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 (upmerging to Category:Wikipedia). If more articles that would fit the categorization are created in the future, this can be revisited. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Documentaries about Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete, unless there are other documentaries, per WP:OC#SMALL. Are there? This upcoming documentary appears in the Wikipedia article template which I suggest is a more sensible approach than creating a category for one film. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nominator.
Keep It is reasonable to think there will be more. DGG (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a bit WP:CRYSTAL? I say Delete per nom/per WP:OC#SMALL with no problem of it being recreated if there do become more. Lugnuts (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category, likelihood of expansion minimal. Otto4711 (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The best way to ensure that there will be more documentaries is by continued efforts to suppress any means to organize them productively. The repeated scandals and abuse of process at the top only seem to be working towards more and more documentaries. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure that there are just scores of documentary filmmakers breathlessly awaiting the outcome of this discussion before deciding on the subject matter of their next films. "Well, I would spend the next year or two of my life making a documentary about Wikipedia, but without a 'documentaries about Wikipedia' category to put it in, why bother?" Not even you can honestly believe what you're saying here. Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think he's suggesting the opposite: that deleting such a category would be seen as a "suppression" and spur more documentaries. I completely disagree, but more importantly, I think we need to stop the personal attacks between you two veteran colleagues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is exactly what I believe based on all of the evidence available to me. You are more than entitled to disagree and prove to me exactly how you know that no new documentaries will ever be created. As I have offered Otto several times before, I will offer this suggestion again: Please don't reply to me and I will not reply to you. When I cast my vote, I review the category, do some research, apply the general principles I have developed to make Wikipedia categories more effective and come to a decision that I include in my vote. I treat this seriously, not as a joke, and I try to explain my justification for each and every vote in sufficient detail for other editors to understand that I have put in this thought. I will not simply state "per nom". Next time you want another category deleted, make a really, really good argument, do your research and convince me (and other editors) why I should agree with you. I am proud to say that I have never taken a position simply to be contrary to yours, whether as a serious vote or as an out-and-out joke; I have disagreed with you often, but I have agreed with you to rename, delete and (on one or two categories) to keep based purely on principle. Please don't bother trying to create needless arguments, which only add to the disruption; You're certainly not scoring any points with me. Let me know on my talk page if you want to take another stab at this approach. Alansohn (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I was trying to do here was play peacemaker between you and Otto, not create arguments. But I can see it won't make a bit of difference, so I shall desist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The category hasn't earned justification even on the numbers until there are at least 2, preferably 3, items to put in it. The category's creator should be advised to try again if/when this criteria is met. It certainly seems plausible that there could be more in the future. But they aren't there now. There's no guarantee there ever will be. Ikluft (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not try it for a year? Because of WP:CRYSTAL. It can be promptly recreated if/when there is enough material. Ikluft (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. The existence of a documentary is not crystal-ballery. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 00:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One is not enough for a category. The category won't have justification to exist until there are more. There is no guarantee if/when that will ever happen. Ikluft (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Warships built in the United States for export
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) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Personally, I'm a bit ambivalent on the need for this category, but do see it as a defining characteristic of the ships so categorized. In any case, I suggest a Rename. Using "naval ships", as opposed to "warships", has fairly wide consensus, viz its parent category of Category:Naval ships of the United States, and the many sub-categories of Category:Naval ships, and Category:Naval ships by country. "Naval ships" is a much more inclusive term referring to any ship used in a military manner, as opposed to a warship, which is often used to refer only to fighting ships. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename An improvement, but not a big one, over the current name, offering a bit more room for support craft. Alansohn (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source from unknown date 2009
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 were empty at close, so just deleting the nominated category). Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source from unknown date 2009 to Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of unknown date 2009
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Seems redundant. Is the "from" category used in ways that the "as of" one is not? I was going to ask this on the help desk, but that is for help on how to use Wikipedia. Since this is categories for discussion and not deletion, lets discuss. All of the other related categories use "as of". Should this be "merged" (if a template uses it) and then deleted? Rockfang (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated -- this was one of those out-of-process renames a couple of months ago. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Upstate California
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I really have to strongly object to the "Upstate California" characterization. This category should be properly renamed to Category:Northern California. My objection is several fold.
First and most primally, is the objection that no one in the area actually refers to it by that name. This would seem to me to be the most compelling reason, as it is only respectful to call people and geography by the names designated by the people themselves and in the area.
