Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 15



Category:Elite models

 * 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 19:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * elite models


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * comment Model agencies should be catagorized as Elite is quite notable, as opposed to some small boutique agency. strong keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - variation on performer by performance. Models can and do work for a variety of agencies in the course of a career. Otto4711 05:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Elite is quite notable, and an add solidifies an entrys' notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 September 2007
 * Note to closing Admin: this is the second keep by this anon in this discussion. --After Midnight 0001 20:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: extensive precedent for deleting model-by-agency categories can be seen by examining this revision of the Cindy Crawford article which had over 100 categories, almost all of which have been deleted. (One of my favorite examples of the problems with overcategorization.)  Xtifr tälk 07:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above, and because it is basically just advertising. And ambiguous ("models who are elite"). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 11:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep big differences between agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 September 2007
 * Note to closing Admin: a quick check of the contribution history of the 2 anons will show that they are the same user. --After Midnight 0001 03:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per discussion of June 9th. This scheme was a disaster.  At one point Cindy Crawford was in the most categories of all of Wikipedia. -- Prove It (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 22:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 18 September 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:United States Navy fleets

 * 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. Kbdank71 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:United States Navy fleets to Category:Fleets of the United States Navy
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge per nom to Category:Fleets of the United States Navy, and also per convention of Category:Fleets (see Royal Navy one also) Johnbod 17:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. 137.246.104.101 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.--MChew 16:11, 21 September 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:Canadian a cappella musical 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 merge. Kbdank71 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * canadian a cappella musical groups
 * Merge into Category:A cappella musical groups, much too small to split between dozens of countries. -- Prove It (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge too small, with only one member. Other national splits might be fine. Johnbod 17:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom and per Johnbod. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 18 September 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:Oakland Raiders (AFL) coaches

 * 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. Kbdank71 19:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * oakland raiders (afl) coaches
 * Merge into Category:Oakland Raiders coaches, which covers both NFL and AFL. -- Prove It (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We do segregate teams' AFL periods in our player categories (e.g. Category:Oakland Raiders (AFL) players), but apparently not in our coach categories (this is one, and it hasn't been populated). I don't mind the discrepancy, at least for the time being, probably in part because the coach cats are so much smaller. Merge for consistency with the other coach cats. ×Meegs 08:03, 16 September 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:Paris Hilton books

 * 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. Kbdank71 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * paris hilton books
 * Rename to Category:Books by Paris Hilton, convention of Category:Books by author. -- Prove It (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Johnbod 17:32, 15 September 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:Oprah's Book Club Selection

 * 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 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * oprah's book club selection
 * Rename to Category:Oprah's Book Club selections, or Delete since these are already listed in Oprah's Book Club. -- Prove It (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete in favor of the list. Otto4711 12:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Monthly "awards" are too frequent. Plus is it defining for Anna Karenina? I think not. Johnbod 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Johnbod. The list is quite enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 17 September 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:Northern California weather

 * 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 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * northern california weather
 * Delete, if we continue along this path, eventually fog will belong to thousands of categories. -- Prove It (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, indeed! Johnbod 17:32, 15 September 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:Northeastern University alumni

 * 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. Kbdank71 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * northeastern university alumni
 * Merge into Category:Northeastern University, Boston alumni, duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 13:51, 15 September 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:Northeastern University

 * 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. Kbdank71 18:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * northeastern university
 * Merge into Category:Northeastern University, Boston, duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 13:46, 15 September 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:Richmond City Council

