Category:Country songs by artist
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was withdrawn --
Kbdank71
16:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:DC Comics metahumans to
Category:Fictional mutates
- Nominator's rationale: Merge, The term "
metahuman" in DC Comics is not analogous with "
mutate" in Marvel Comics as this category seems to treat it. It instead refers to any person beyond human, ranging from
Superman to
Wonder Woman to
Dream Girl,
Killer Croc and
Flash (ie. encompassing wizards, mutants, mutates, aliens, cyborgs... everyone). Therefore, merge under same rationale as "DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered". ~
Zythe
Talk to me!
22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - the article
metahuman supports the notion of having the category and restricting it to those who meet the definition set forth by DC. Superman and Wonder Woman are not metahumans and do not belong in this category. The article does not suggest that everyone with powers and abilities beyond those of ordinary men (to paraphrase the old Fleisher cartoons) is a "metahuman" and certainly doesn't suggest that the concepts extends to wizards, aliens and cyborgs. Besides which, we just renamed this like a week ago without objection.
Otto4711
23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Don't the
OMACs list Superman, Wonder Woman and
Captain Marvel as alpha-level metahuman threats? Regardless, it can't be a subcategory of just mutates or mutants because it would include
Black Lightning (mutate) and
Black Canary (mutant),
Barry Allen/
Bart Allen etc... It would have to be completely unrelated to the mutant and mutate categories and would just serve as an extra category. Regardless, I'll withdraw the nomination but I still think it's terribly iffy. ~
Zythe
Talk to me!
- Reply: In DC Comics, the mutates are metahumans. They cannot develop the mutation-based powers without a metahuman gene. That's why most people exposed to radiation get radiation sickness, but once in a while someone with a metahuman gene exposed to radiation might get cool powers.
Doczilla
20:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was reverse merge --
Kbdank71
13:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Pulp magazines to
Category:Pulp fiction magazines
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories and the latter is more populated.
AdamBMorgan
18:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reverse merge or merge: since a bot will do the merging, it shouldn't really matter which is more populated at present, and I think the term "pulp magazines" is a little more common. But I'm not really sure, so my preference for a reverse merge is very mild.
Xtifr
tälk
08:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Ok, that's a fair point. Looking at it again
Category:Pulp magazines is slightly older too (if that means anything). It is not really important which one is left.
AdamBMorgan
18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Well, dang, if nobody has a strong preference, it's going to be hard for the closer to decide which way to merge. :) I do tend to think that if two names are equally valid, we should stick with the first one created, so maybe that will be the deciding factor.
Xtifr
tälk
21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge to
Category:University of Manchester --
Kbdank71
13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This category was nominated for deletion previously (see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June_19#University of Manchester), where it was deleted with no other comments. It was then put on
deletion review, which resulted in the decision to relist it. This is that relisting.
- Although I nominated this category for deletion in the first place, I'm now undecided about whether it should be kept or deleted. Were the contents to remain the same as before (i.e. basically the
UMIST article and
Category:People associated with the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology), I would maintain that the category should be deleted. However, I have been discussing the category with
User:Dodo64 (see their
talk page), who is planning on using the category for a series of (currently unwritten) articles on the UMIST campus. Now, those articles could be put into
Category:University of Manchester, but it might be better to keep them as a set of articles in their own category, as they are pretty much all geographically connected and separate from the main University of Manchester campus.
- So, for the time being I abstain. I welcome comments by editors of the University of Manchester (and VUM/UMIST) articles, as well as by disinterested (on this subject) editors, and hope that we can come to a conclusion satisfactory to all.
Mike Peel
18:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or convert to an article/merge with something already in place. As far as another user who might or might not create articles that might or might not go into this category, see
WP:CRYSTAL.
Lugnuts
18:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - the People associated with... subcats have already been taken out and preserved. It is useful categorisation to separate academics and alumni of the former UMIST from academics and alumni of the former VUM, and to keep both separate from associates of the new
University of Manchester. The nominated category itself can go, though. Hypothetical UMIST histories can be categorised in
Category:University of Manchester. —
mholland
(talk)
21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete In the absence of articles that would benefit from this category, due to
WP:CRYSTAL. I agree with
mholland that the "People associated with.." subcat should be preserved, and that UMIST histories that may be written in the future can go in
Category:University of Manchester.
