Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 2



Category:New York City performance spaces and groups

 * 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 speedily deleted by Fabrictramp per author request. BencherliteTalk 07:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * new york city performance spaces and groups


 * Nominator's rationale:
 * 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:Most expensive music videos

 * 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * most expensive music videos
 * Delete or Listify, Unfortunately this is not a good way to categorize, without a number the inclusion criteria is subjective, if you add one it becomes arbitrary instead. However, it would make a perfectly good list article. -- Prove It (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; too subjective as to when to stop including expensive videos. Snocrates 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as hopelessly subjective, and as the nominator says, any cut-off point would be arbitrary. If it's going to be made into a list, that needs to be done with proper research to rank the production costs in real terms; dumping the category members into a file would merely reproduce the flaws of the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all. Johnbod 01:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:Districts of Cumbria

 * 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. -- X damr  talk 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * districts of cumbria


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Johnbod 01:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:Sonic the Hedgehog comic 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 Merge to Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters. -- X damr  talk 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Sonic the Hedgehog comic characters to Category:Sonic the Hedgehog comic and television characters
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge to the existing Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Otto4711 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.

Marvel Golden Age 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 Merge Category:Marvel Golden Age characters to Category:Timely Comics characters. -- X damr  talk 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Timely Comics characters to Category:Marvel Golden Age characters
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge - These cover the same topic. Also see Category talk:Marvel Golden Age characters -- 69.182.73.240 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge but in the other direction, per the discussion [Category_talk:Timely_Comics_characters#Merge proposal, 2007]. The characters are Timely Comics characters that due to changes have become known (informally) as Marvel Comics' Golden Age characters but the most accurate name for them is Category:Timely Comics characters. Also ,as per the discussion, it does need a note explaining this on the top of the talk page but nothing that can't be quickly addressed. (Emperor 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Reverse merge per Emperor. -Sean Curtin 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge as noted. "Marvel Comics" as a brand didn't exist until 1961.--Mike Selinker 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:FAO experts

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Food and Agriculture Organization officials. Kbdank71 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * fao experts


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to Category:Officials of the Food and Agriculture Organization. They do seem to have a job-title of "expert", but I think Officals covers it. Johnbod 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Experts of the Food and Agriculture Organization; don't make up fake titles. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Food and Agriculture Organization experts is shorter, if this is retained. Otto4711 13:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But too ambiguous, as it could mean "experts on the subject of the FAO, including its critics"; I'm pretty sure that's why Otto4711 picked the longer version (though I am hardly psychic. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The parent and other UN categories use officials too, as Category:World Health Organization officials - do we have a convention ? Johnbod 14:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment whether or not their title is "expert", doesn't have to be parrotted here either Johnbod's first comment or something similar is OK. Lots of companies have marketing folks titled "Evangelists" and so we can expect them to show up in Category:Evangelists because their title fits. Ugh! Carlossuarez46 22:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: The problem with that is that the organization has other people in other roles who are also officials. If someone can plausibly make the argument that all of the org.'s officials, including the experts, should go in such a category and that a subcat for experts is overcategorization, I wouldn't have any objection, but that case hasn't been made. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Official" isn't a title but a description. Many of the people in the category held much more senior roles in the FAO after being experts.  It isn't totally clear to me that everyone there was an expert - the terms in the article differ. Normally employee categories are not divided by field or rank. Johnbod 23:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

However, several others in the category do appear to have been staff members, so I propose creating a separate Category:Officials of the Food and Agriculture Organization for the officials. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Experts of the Food and Agriculture Organization per SMcCandlish. Using the word "official" is inaccurate, because that term normally applies only to members of staff, whereas the category text is clear is that the term "expert" here includes consultants. I have known several people who have been appointed as "experts" to UN bodies such as this, and in each case the role has been a consultant or advisory one, rather than a staff position (all the people I knew in this role were academics who retained their academic position, and worked for the UN body on the side). Examples of such outside consultant-experts in this category include René Dumont and Metha Wanapat.
 * Experts and Officials should be placed together under Officials - again, buying into an employer's nomenclature that is counter to a normal understanding of the word or its connotations is a very bad precedent - as I stated above. Evangelist, Expert, Superstar, Master, Wizard, even God ("he's a html god", and other titles used by promoters of things should not force us to adopt this nomenclature in our categories. Carlossuarez46 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Food and Agriculture Organization officials to match the parent United Nations officials. This is shorter and follows the naming of the parent. It also follows the form of other categories like Category:World Health Organization officials. If there is a need for experts to have a category, it can be created as Category:Food and Agriculture Organization experts with Category:Food and Agriculture Organization officials as the parent. Vegaswikian 22:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.