 * 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. Kbdank71 18:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Richmond City Council to Category:Richmond, California city councilmembers
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to Category:Richmond City Council (Richmond, California) to match main article and for disambiguation reasons, per nom. (The category should then be made a direct subcategory of Category:Richmond, California rather than buried so deep in the category tree as it currently is). Oppose merger with the suggested target as the category currently contains articles other than council members, namely 2006 Richmond, California city election and Richmond City Council (Richmond, California) and these articles should not be merged into a category for council members. Council members currently wrongly placed in this category should be put in the council members category.  Also, can someone clarify whether "councilmembers" is right, or whether it should be "council members"?  If there's a typo, it needs a speedy rename.  BencherliteTalk 19:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep this category is for the current city council, the other category is for formery/historical councilmembersCholgatalK! 02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a strong precedent against "current member" categories. See for example Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 26 and Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 26.  Xtifr tälk 10:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't bother to check those out I'll take your word for it though. Then I do wonder is there any way to make it appear on the Citycouncilmembers of Richmond, California category, which members are currently serving? I know you can change the order of the name with a pipe "|" can you use a pipe to add an esterist or cross and make a note of it on the page *=current council?CholgatalK! 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we don't do that with the categories. You want the names to appear in the proper alphabetical order to avoid confusion.  Current members of a body are normally presented in a list (whether separate or embedded in a broader article is a matter of editorial discretion) for clarity and ease of maintenance.  Plus, that way you can list everyone, even those who aren't notable enough for their own article (which will generally the case for city council members).  Xtifr tälk 01:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to fit, though it seems highly unlikely that this 56th largest city in California should have such a category alongside the likes of New York, Washington, San Francisco, New Orleans, Chicago, and Cleveland, especially when it has only four members, and especially when some of them are of dubious notability. I'm also curious whether anyone has an idea of how Richmond City Council (Richmond, California) fits in the equation.  Tewfik Talk 23:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * 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:Canadian expatriate musicians in the United 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. Kbdank71 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Canadian expatriate musicians in the United States to Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States and Category:Canadian musicians
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete as overcategorization by intersection. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a triple intersection not a quadruple, all "Canadian musicians in the United States" are expatriates. Merging like as suggested loses the fact that they are musicians in the United States. Kappa 23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are musicians in the US will be clear from A) the fact that they're in the musicians category and B) the fact that they're in the expatriates-in-the-US category. Not every detail about someone has to be summed up into a single category.  In fact, that's generally what we call Overcategorization.  Xtifr tälk 10:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand that categories are not for making things "clear" they are there for finding articles. Kappa 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Categories are for finding articles that are broadly related, in order to be of use to as broad an audience as possible. When you make narrow intersections, you improve matters for people interested in just that narrow intersection, but make navigation much more difficult for people interested in the broader topics.  Which is why we have a guideline against narrow intersections.  If you really think the narrow triple intersection of "Canadian", "Expatriate to the US" and "Musician" is really going to be of interest to enough people, a list might be a better solution.  That way everyone benefits.  However, there are external tools for browsing on-the-fly category intersections, So it would have to be of broad enough interest to justify not just using those (which it might well be).  Xtifr tälk 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are telling me I should be using external tools to find them as musicians in the United States? That's a new one. Is this documented somewhere that real people can find out about it? And frankly Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States is too broad to be of interest to anyone IMO, unless they use external tools to subdivide it themselves I guess. Kappa 00:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete overcategorisation per broad precedent,  Tewfik Talk 23:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Upmerge per nom. This a quadruple intersection, and since there is ample precedent for deleting triple intersections, there is no reason to keep a quadruple intersection. No objections to listifying, if someone wants to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - First, I agree with Kappa's assessment that this category is not really a quadruple intersection. More importantly, it's precisely because it informs us of the additional fact that these Canadians-in-the-United States are musicians that this category is of real value. Otherwise, if they're upmerged into the parent category, all we would know is that a bunch of people from Canada -- whose names, for the most part, mean nothing to us -- are here in the United States. On the whole, that very general bit of info evokes a big yawn. But knowing what they're doing here instantly makes it far more interesting.

There's been a lot of concern expressed here about "overly narrow" categories -- but in this case, the real issue that should concern us is overly broad categories. Why even bother having such big catch-all categories that serve no great purpose because they don't tell readers enough to warrant further exploration. There are indeed plenty of categories that don't merit retention because they contribute little value in terms of what they impart to readers. This isn't one of them. Cgingold 12:10, 19 September 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.

Est. naming convention for "Articles..." vs. "Wikipedia articles..."
<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 relisting on the 21st. Kbdank71 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The following began as a speedy nomination that was controverted:
 * Basic cleanup:
 * Category:Wikipedia articles with sourcing issues to Category:Articles with sourcing issues
 * Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations to Category:Articles needing page number citations
 * Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance to Category:Articles with topics of unclear importance
 * Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification to Category:Articles needing factual verification
 * Same with subcategories of Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification such as Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification since July 2006