EdJohnston
01:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep for reasons outlined by
Mike Peel above. My main point is that ex-UMIST buildings' current status puts them in
Category:University of Manchester, but in Wikipedia terms current status isn't the only thing that matters - historically, geographically and architecturally they also belong together in a separate category of their own. This is a useful application of the category system rather than overcategorization. I take it that the reference to
WP:CRYSTAL by
EdJohnston and
Lugnuts, simply means that as I haven't yet written the promised articles about the UMIST campus there isn't much to put in the category? Well, I've made a start now on the
Renold Building and
Mathematics & Social Sciences Building and hope to have several more underway before this category deletion discussion ends. (update 9 July: the disputed category now contains 7 articles plus the 'People..' subcatgory. More soon)
Dodo64
01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Classics writers
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete, redundant. --
cjllw ʘ
TALK
08:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Classics writers to
Category:UNKNOWN
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - These two people wrote about classical (Greek and Roman) literature and mythology, but the title suggests that they wrote the classics themselves. It needs a new name, but I have no good suggestions. It might also be appropriate to merge this category into
Category:Mythographers.
Dr. Submillimeter
15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Historical writers
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --
Kbdank71
13:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Historical writers to
Category:Historians
- Nominator's rationale: Merge - The two categories are redundant and should be merged together under "historians". ("Historical writer" could be interpreted to mean things other than "historian". For example, "historical writer" could be used for a writer who lived a long time ago.)
Dr. Submillimeter
15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge carefully to a number of categories -
Stephen Dando-Collins writes historical novels,
Celestine Sibley was a journalist & published various sorts of books,
Richard Slotkin writes novels and cultural criticism,
Bassam Al-Shammaa is an Eygptologist, and so on. Relatively few of these seem best categorised as historians as such.
Johnbod
15:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge carefully per Johnbod; the name "Historical writers" is ambiguous as per nom; so we need to sort out into which correctly named category each article belongs, some of which already exist:
Category:Historians,
Category:Historical novelists (which I fear suffers some of the same abiguity of name), etc.
Carlossuarez46
17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I was really hoping that the non-historians in this category were few in number when I nominated this for merging. I would be willing to help redistribute the articles when and if this discussion closes in favor of merging the category, but I would appreciate help.
Dr. Submillimeter
19:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I have added what I think are the correct cats to articles from A-L, except for
Chris Bell (military historian) who seems an Afd case to me. Then a bot can do the job of removing the redlink. It's not so bad as many have the correct other cats already.
Johnbod
01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Note to closing administrator - Please contact me if this discussion closes as "merge", and I will diffuse the articles to other categories as is appropriate. (I started doing this for authors named M-P, but I ended up removing this category in favor of more specific categories.)
Dr. Submillimeter
13:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Classical characters
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. --
cjllw ʘ
TALK
08:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Classical characters (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - The one article in this category (
Eunoë) is already listed in
Category:Greek mythology, which is probably more appropriate. The category otherwise is not needed. If kept, the category should be incorporated into the category system better.
Dr. Submillimeter
15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Novels by Michael Slade
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. --
cjllw ʘ
TALK
08:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Novels by Michael Slade (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: After waiting several weeks for objection, I merged/redirected all the individual novel articles to
Michael Slade, so this category is empty. (Apparently even the category creator thought the novel articles should be deleted.)
Propaniac
13:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Deceased Fictional Characters
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --
Kbdank71
14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Deceased Fictional Characters (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Over-broad category, impossible to define. Is
Prospero dead, because he was created about 400 years ago, and anybody who lived 400 years ago is dead?
Nyttend
11:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete That isn't the objection; what is is the fact that a vast number of fictional characters die during the course of the work they are in, often right at the end. In fact these all seem to be dead soap opera characters.
Johnbod
12:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - See my rationale under the "Category:Comic book murder victims" discussion.
Dr. Submillimeter
12:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete see the following:
- Delete per nom & ProveIt.
Carlossuarez46
17:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.--
NeilEvans
20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- KeepIf you delete this, then what is the point of having any fictional character categories? eg Fictional Character Divorces
BKBTE
- Delete per nom. And replying to the original creator of cat (BKBTE), um, there is no point? --
Huntster
T •
@ •
C
19:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. We are clearly supposed to avoid categorizing as alive/dead.
Doczilla
20:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.
Woohookitty
Woohoo!
10:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Classics (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category already exists at
Category:Classical studies. I suggest a speedy.