The name "Upstate" itself implies a perspective from "Downstate." However it is not appropriate to call Southern California "Downstate California." That would be silly. Furthermore there is no campaign or other cultural effort to call southern California "Downstate California" by any northern Californians.
The "Upstate California" moniker is a neologism and a product of a campaign by a small number of people involved with business interests groups. This "Upstate California Economic Development Council" is a campaign. I don't think Wikipedia needs to get into choosing between a well established name and some new campaign by some chamber of commerce type group. It was a bad idea and we don't need to be a part of it.
Northern California is well known and used widely both inside and outside of California and it is non-controversial. (Steve Miller never sang about any "Upstate California" girls, etcetera).
I would like to see some academic journal in the field of geography which refers to this term as something other than still controversial. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Have lived in CA and never heard that term. Only recall its common use for NY. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Only because there is a main article. I don't think we should rename simply because we have not heard of the term or its use is minimal. I'll note that it only get 9,300 ghits, not a large amount. That drops to 6,500 if you exclude wikipedia. So maybe the question is, is this simply part of the regional marketing effort? If so is it defining for the counties involved and does it justify keeping the category? I think the answers there could very easily get me to change my vote. Even though I spend a good amount of time in Northern California, I don't recall hearing the term. That does not mean it is not in use, but it makes me wonder. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep. I believe that Ikluft has established justification to keep this category, but only for the purpose of including the county level articles. This category should not be used to build up a parallel structure of subcategories that are included in Category:Northern California. If that restriction is noted in the introduction then I'm recommending that this category be retained. I hope that this suggestion can be a middle ground between the opposing views. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, rather than rename, to Category:Northern California that normally also includes the San Francisco Bay area and some other parts of the state. Concur with nominator that it's a marketing tool, and not a defining characteristic of the area. Even the article notes that the boundaries are fuzzy. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 05:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Upstate California article's existing references refute the claim that "no one" uses the name - many local governments in the region use the term on their web sites, and some even up front on their home page. The definitions in the articles Northern California and Upstate California have specific lists of counties (48 vs 20) and are explicitly not the same thing. Northern California is all the counties north of and including Monterey, Kings, Tulare and Inyo Counties - this definition is drawn intuitively at 35° 47′ 28″ north latitude, the only place in the state where county borders make a straight east-west line across the state. Upstate California, as the counties in that region defined it, is a subset made up of the northernmost 20 counties of Northern California. The arguments for the renaming/deletion proposal amount to WP:DONTLIKE, which is something the guidelines advise us to avoid. Ikluft (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be reasonable to create Category:Northern California as a parent - and that does not have to wait for this discussion to conclude. It is a task which has been waiting for a volunteer to tackle it. Ikluft (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The easily verifiable references in the article do not support it being used by other than at most those particular governments. There didn't seem to be a claim that anyone outside that region used the term. Now, there may be some aspects of self-determination, but categories require more evidence than articles. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has much more than articles - this topic has already been held to a higher standard of references because it had to overcome the threshold of the definition of a neologism. There are state agencies which include Upstate California on maps of their administrative regions of the state. There was an economic study last month published by California State University, Chico which used the term in its title and throughout the document, which was reported in the region's media. The local governments' usage were added after the discussions turned it up as a recurring question. Ikluft (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category Category:Northern California has now been created. I should point out that I had already created Category:Mountain ranges of Northern California, Category:Mountain ranges of Upstate California, and the vast majority of the articles for mountain ranges in California and Nevada (over 430 articles). The corresponding categories for Southern California already existed, and these were created to complement them. So the Category:Northern California category as created today was the obvious next step in that work. I would have preferred that someone ask me about that before proposing this renaming which failed to take a huge amount of existing work into account. Ikluft (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have made a case for the article, but I don't see how this is a case for keeping the category given that Category:Northern California now exists. I don't see the need to split that category to those that are not upstate from those that are upstate. The article appears to be sufficient for navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge." The "upstate" category was properly merged into "Northern California" and should now be deleted. The Upstate article itself appears to have value, although I'm not sure about the name since I've never heard the term "Upstate California." I've lived in Northern Cal all my life and my parents now live in Trinity. I concur that people in the north view their region as distinct from the rest of Norcal - see e.g. State of Jefferson. But as a categorical matter, "upstate" may be distinct from the Bay Area, but it is still part of Northern California. ferretstew (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No such merge has been done. Ikluft (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify. Category:Northern California was created with SF Bay Area and Upstate California as subcategories. The counties in each inherit their Northern California categorization through those subcategories. Category:Upstate California is not and should not be merged. Ikluft (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just like subcategories for the Bay Area... those categories assume containment of their subcats and articles which inherit Northern California categorization through them. The Upstate California category assumes containment of its topics the same way. Ikluft (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if that encourages a POV fork. There has been much discussion about splitting California into 2 or 3 states. While southern vs. northern is a normal split for classification, I wonder about the status of upstate as being for the purpose of pushing the point about these counties becoming a new state. While not stated, it is an interesting consideration. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:OR and I doubt it anyway. It isn't relevant to the categorization issue. The SF Bay Area and Upstate California are subcategories of Northern California. Ikluft (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is actually turning out to be very useful discussion. (I still would have preferred to see it initiated on a talk page.) It pointed out another gap in the categorization in Northern California. I created Category:Mountain ranges of the San Francisco Bay Area and recategorized articles into it. Ikluft (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that surprised me too. I think it just comes down to being a huge area and that must have discouraged volunteers from tackling it. Undoubtedly people will find more things to add to it besides what I started it with. It's ironic that it didn't happen until more than a year after Wikimedia Foundation moved its headquarters to San Francisco. Ikluft (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It's a new article which I hadn't seen before. It lists no sources for the regions. It looks like an initial shot in the dark. It needs work, starting with a WikiProject California tag on the talk page. And the "Western California" part seems to have been added by someone who is not from here - the shape of the state makes western even harder to define than eastern. The term Coastal California is more intuitive and has an article. The articles which have had the most work and review are Northern California and Southern California. For a list of regions see Category:Regions of California. And WP California is an established place to discuss it. Ikluft (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a first pass at an outline-overview of the regions on that page. But that should be disucssed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California. The discussion here should focus on reaching a consensus on Category:Upstate California. Ikluft (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - "Upstate" can't be precisely defined but "Northern" is a recognised region with certain counties and so on. Insofar as the Upstate has been defined, it has been essentially for marketing purposes and we don't generally use things like "Holiday Coast", "Limestone Coast" etc to define categories where they arise. Orderinchaos 10:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename isn't really an option any more. The remaining choices which productively move toward consensus would be Keep (same as Oppose) or Merge. During the course of this discussion, Category:Northern California has been created and populated with the 48 counties enumerated in the existing Northern California article, noting that 11 counties are subcategorized in Category:Counties in the San Francisco Bay Area and 20 counties in Category:Upstate California. Ikluft (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a closer look at the Upstate California article since it has already addressed similar questions in the past. Upstate California is more precisely defined than most region names within California, because the 20 counties officially made resolutions to adopt the name and participate in promoting it. The reasons stated in this proposal are the opinion of the nominator. The term Upstate California had a slow start in 2001 as a name officially adopted by resolutions of each of the 20 counties. The article has references, which it needed before being created, showing that the term did later build its own momentum such as being used at the state level in administrative subdivisions of the state. For example, the CalBIS regions map from one of the references shows one example where the state government also uses the term, which alone refutes the rationale that no one else uses the term but a small group of people. See the other references as well. See the list of local governments using the term in public. The article wasn't created until there was evidence these hurdles had been overcome. But California is a huge state in area and population - for nearly every regional term in this state you can find people who either haven't heard it or don't like it. Use the references to decide. Ikluft (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we approach the end of the 7 day deadline to find consensus on this, let me summarize point-for-point what's wrong with the rationale in this proposal...
Statement: "no one in the area actually refers to it by that name". Response: It isn't "no one" and it isn't required to be everyone. A June 2009 study published by CSU Chico, "Renewable Electricity Production in Upstate California" is cited in the Upstate California article as evidence of recent high-profile use within the region.
Statement: "The name "Upstate" itself implies a perspective from Downstate." Response: There's no logic behind that - the word "Upstate" explicitly means upwards on a map. See "Upstate" for a list of states that use the term.
Statement: The "...moniker is a neologism and a product of a campaign by a small number of people involved with business interests groups". Response: It started that way in 2001. The article wasn't created until there were references to show uses beyond local governments, particularly at the state level. There are uses that can be found with Google - but those had to be excluded as references because the rules on neologisms do not accept documentation of usage of the term, only its definition. However, since that's what answers this particular question, search Google for it.