to be consistent with Category:Articles with unsourced statements, and all most other such categories. In my view, this simply constitutes a "typographical error", as a totally pointless and obvious rundancy, like "Department of Redundancy Department". As per Andrew c, below, it also fits the spirit of CSD C2.4.—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)  Updated: 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are more than 100 categories starting with "Wikipedia articles". Isn't this a bit too big a change for a speedy rename? Setting the number of "Wikipedia articles" categories against the number of categories leaving out "Wikipedia" (I'd estimate 400), I wouldn't agree that there is a convention. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize there were that many. Moving to regular, non-speedy section. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nominator's "rename all such categories to shorter versions" rationale for adding a new convention to the category naming conventions: Clearly we need to establish a convention, then, and add it to the conventions document mentioned at WP:CSD (i.e. as a new subsection of Naming conventions (categories)). Current usage is strongly (4:1?) against the redundant "Wikipedia..." being prepended, and we are presently in a morass of inconsistency.  Let's just eliminate it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The "unclear importance" has an open debate, started yesterday by same nomhere, so is an improper nomination. Maybe relist after that closes, or get that nomination withdrawn & added here. Johnbod 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: Disagree strongly; they are entirely unrelated nomenclature issues. The debate opened here is liable to take a long time to settle out, and has nothing to do with that specific category in particular, which also happens to need another kind of rename, affecting it and only it, that is unlikely to be controversial and (regardless) will not conflict in any way with the proposal here. I think you may have missed that I greyed out the original nomination, copied from CSD/Speedy for background purposes; the proposal here is not to rename the handful of categories listed, but to draft a cat. naming conventions addition. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unrelated or not, it is against procedure, for obvious reasons, to have two open debates on the same category. The nominator does not control the issues or course of any discussion here. Johnbod 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are not two debates open on the same category. There is one debate open on a category, which also happens to be mentioned above in the greyed-out copy of the rescinded speedy nomination that started this topic off; and there is a proposed change to the category naming conventions. Quit lawyering, please. (Note I do not say "lawyering", which is an accusation of bad faith. I don't believe you are acting in bad faith, just acting like a lawyer here, being very, very persnicketty about minutiae and procedure; given that around 95% of what WP:CFD does is quite trivial to begin with, please consider that this may be a bit too persnicketty.) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll let others judge who is being the Wikilawyer here! Johnbod 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you actually reading what other people write here or simply skimming for keywords? It appears to be the latter, since I made it doubly-abundantly clear that I was not applying the term "wikilawyer" to you.  You might want to consider refraining from further disruption of deletion debates with angry (or angry-seeming; I'm not psychic) reactions to material that you are clearly not actually paying sufficient attention to understand well enough to respond to appropriately and  meaningfully. Your participation in both this thread and the related Sept. 14 one has been remarkably non-sequiturial, as well as vitriolic for no apparent reason. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * THIS debate, from your nomination::Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance to Category:Articles with topics of unclear importance
 * THE OTHER debate, from your nomination::Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance ... to Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability.... I don't think I'm missing anything!  All the heated language has been yours. Extraordinary! Johnbod 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename all per nom. The word 'Wikipedia' is indeed redundant. -- roundhouse0 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename all, unless someone can direct me to an article on Wikipedia that isn't a "Wikipedia article". PC78 10:59, 20 September 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:WikiProject Nintendo articles
<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 withdrawn. Kbdank71 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * wikiproject nintendo articles


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Question: Is this the will of the project, or are you a non-projectmember interloper? If the latter, I'd prefer to see someone active in the project say that they don't need this for something, since it may have some use not immediately apparent to us here. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am part of the project. --bse3 20:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed tag. I have a new plan. Sorry about all this. See new discusion here. --bse3 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 September 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:Washington and Jefferson College
<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 merge. Kbdank71 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Washington and Jefferson College to Category:Washington & Jefferson College
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge Category:Washington and Jefferson College into Category:Washington & Jefferson College, since their own website uses the ampersand version. Please Keep the and version as a category redirect. -- Prove It (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Category:Washington and Jefferson College into Category:Washington & Jefferson College per nom - note that the corresponding article is at Washington & Jefferson College (Washington and Jefferson College is a redirect). -- roundhouse0 10:37, 17 September 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:WikiProject Nintendo
<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 withdrawn. Kbdank71 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * wikiproject nintendo


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Keep, it matches WikiProject Nintendo, exactly the convention of all other WikiProject categories. Instead Merge Category:WikiProject Nintendo articles into Category:WikiProject Nintendo. -- Prove It (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good call. Can I just remove the tag or does the dicussion have to be "officially over"? After that can I just merge Category:WikiProject Nintendo articles into Category:WikiProject Nintendo or does that have to be proposed also? --bse3 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to withdraw your own nomination. However if someone disagrees they can nominate it again. -- Prove It (talk) 04:43, 15 September 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.