CaveatLector
Talk
11:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete with sub-cats. All articles are already in the other tree, except the article
Bytheria which appears to be a hoax, as does the related one on the cactodactus plant or whatever
Calactydacus plant. Kill, deletionists kill.
Johnbod
12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per above.
Ravenhurst
12:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Note that the category page itself was deleted but that the closing administrator did not deleted the category links in the individual articles and subcategories, so the category was not exactly deleted. I removed the one article in the category, and the other subcategories that were in this category either have been incorporated into the category system elsewhere or have been nominated for deletion. Also,
Bytheria and
Calactydacus plant are now nominated for deletion.
Dr. Submillimeter
16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete vaguely named category.
Doczilla
20:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films with numbers in their titles
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --
Kbdank71
14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Films with numbers in their titles (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Example of overcategorization, not really useful.
Garion96
(talk)
10:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - as the category's creator, could you please explain why it is valuable? regards --
Merbabu
00:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I fail to see how this is valuable. The mixture of numbers-as-numbers and numbers-as-words is also highly confusing, difficult to navigate.
Just64helpin
16:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Trivia.
PC78
16:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Carlossuarez46
17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete obvious overcategorization of unrelated subjects with shared (types of) names. I find it hard to imagine any real use for this outside of pub drinking games.
Xtifr
tälk
08:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as categorization by name. No objection to a list article. --
Prove It
(talk)
14:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per several
WP:OC criteria: arbitrary, unrelated subjects with shared names, non-defining, trivial.
Doczilla
20:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete An arbitrary collection of films with nothing essential in common.
Postlebury
02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete The only way this category would possibly be useful would be to gather together sequels. And we already have
Category:Sequels for that.
Raymondluxuryacht
22:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Operas by Jacques Halévy
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --
Kbdank71
16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Operas by Jacques Halévy to
Category:Operas by Fromental Halévy
- Nominator's rationale: Rename; The main article about the composer Halévy was renamed (correctly) as 'Fromental Halévy' a couple of years ago, but apparently the category was somehow overlooked at the time. This nomination rectifies that situation and makes WP consistent. (NB although the category only has one entry at present this will be rectified in the near future.)
Smerus
07:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American Juniors
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --
Kbdank71
13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:American Juniors (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - other than improperly categorized performer by performance articles, the category consists of the show article and the album and song subcats. Per dozens if not hundreds of precedents, this is
overcategorization and not needed.
Otto4711
06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Swing Out Sister
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete per precedent --
Kbdank71
13:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Swing Out Sister (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for single article.
Otto4711
02:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Comic book murder victims
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --
Kbdank71
16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Comic book murder victims (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete because all comic book characters are murder victims one way or another. Because it is impractical to have multiple articles for every single version (alternate timeline, parallel universe, etc.), we almost always include alternate versions in each character's main article. Characters do get categorized based on those alternate versions too. Every single character has been murdered. In Marvel Comics, the entire world has gotten murdered and resurrected before, more than once.
Doczilla
02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Doczilla's "comic Book Death" rationale, and Otto's note about the related category, which i only learned of now, but which certainly supports the deletion.
ThuranX
03:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - This category suffers from multiple problems. First, this category contains spoiler information. While placing spoiler information (with warnings) in the text of articles is OK, it seems unfair to readers who do not want to read spoilers to have this navigation aid give away the plot. Another problem is that this is an indicator of status for fictional characters, as it indicates that the characters are dead. Such "status" categories are generally avoided, as the characters' status does not remain constant over the storylines. Furthermore, this category also suffers from the "altertnate universe" problems described above, and the characters could always be brought back to life in later storylines. Overall, the category is too problematic and should be deleted.
Dr. Submillimeter
07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Carlossuarez46
17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Soul Train dancers
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --
Kbdank71
15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Soul Train dancers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance
overcategorization, per dozens or hundreds of precedents.
Otto4711
01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Schoolhouse Rock!
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --
Kbdank71
16:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Schoolhouse Rock! (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous
overcategorization. Material does not warrant a category, per dozens of precedents.
Otto4711
01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sapphire & Steel
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --
Kbdank71
15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Sapphire & Steel (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - Eponymous
overcategorization. Category not needed for this material, per dozens of precedents.
Otto4711
01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --
Kbdank71
15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Sanford & Son (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - Eponymous
overcategorization by name of series. The material does not require a category, per ample precedent.
Otto4711
01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.