutral zone between adversarial sovereignties is hardly original to Star Trek. Otto4711 (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether notable regions of space originated with Star Trek is not at all the issue, but I do not think the scheme of Real-life concepts originating in the works of Foo is sustainable. Should death ray and directed-energy weapon belong in Category:Concepts from H. G. Wells works, or only raygun, or only Heat-Ray? -choster (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who merged the articles into the list: Fair enough. The two articles are now in both the parent categories so there's no need to upmerge, and the redirects can be decategorised. Delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:26, 12 November 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: keep both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete both as premature (without prejudice to their recreation after Jan. 20, 2009). There is not yet an Obama Administration, or Cabinet, and won't be until he is sworn in. Though we do have reliable announcements as to whom he intends to hire for a couple posts, these obviously can change over the next two months, and the existence of these categories until then might also tend towards becoming a dumping ground for all targets of media speculation and rumors. In the meantime, confirmed offers and acceptances, and even notable media speculation, can still be noted in Presidential transition of Barack Obama, and in the articles of the individuals. Postdlf (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - I understand your concerns re potential problems, but I think this CFD is premature. If the speculated problems actually materialize we can deal with it at that time. Cgingold (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The potential problems were additional reasons for deletion, not the primary one, which is that there is not yet an Obama administration or a cabinet. So these positions are not yet in place. Postdlf (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being named is tantamount to having the position. It is not likely that anyone would be rejected by the senate. If the category is deleted, it will be recreated again in the near future. Is it worth the extra effort? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have hundreds (1000s?) of categories for events that are years in the future -- this is just around the corner. And the two people who are in the Cabinet cat don't need Senate approval. I don't see a real problem here -- may as well just leave it. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 06:53, November 9, 2008 UTC
Keep both--in this case, this is simply way to maximize standardization of Wikipedia, and to minimize any vagueness or lack of clarity. similar categories already exist for Pres Clinton and pres. Bush #43. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both If we can announce Obama as president, we can anticipate his administration. It hardly seems too WP:CRYSTAL ballsy to anticipate that as President, Mr. Obama will have cabinet members and other personnel serving him. I have no objection to including nominees in the personnel or cabinet categories even before the Senate has approved any individuals requiring its approval. Alansohn (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Steve and Alansohn's points. Kuralyov (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both -- Yes, strictly it is premature, but (unless Obama dies or resigns) it is inevitable that the categores will exist. It is pointless to set up an "Obama transition team" category or a "potential cabinet members" category only to have to rename them in 2 months time. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 15 November 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.

November 10

Category:Operating Systems with Microkernel

Category:Honorary doctors of Anglia Ruskin University

Category:Fictional characters in comics who use magic

Category:Commandants of the Marine Corps

Category:People convicted of murder by Arkansas

Category:Prisons in Somerset

Category:Quizbowl

Category:Kid Rock

Category:Star Trek regions of space

Obama Administration categories