Foreign footballers

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

The result of the debate was Rename all per nom. -- X damr  talk 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * foreign footballers to Category:Expatriate footballers
 * english footballers not playing in england to Category:English expatriate footballers
 * iranian footballers not playing in iran to Category:Iranian expatriate footballers
 * non-argentine footballers in argentina to Category:Expatriate footballers in Argentina
 * non-german football players in germany to Category:Expatriate football players in Germany
 * non-iranian footballers in iran to Category:Expatriate footballers in Iran
 * non-israeli footballers in israel to Category:Expatriate footballers in Israel
 * non-italian football players in italy to Category:Expatriate football players in Italy
 * non-japanese footballers in japan to Category:Expatriate footballers in Japan
 * non-latvian football players in latvia to Category:Expatriate football players in Latvia
 * non-norwegian football players in norway to Category:Expatriate football players in Norway
 * non-turkish football players in turkey to Category:Expatriate football players in Turkey
 * Rename all to match the parent category, Category:Expatriates. -- Prove It (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions and page moves. King of the North East (T/C) 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. - PeeJay 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom. Johnbod 18:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom. --11:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
 * Rename all seems common sense to do so, cannot see any reasons against. Woodym555 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:Communist states

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. -- X damr  talk 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Communist states to Category:Socialist republics
 * Nominator's rationale:

Oppose This seems like a semantic terminology issue more than anything. From my understanding, this category is meant to be the companion to the article Communist state. A Communist state is not one that claims to have successfully implemented "communism"; rather, it is one that is governed by a Communist party. A socialist republic, on the other hand, is not necessarily governed by a Communist Party. Snocrates 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Shall we put the category Communist states in the as yet unexistant supercategory Socialist republics or just rename it to include the socialist countries that are not governed by a Communist party? --Eleassar my talk 09:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favour of your first suggestion—having the nominated category be a subcategory of the greater category that you propose. That would seem to be the most helpful way of classifying rather than lumping "communist states" in with all other socialist republics. Snocrates 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom, but most of the members belong in the "former" category, and should be moved. Johnbod 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

support I believe the article List of socialist countries clearly shows why Marxist-Leninist states should be called 'socialist republics'. Also, the main article is named Communist states and needs to be renamed/re-edited. Hmains 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:Chipmunks

 * 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 Category:Tamias to Category:Chipmunks. -- X damr  talk 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Chipmunks to Category:Tamias
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge into Category:Chipmunks. The reason Tamias has more articles is due to categorization by a bot.  There's a discussion here where the consensus (albeit with limited discussion) at the relevant wikiproject (mammals) is to merge Tamias into chipmunk specifically and genus names into common names (in general).  --Aranae 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Both names are valid and should continue to work. One should become a category redirect to the other.  No strong preference as to which becomes real. -- Prove It (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Chipmunks, but keep Category:Tamias as a category redirect per ProveIt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:Turkish footballers play out Turkey

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Turkish expatriate footballers. -- X damr  talk 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * turkish footballers play out turkey
 * Rename to Category:Turkish expatriate footballers, English grammer. -- Prove It (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Kyriakos 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:British marine biologists

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

The result of the debate was '''upmerge Welsh and Scottish, keep English. Categories are meant to help find like articles, which won't be done when the category has only one article. If upmerging made a supercat of 40 articles, I could see leaving all three. But upmerging these two gives you a grand total of 4 articles, not enough for subcats. If in the future, somebody writes or finds other articles that fit the bill, go ahead and recreate the subcats.'''. Kbdank71 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

english marine biologists scottish marine biologists welsh marine biologists
 * Upmerge to Category:British marine biologists
 * Nominator's rationale: - Overcategorization. There are a grand total of 5 articles among all of these subcategories. Cgingold 06:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There seem to be enough names to justify breaking down Category:Marine biologists by nationality. Further dividing British biologists into English, Scottish and Welsh then allows them to be linked into the well-established category structures of e.g. Category:Scottish people by occupation.  See also a previous discussion where a proposal to merge "English" etc into "British" was rejected.  BencherliteTalk 08:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment & Question - I haven't got any problem whatsoever with breaking down the category by nationality. My only concern is with the question of where do we draw the line when it comes to creating subcats? Generally speaking, I prefer to avoid creating subcats with only 1 or 2 articles in them. However, I have noticed quite a few cases where a Category:XX by nationality has been created and filled with subcats, many of which contain only 1 or 2 articles. Is there a guideline somewhere for these kinds of subcats by nationality which gives them a sort of blanket exemption in terms of the threshold for category creation? If there is already concensus on this question, I'm happy to defer to it. Cgingold 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was also planning on nominating 3 other subcats (French, Russian and Swedish) for upmerging into Category:Marine biologists, since each of them has only 1 article. But I guess I will hold off on that pending an answer to the question I just posed. Cgingold 11:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - What, no Cornish marine biologists?!? Cgingold 11:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OCAT says "Avoid categories that will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." To that I would also add the example of Category:People by occupation and nationality / Category:People by nationality and occupation. Looking at the Category:Marine biologists tree, there would be over 40 names in the category if there were no nationality sub-cats, which IMHO is more than enough to justify grouping by nationality (not that I have a "magic number" for such purposes, though).  If as a result you get just one or two names in a nationality sub-cat, that would be OK in the light of the OCAT guidance.  Is that what you were after?  PS Category:Cornish people does have some occupational sub-cats, but not biologists of any speciality! BencherliteTalk 12:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that is basically what I was talking about. However, it avoids specifying numbers, which leaves me feeling very resistant to creating sub-categories that have just a single article in them, with no particular indication that they're likely to grow. On the other hand, it does ease my concerns about creating sub-cats that start off with only two articles.


