Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 6



Category:World War II armoured fighting vehicles by nation

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:World War II armoured fighting vehicles by nation to Category:World War II armoured fighting vehicles by country
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistency - this is the only "vehicles ... by nation" category (currently in EnWP). "vehicles ... by country" is the normal wording (e.g. see Category:Vehicles by country). DexDor (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * rename per nom The contents of this category are country sub-categories not national sub-categories. Hmains (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2014 (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:Association football midfielder

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting association football midfielder


 * Nominator's rationale: This is practically procedural; XXN nominated this for deletion at RfD, but it was closed after a week without objections because it hadn't been tagged properly. Ugh. Category redirects tend to be discussed here, however, and reserved for likely errors. This doesn't seem to fit that standard, any more than any singular form of a category name would. BDD (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is a long-standing convention that topic categories take the singular for, while set categories take a plural form. This redirects to Category:Association football midfielders, so it allows editors to use the topic cat format while placing pages in a set category.   I think that's a bad idea, because it blurs the distinction between the two forms.  Also, if this idea caught on it would lead to many thousands of similar redirects, which would be a maintenance nightmare. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a likely error, and with increasing use of HOTCAT having a redirect is not necessary. GiantSnowman 19:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as category is now empty. – PeeJay 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, but C1 exempts category redirects. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2014 (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:Cult related terms and concepts

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting cult related terms and concepts


 * Nominator's rationale: Based on this edit to Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts and subsequent recategorisation of articles in that category (since reverted) and categorisation of all sorts of non-mainstream religious topics in the new category (since reverted), this undiscussed new category seems to be a deliberate attempt to rename the old category in a non-neutral way without discussion. Helen  Online  12:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, it seems to me that the nominator has things back-to-front on neutrality. "Cult-related" looks much more neutral than "Anti-cult". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. First, it seems that there has been a bunch of out-process emptying going on here, both by whoever emptied Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts and whoever emptied Category:Cult related terms and concepts. The WP:TROUT is going to be busy :(
 * If there are any objections to Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts ("intended for concepts and terms used or coined by the anti-cult movement" per the category text), the way to resolve them is via a discussion such as this one, not creating a new category with a different name, then moving all the articles across to the new category, and then adding all sorts of articles related to non-mainstream religion with no mention of "cults" whatsoever into the mix. I and Zambelo reverted these bold (re)categorisations followed by discussion on both the talk page of the editor involved, namely Kitfoxxe, and the category talk pages in line with WP:BRD. Helen  Online  21:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, depopulating Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts without CFD discussion was wrong. But so was depopulating Category:Cult related terms and concepts.
 * Now, please can you explain your assertion that "Cult-related" is non-neutral? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't even realize Category:Cult related terms and concepts was a new category until after I had done most of my reverts to Kitfoxxe's bold categorisations, and that I and another editor were effectively independently "depopulating" it. When I realized the whole story after Zambelo posted a comment on Kitfoxxe's talk page and the new category's talk page, I checked to see if the category was worth keeping and decided it wasn't which led to me opening this discussion. Characterising our BRD reverts as intentional "out-process emptying" and "depopulating" is unsupported and misguided. We have been very open about our reverts and followed BRD voluntarily so I don't appreciate your assumption of bad faith. Based on this edit however, Kitfoxxe clearly intended to rename a category without discussion (note that per WP:NPA I have supported my allegation with evidence).
 * The old category is intended for "concepts and terms used or coined by the anti-cult movement". Defining something as "cult related" is much more subjective and open-ended than defining something as anti-cult. It is the anti-cult movement that defines things as a "cult" or "cult related" not the world at large or the groups themselves. As openly stated on the new category's talk page, I reverted Kitfoxxe's categorisation of various articles related to non-mainstream religion that do not even mention "cults", i.e. Occult, Thelema, New Age, Spirituality, Esotericism, Spiritual evolution, Open-source religion, Syncretism, UFO religion, Cybersectarianism and Intentional community. Do you really think that is neutral categorisation? That is the sort of POV editing a "cult related" category is open to. Helen  Online  07:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the deletion - previously the articles had been categorised based on consensus - primarily into Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts. The term cult is a Contentious label - by including articles about groups in 'Cult related terms and concepts', neutrality is compromised.  Zambelo ; talk 22:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply Rather than simply asserting that "neutrality is compromised", please explain how exactly is more neutral to categorise something as "anti-cult" rather than as "cult-related". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-cult refers to the Anti-cult_movement, which has it's own (and varied) definition of the word "cult". The articles categorised are more to do with the opposition to cults rather than to cult groups themselves - terms established by the various opponents to cults. Neutrality is maintained by not defining groups as "cults", which is a non-neutral label. Zambelo ; talk 00:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as too poorly defined, considering it uses the word "cult", which is inherently impossible to define well enough for a category of terms. I also support Deleting anti cult, esp as not every term there was coined by anti cult groups, such as "mind control". actually, "anti-cult" and "cult" are not opposites. the opposites would be "cult"/"anti/cult" and "religion".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Cult is either a term too broad to be useful in categorizing things, or used as an attack category to disparage others. We should avoid using such negative and attack categories in categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (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:Cuca (band)