Statement: "Northern California is well known and used widely both inside and outside of California and it is non-controversial." Response: But it isn't at all the same area - and that's a really nebulous term depending on whom you ask. People around the country and the world think San Francisco when one says Northern California. When I lived in Siskiyou County, I know people there laughed at including San Francisco in Northern California. Many in the Southland consider anything north of the Tehachapi Mountains to be Northern California. There's a lot of variety of perspective on this. The Northern California article has the place where Wikipedia consensus was already reached on that matter, and it's the line from Monterey, Kings, Tulare and Inyo Counties northward. Unless that consensus is changed through due process, we are expected by Wikipedia consensus policy to abide by it. Ikluft (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was proposed when the Category:Northern California category did not exist. Once that was created, it pointed out that Wikipedia's consensus on Northern California is 48 counties. The definition of Upstate California by the 20 counties that have officially adopted the name is clearer than most region definitions in the state. So with 20 vs 48, Upstate California is clearly a subset of Northern California. Even the San Francisco Bay Area has a more nebulous definition from 9 counties at the state and local definition to 11 counties for the census bureau definition.
Another question was whether the Upstate California subcategory would stand alone. But the Wikipedia consensus on Northern California also includes the San Francisco Bay Area. So there are multiple major subregions to subcategorize.
Delete per WP:NEO You've done a lot of work on this CfD and I respect that, but as the NYT and Chronicle news refs state, this is a branding effort rather than a truly defining region, at least at this point. Several of the city and county documents provided as proof in the main article's Notes section use "Upstate" in quotes, as if to show that even they recognize that this is a neologism. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope you'll re-read the rule and these refs, and reconsider. The state government usage including maps (i.e. CalBIS) and tables (i.e. University of California) defining an administrative sub-region "Upstate California" is more than enough to satisfy the WP:NEO requirement to document the definition and not just usage. The article was created on Wikipedia only after there was such evidence of momentum well beyond the original 2001 effort. Talk:Upstate California shows the article has already had to answer and gotten past that question. Ikluft (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the first ref above is a primary source and the second isn't very prominent. The two news refs I cited earlier are third-party RS that establish this as a marketing effort, at IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not listing all the refs here - those are just examples. Read the article. The state government sources are reliable and acceptable about state administrative sub-regions. Also, prominence isn't required and shouldn't be expected in an alphabetized table of definitions. For a secondary source, look at the article for other sources - the June 2009 CSU Chico study "Renewable Electricity Production in Upstate California" is a reliable source, and a recent one. Read the article and talk page - there are more examples. This question has been answered before. Ikluft (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. If we need this category, let us use Northern California, which is the more commonly-used term for the northern half of the state. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal's error is that these terms are not synonymous (20 vs 48 counties). There is more in my comments above. Ikluft (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Samurai Deeper Kyo
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) 23:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This only has three articles counting the subcategories. There is no need for it. TTN (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too few articles to warrant a category. --KrebMarkt 12:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too few articles to need a category and as this is not a super expansion series, has little future chance of growth. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too few articles to justify a category. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Samurai Deeper Kyo images
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) 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an empty category unlikely to ever expand. TTN (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently empty and very unlikely to reach a number of article warranting a category. --KrebMarkt 12:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No point in having an empty cat that is unlikely to ever have a major expansion (or even relatively minor one) -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently empty, and depending how long it's been empty, could also have tagged for speedy as {{db-emptycat}}. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Isotopes of neutronium
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Neutronium is not exactly an element, so that, even if the pattern of categories were to be maintained, for those element categories which have only one article, it's not necessary. There is only one article; the rest are or should be redirects. Oh, and the "lead article" is a redirect to the category. {{catmore}} shouldn't be added before the article is created. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 16:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These redirects could very be standalone articles and there are two not one articles. I've fixed the redirect to the category, it should've been a redirect to neutronium.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a layman, but to call something an "Isotope of FOO," don't they need to actually exist? The only 2 articles in the category that are not redirects clearly state that these are hypothesized states only. The lead article redirect that the category creator has fixed, to something called Isotopes of neutronium, is a piped link to a section that states only that "If one accepts neutronium to be an element, the above mentioned neutron clusters would be the isotopes of that element" (italics added). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because something is hypothetical that it's non-notable. There is serious and completely non-controversial research being done on these hypothetical neutron states. Many of these states do in fact play a role in various nuclear reactions and in the behaviour of nuclei. 18:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics}