 * All the same, even though I support this type of sub-categorization as a general approach, I still think that at the same time, we also need to avoid category clutter that really doesn't accomplish much. Personally, I find it quite annoying and wasteful of time to look through an array of sub-cats like this and find that a bunch of them just have single articles. Which is to say, I would rather leave a "residue" of articles in the parent category that aren't distributed among the sub-cats. Cgingold 13:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Bencherlite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have plenty of sympathy with Cgingold's resistance to creating a sub-cat with just one or two members, but I can't believe that the whole of the UK has only produced 5 marine biologists of note! I think the answer is to get some more notable M.B.s in there. Ephebi 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (comment edited to add ID)


 * 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:German malacologists

 * 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 close, nomination withdrawn after discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

german malacologists
 * Delete and upmerge the lone article in Category:German malacologists to both parent categories.
 * Nominator's rationale: A clear case of overcategorization. There is simply no need to subdivide this subdivision of marine biology, by nationality. Cgingold 06:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn - Yikes. I obviously didn't perform due diligence here. Good thing there was no money riding on it, eh? Cgingold 10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

*Upmerge to Malacologists per nom. Snocrates 08:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose After a quick trawl through Category:Malacologists, I have recategorised a few articles and there are now 8 articles in Category:German malacologists. It appears to be a discipline to which German scientists have made a notable contribution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who knew?! But now we're left wondering, With their love for escargot, where are all of the French malacologists??? Were they all kidnapped and hustled off to Germany? Inquiring minds want to know. Cgingold 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Georges Cuvier? BencherliteTalk 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well actually, Rafinesque and Pruvot-Fol were French, too, which makes three. But even if we were to count Dautzenberg and Hwass as "honorary Frenchmen", that still only makes five -- surely, there should be at least as many French malacologists as German, n'est-ce pas? Cgingold 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Great news: Inspired by BrownHairedGirl's example, I went hunting for French malacologists, and voilà! It turns out that there were five more hiding among the conchologists, bringing the total to eight. So I created Category:French malacologists to go with Category:German malacologists (which is now up to 10 articles). If anybody cares to pick up the thread here, it looks like there are scads of British malacologists, as well (and probably Americans, too). Cgingold 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it's been a good day for Franco-German malacologists. And this morning I didn't even know what a malacologist was. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per BHG and the fuller population of the category as a result of her work. I note that Cgingold has withdrawn the nom, but in the light of support from Snocrates the discussion isn't eligible for speedy closure, so adding my view on the issue FWIW.  BencherliteTalk 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In light of the information added since my comment, I'm willing to withdraw my comment to allow for speedy closure. Snocrates 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:Hindu-oriented socio-spiritual organizations

 * 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 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * hindu-oriented socio-spiritual organizations


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * delete per nominator.  S facets  08:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, but deplore emptying of category by the nominator (,, , , , , etc). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsensical categorization ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please restore previous contents for the debate. There is clearly something here, and equally clearly the present name does not catch it. Well spotted BHG!Johnbod 03:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep. This is a good category, it categorizes all of the Hindu-based spiritual movements. Nexxt 1 10:14 OCT 6


 * 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:DCI Division II/III corps

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:DCI Open Class corps. -- X damr  talk 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:DCI Division II/III corps to Category:DCI Open Class corps
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * 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:DCI Division I corps
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:DCI World Class corps. -- X damr  talk 16:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:DCI Division I corps to Category:DCI World Class corps
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Her Pegship <small style="color:green;"> (tis herself) 04:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:Derivative highway designations
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 14:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * derivative highway designations


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * It's actually not subjective at all. You can tell if a highway's got a derivative designation if 1) it connects to a highway with the same number as itself, e.g. as a continuation of that highway after crossing a state line (K-99 derives from OK-99 or vice versa, I-440 becomes AR-440), 2) it is numbered as a child of that route (OK-166 is so numbered because it branches off old U.S. 66). Unfortunately, under the latter criteria we could include all three digit Interstates and U.S. routes, as derivatives are a feature of that numbering system. Delete as being of too broad a scope. —Scott5114↗ 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Scott. Additionally, theoretically, one could argue that bannered routes could be placed in this category as well, as the number of the bannered route is derived from the number of the mainline route. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as categorisation by name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above  master son T - C 11:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:North American Union
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * north american union


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom. I notice there is a rather defunct NAU Wikiproject included in the category...  Fodder for Misc. for deletion?  Postdlf 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per AfD discussion and as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A category of a non noteable subject. The afd concluded that the subject is not noteable.  Tbo 157   (talk)    (review)  17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very tricky set of articles where there's a very real problem keeping the conspiracy theories separate from the actual verifiable facts. The Independent Task Force on North America is a real thing which does deserve a neutral article, but still needs regular monitoring to ensure that it isn't slipping into unsourced theories about the ultimate aim of it all. Everything else about this category is pure POV speculation. Delete the category and the wikiproject. Bearcat 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.