 * 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: relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 7. The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting cuca (band)


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 6 January 2014 (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:Sports Night

 * 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: relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 7. The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting sports night


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:01, 6 January 2014 (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:Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity

 * 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: renamed. The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity to Category:Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity
 * Nominator's rationale: More normal category name (there are no other "Representative List" categories in EnWP). After renaming those articles that are not lists should be removed from the category. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2014 (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.

Club Championship Cats

 * 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: relisted  at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 7. The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting atlanta chiefs championships
 * Propose deleting minnesota united fc championships
 * Propose deleting tulsa roughnecks championships
 * Propose deleting chicago sting championships
 * Propose deleting toronto blizzard championships
 * Propose deleting tampa bay rowdies championships
 * Propose deleting los angeles aztecs championships
 * Propose deleting philadelphia atoms championships
 * Propose deleting new york cosmos championships
 * Propose deleting dallas tornado championships
 * Propose deleting rochester lancers championships
 * Propose deleting kansas city spurs championships
 * Propose deleting oakland clippers championships
 * Propose deleting los angeles wolves championships
 * Propose deleting vancouver whitecaps championships
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. All these categories contain Championship matches from a certain year. These categories are unnecessary and I'm pretty sure these are a clear example of WP:NOTDEFINING. – Michael (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

However, a series of small categories which cannot be expanded is a disruption to navigation, per WP:SMALLCAT. I tried populating Category:Atlanta Chiefs championships, and brought it ip to 3 articles, which is still on the small side. I could accept a category of that size as part of a series, but don't know at this point whether any of the other categories would reach a minimum of 5 articles. I see that in soccer, the convention is categorise all articles on a clubs matches together, under Category:Association football matches by club (see for example Category:Sunderland A.F.C. matches), rather than just championship matches. These categories may be better renamed to "Foo matches", to broaden their scope. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply Notability is a concept relating to articles, and the items listed here are categories.  I see no grounds to claim that the articles in these categories are non-notable, so a !vote based on notability seems to have no basis in policy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree on that - notability could and should apply across the board. To expand on my initial !vote - these categories serve no purpose, many contain only one article, and there is no precedent at all to have categories of this sort on Wikipedia. Furthermore, they were all created by an editor who had a track record of this kind of editing, and a large number of catrgories he previously created have been deleted/merged. I know that that in itself is not reason to delete, but it certainly makes me question them more. That is what I meant when I said they weren't notable. GiantSnowman 17:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability should and does apply to all articles. A category is just a navigational device, an editorial artefact; it is assessed differently. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep all. As far as I can see, a football match has 5 WP:DEFINING characteristics: time+date, location, league or championship, and teams playing. In principle, it seems to me to be right to categorise by all those defining attributes, and these categories capture the last 2 of those 5 attributes.
 * If categories cannot be populated then what purpose do they serve to aid navigation, whether they are part of a series or not? Perhaps those that can be populated (3 articles as an absolute minimum) should be kept, and if they are I agree they should be renamed. GiantSnowman 13:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we are coming to a bit of agreement here, because I agree no point in keeping them all if they are tiny; but a few tiny ones as part of a series can serve a useful purpose. Unfortunately, we don't yet know how much material exists to populate these categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no point in having under-populated categories, even if they are part of a series. That is why you might have (to use your earlier example), but not for every English club that does not merit one (see . GiantSnowman 18:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice to re-creation if they will be properly populated. These seem to be single article categories, about the fact that the team appeared in a certain final. That is in the nature of a performance by performer category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Foo matches, like the convention is for football-matches. See for instance Category:American soccer club matches. Mentoz (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2014 (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.