The main article Isotope distinguishes between naturally occurring and artificially created isotopes or "nuclides," but unless I missed it, has no mention of hypothetical isotopes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That fiction decided to use neutronium as a fictional material makes no difference. Worm holes too are also used in fiction. It doesn't make them any less legit a topic. As Debresser said below they are part of the large structure of the classification elements and isotopes, the scope of the categories are well defined, and the articles are very clear about the status of neutronium and its "isotopes" as hypotheticals and that as of current concepts they should be taken with a grain of salt. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many hypothetical isotopes that are notable, like the ones from the island of stability. Just because they are theoretical does not mean they are not notable. de Sitter spaces are theoretical, but they are very notable. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid category, and as part of a large structure at Category:Isotopes. The fact that it has more redirects than articles doesn't bother me in this case. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid category, and having neutronium itself appear in some versions of the periodic table IN REAL LIFE supposes that this is a proper category. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I share Debresser's unconcern about redirects, and the more general unconcern about hypothetical entitities. (Fictional and hypothetical are somewhat different concepts.) Occuli (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are different. And exotic (and non-exotic) entities are used all the time in fiction without rendering them "fictional." Editors who support retaining this category might want to consider removing or changing the master category Category:Fictional materials, so as to distinguish from things cooked up in comic books and the like. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a merger proposal for those isotopes that have articles, back to the main article. Whether we need this category or not will depend on the outcome of those debates. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although the merges are also my proposal, I don't agree that whether they are redirects is relevant. If neutronium is considered an "element", then Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements suggest that the redirects should be in the category. For example, most isotopes of sodium redirect to isotopes of sodium, but are also listed in Category:isotopes of sodium. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 17:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a recurring and important concept in physics that organizes this information in the two parent structures for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (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.
Ship classes by country
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) 23:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Category:People's Liberation Army Navy ship classes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ship classes of the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete per precedent from previous CFD which found "Ship classes by country" redundant. All articles in the Chinese category and the lone article in the Dutch category are properly categorized such that if these categories are deleted, no re-categorization of the articles is necessary. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nom. --Brad (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (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.
Ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy
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) 23:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nom. --Brad (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename for increased consistency. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (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.
Lost submarines by country
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) 23:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To avoid adjectival forms and match the naming style of the balance of categories in Category:Lost submarines by country. Note: There are only lost Soviet submarines in Category:Lost Soviet/Russian submarines as of right now after migration of appropriate entries into Category:Lost submarines of Russia. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nom. --Brad (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to more clearly define the content of the catgeories. Alansohn (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Commerce raiders of WWI
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) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added another related nomination for World War II ships. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per both arguments of nominator. To avoid abbreviations is actually a guideline. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nom. --Brad (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (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.
Nationality sub-categories of Category:Seismologists
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:Macedonian seismologists to Category:Seismologists.
Clearly we have a nascent scheme of by-country categorisation here - as such it strikes me as somewhat unreasonable to upmerge all to Category:Seismologists. However, in the case of Category:Macedonian seismologists the likelihood is that there will, for the foreseeable future, be a distinct lack of population. This upmerge is without prejudice to re-creation at a future date, should a firmly established and comprehensive scheme of by-country categorisation be adopted for Category:Seismologists.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. There are currently too few articles about individual seismologists to merit categorisation by nationality. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Seismologists but also in each case to the other parent(s) as well (eg Fooian scientists, Fooian physicists, Fooian geophysicists). Occuli (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - underpopulated means "can and should be populated" - and with a small amount of work the American one is now at 14 articles (and I didn't sort the entire parent category to get it that far). The others are still small, and could probably be deleted, but the American one at least is surely large enough to be kept. It's not like these are unexpandable. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American seismologists now has 25 members. It looks like Category:Seismologists is seriously underpopulated - I've managed to add a dozen or so names to it in the last couple of days. I've added {{popcat}} to it. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All / Upmerge Macedonia There are plenty of seismologists around the world and they are productively organized by country within the parent structures. The dearth of articles for Greek, Japanese and Russian seismologists seems largely a function of systemic bias, given a look at the credentials of scientists publishing in scholarly journals, in the size of the seismology communities in these countries and in the number of earthquakes that occur there. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there are currently to support this level of categorisation for all except American seismologists. I'm not saying that there should never be these categories, so when we do have a larger number of articles on e.g. Japanese seismologists such that categorising them distinctly becomes useful it can be recreated. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all except the Macedonians. Certainly British & probably French & Italian categories could be made too. I see several are also in the main Category:Seismologists; normally people are removed from this if in a national sub-cat, although the main one is not too large here. Johnbod (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Books made into films
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. This discussion was a bit of a mess so if anyone wants to pursue this, I suggest a re-nomination with two separate questions asked that can be responded to in separate sections. Q1: Should the category be kept or deleted? Q2: if Q1 results in "keep" or "no consensus", should the category be renamed to Category:Books adapted into films?Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To better mirror the sister category and use a less casual grammatical structure -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 09:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this is a very recent category, which leads me to suspect that this is not a defining characteristic of a book. The novel Anna Karenina has been adapted in many ways - see Adaptations of Anna Karenina - but these are incidental to the book. Occuli (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do categories have to be a "defining characteristic"? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see there's also Category:Adaptations of literature, which contains a lot of Films based on book subcats. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A film based on a book is a different matter - the book is clearly a defining characteristic of the film and not at all incidental. Occuli (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. As I support keeping the novels below, there is obviously room for biography and autobiography sub-cats, and no doubt other types of books. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename (and Keep) as creator of the category. Phrasing seems better. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google searches for both terms shows the current one used 20 times more, implying it's the common phrase.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in thinking about this, it does not seem to me that being adapted into a film (or another medium) is defining of the source material. In many instances (especially as source material ages and perhaps falls out of copyright) the relationship between the source and the source's creator and the resulting adaptation grows ever more remote, imparting less encyclopedic information about the source as time goes by. The various "Adaptations of Foo" articles (which need a good looking-at for sourcing and removal of OR) do a good job of relating the adapted material to the source. Otto4711 (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film adaptations are a clear defining characteristic, with books almost always re-released in synch with the corresponding film, often with a cover touting the connection. Articles and reviews about such films always make the connection to the book. I'm sure that in the next hundred years, as new media are developed, this may need to be renamed or reconsidered, but for the next few decades this would remain a strong defining connection. Alansohn (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename- but consider rename to Category:Books with films based on them for consistency with the novels suggestion. Also thought should be given to when an entry is made here or in the associated "Novels" variant. It be reasonable to have this only for non-fiction books. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While "Books with films based on them" is consistent with "Films based on books", I don't think its the best wording as it is not how it is usually described in the articles nor in most reliable sources. Generally it is said that a film is based on a book, but that a book has been adapted into a film and has adaptations. :) -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having considered what you have just said I would agree and withdraw my last suggestion. Please excuse the slight grammatical correction. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Novels made into films
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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Novels made into films to Category:Books made into films
Nominator's rationale: Considering its parent has no items at all, I can see no need for this sort of subcategorizing already. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 09:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - convention is that "book" means non-fiction book and "novel" means fiction book. I share some of the misgivings expressed in the above nomination that being adapted into a film is defining of a book but if the structure is maintained these should be separate. Otto4711 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my comment in the books CFD above. Otto4711 (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge but keep per Otto & Occuli. Biographies & autobiographies have been filmed in great numbers. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, suggest it is renamed Category:Novels adapted into films the same as I've suggested for books above, to be a clearer and less casual category name. Adapted is the more commonly used phrase, and seems more accurate to me than "made". -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 23:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per correct argument of Otto4711. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge The two categories capture different aspects of written works, that need to be better clarified, not merged. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Santa Clara County
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) 23:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films depicting British Empire lifestyle
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:Films set in the British Empire. There is a strong consensus to rename to something, but only a weak consensus on what it should be. If this name is though to be overbroad or otherwise inappropriate, a re-nomination for renaming should be allowed.Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films depicting British Empire lifestyle to Category:British Empire films