Iceland youth international footballers

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge both. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Iceland under-17 international footballers to Category:Iceland youth international footballers
 * Propose merging Category:Iceland under-19 international footballers to Category:Iceland youth international footballers
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Only the top (major) youth national teams from each country should be given its own category and the lower youth levels grouped together. – Michael (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge both per consensus at past TFD that only top-level youth national football teams (i.e. U21) deserve separate categories. GiantSnowman 19:08, 8 January 2014 (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:2Cellos

 * 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: relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 7. The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 2cellos


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Head article + subcat + 3 other articles = 5 pages, which is enough to keep. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete All the involved pages are sufficiently linked from the main article itself. There is no need for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2014 (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:List of Kapus

 * 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: listify and delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting list of kapus


 * Nominator's rationale: There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise people by caste, for which I've got a standard note here. This category is being used solely for that purpose and has no other useful purpose. Sitush (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * List of Reddys and List of Kammas already exist as articles. It would be difficult to organize the names in articles like List of Kapus, hence, I chose to categorize list of kapus. Further List of Kapus and List of Kapu dynasties do exist on wiki. But I don't see any names listed in List of Kapus. [[List of Kapu dynasties has Madurai Nayaks and Tanjavur Nayaks who belong to Tamil Nadu. But Category:List of Kapus is all about Kapu's in Andhra Pradesh. I believe that this category would only make it easy in classification of people under Indian and Bigraphical portals and projects. - Veera.sj (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and listify. Apart from the fact that the category is misnamed (it should be Category:Kapus), there is a long-standing consensus against categorisation by caste.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support BHG -- This is a sensible solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and list per BrownHairedGirl. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not listify. There are very major objections to creating lists of a cast, and to just listify a category like this would involve unsourced assertions of caste. Caste is a very sensitive subject, and Wikipedia should avoid perpetuating it in unjustified ways. We should delete and wait until someone amasses the reliable sources in creating a list. In the matter of casts, not having a list is a far better situation than having a flawed one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2014 (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:People from Mount Oliver, Pennsylvania

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Mount Oliver, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry. ...William 01:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom and category redirect. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. We have far too many one entry categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2014 (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:Role-playing games using Yes-But mechanisms

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting role-playing games using yes-but mechanisms


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete The definition is too fuzzy to be a sound basis for characterization. Moreover the term "Yes-But mechanism" is not well-established so this categorization would be of little use for readers. Pichpich (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a horrible name (and I created the category) - and although I can justify yes-but being established enough to get its own terminology page, I'd propose Rename to Category: Role-playing games with partial success mechanisms. (An only slightly broader but much better understood category). Neonchameleon (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no need for this category at all. It's a perfect example of overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * delete overcategorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (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:Alternative reproduction in fiction

 * 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.

User:Debresser also proposed deleting Category:Artificial uterus in fiction, but it was listed in this discussion after most editors had commented, so no consensus was formed on it. I will therefore untag it; feel free to nominate it again immediately. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Alternative reproduction in fiction.


 * Propose deleting alternative reproduction in fiction


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete not precise enough to be a sound basis for categorization. Moreover, in general, we do not categorize works of fiction according to plot elements. Pichpich (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Concepts no; but technologies in science fiction are used to categorize them. This would be relevant for the same reason robots in fiction is a category. I propose creating two pages; artificial wombs in fiction, (mostly sci-fi) and artificial people (mtyhology, fantasy, horror; soft science fiction) which would cover anyone created without the use of a womb. Brave new world is all about the sociological and psychological effects of being born that way and is regarded as a classic. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Too subjective and not a way of usual categorization. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete alternative to what? one married man and his wife in the missionary position without chemical or technological intervention? surrogacy is "alternative", as would be virgin births, cross-species reproduction, sperm banks, using elephants to carry mammoth fetuses, Jurassic Park type stuff, Aliens stuff, too far afield. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * delete subjective as to the definition of alternative. In a science fiction universe such as Woody Allen's Sleeper, what we think of as "regular" sex/reproduction is "alternative".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Addition: Propose deleting artificial uterus in fiction

Alternative is far too vague I realize that now; however artificial uterus is a much narrower definition. I think stories indeed are categorized according to plot elements; such as time travel, robots etc. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, together with Category:Artificial uterus in fiction, created today by the same editor. Some people just don't have a feel of where the wind is blowing from. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete When I first saw this category, I thought this was for articles dealing with children being conceived through artificial insemination and in-virto fertilization. There is no reason to assume this would just be science fiction. You can have a plot totally use present technology, that could fit a reasonable definition of "alternative reproduction", which would mean the child is not conceived in the currently primary way. Yet, reading through this I have realized my vision was far too short, which means that I think this is not worth having. Also, I think if kept, what is real categorized her should be Category:Fiction showing alternative forms of reproduction. Does Gatica count?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The head of the category just makes things worse. It invites us to apply very subjective criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2014 (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.