Nominator's rationale: I have no idea how the current criterion is applied. How, for example, does Lawrence of Arabia qualify as depicting a lifestyle? It is much easier to pick films that are set in the empire. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that there seems to be little connection between the films included, but the proposed name is ambiguous. It could mean films about the empire; located in the empire; made by companies of the empire.... Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to Films about the British Empire Films set in the British Empire There is no "British Empire lifestyle," as the Empire, the world's largest, included everyone from the British monarch to the lowliest peasant in, say, India.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to Films about the British Empire per Shawn. The few films now in, mostly directed by David Lean, include some dubious ones. If kept the category should be firmly & clearly restricted to films about the Empire outside the British Isles, & normally set there. There are hundreds of these, but they don't include Barry Lyndon or Ryan's Daughter. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If retained, perhaps a better option would be films set in the British Empire (outside the UK as Johnbod states) taking this category out of the overpopulated and messy Category:Films by topic and into the more clearly defined Category:Films by geographic setting. It also removes the nebulous question of whether a film can be said to be "about" the Empire. I'm changing my vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I'd support this. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps under a different name. My rationale for creating this list was to include films that convey the social, cultural, political, economic, and/or military structure of the former British Empire. By British Empire, I mean all former colonies, territories, and outposts that were once under British rule. Renaming it to Category:British Empire films, makes it sound like we are talking about films that were made by people in the empire irregardless of the topic. Perhaps Category:Films about the British Empire is more appropriate? --Cal Poly Pomona Engineer (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "British Empire films" implies films produced by official organs of the Empire, most obviously the output of the Empire Marketing Board Film Unit. Rename toCategory:Films set in the British Empire - this is probably the best bet as it's not clear just what makes a film about the Empire or what is and isn't the lifestyle. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films about British colonialists. This seems to best descibe what the creator of the category intends. There is already Category:British Empire war films which would be a subcategory and already includes the Zulu films etc. The films in the category would include A Passage to India (film), White Mischief, The Happy Valley and Wah-Wah. The problem with Category:Films set in the British Empire and Category:Films about the British Empire is that it would include say any films made about India in the time of the Empire. Cjc13 (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename I agree that the present title is less than adequate, but it does capture a defining characteristic of the films that they share in common for navigation purposes. The definition of the category by User:Cal Poly Pomona Engineer is appropriate and the discussion here should focus on solving the naming problem rather than the disruptive dash to deletion nitpicking over dislike of a title crafted by a new editor with a few hundred edits to his name. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename present title somewhat unwieldy but Category:Films set in the British Empire rather too broad as it could include all films set in former colonies or protectorates (and British India, which, apart from the Princely States, was neither). Perhaps Category:Films about the British Empire; and would include some films based on novels by Joseph Conrad, Rudyard Kipling or Somerset Maughan (I don’t suppose any boy’s books by G. A. Henty were filmed).
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Spouses of Massachusetts Governors
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:Spouses of Massachusetts governors. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should be renamed to Category:First Ladies and Gentlemen of Massachusetts to conform with the other subcategories of Category:Spouses of United States state governors. --TommyBoy (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question And what should it be renamed to in order to conform with the other subcategories etc.? Debresser (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Error corrected thank you for catching that. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Rename to "Spouses of Foo Governors" The proposed Category:First Ladies and Gentlemen of Massachusetts is so utterly awkward, even if used by 34 other states. "Spouses of Foo Governors" avoids the whole issue of gender-specific versions of these titles in a far more readable and typeable fashion. The parent Category:Spouses of United States state governors uses this formulation, as does its parent Category:Spouses of American politicians. Alansohn (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Rename to "Spouses of Foo Governors governors" – for all subcategories of Category:Spouses of United States state governors. As stated by Alansohn, this is gender-neutral and less awkward, and also avoids the problem of readers not familiar with the "First Foo" title for spouses of leaders, which is of U.S. origin, who might think "first" equals "original". The other category titles remind me more of a wedding invitation than an encyclopedia entry. Sswonk (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Soil stub candidates
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:Moving to WP:SFD for close to be performed.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Soil stub candidates to Category:Soil stubs
Nominator's rationale: consistency -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist at SFD IIRC, this should be done at WP:SFD76.66.192.64 (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My purpose in establishing this category was to see if the project had sufficient articles to justify this stub. It clearly does not. This category should be emptied and then guidelines at WP:SFD followed. Paleorthid (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The John Francis albums
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 (still empty at close). Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The John Francis albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category for albums by an artist whose article was AFD'd. B (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it is empty because its contents have been speedied (on 25 July 09), see eg Sunkfrancisco Frankenstance. This does all seem to follow logically from the afd on the artist. (Could we have a notable album from a non-notable artist?) Occuli (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I haven't seen it happen. Before tagging the articles, I looked at an sign of notability (charting, substantial coverage, anything under WP:NM)—couldn't find a thing. — Σxplicit 18:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not objecting – I am saying it looks like an 'in process' emptying of a category, which might well accordingly be a speediable delete. Occuli (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2009 (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.