Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 3



Category:American primary care physicians

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus.  ℯ  xplicit  01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:American primary care physicians to Category:American physicians
 * Nominator's rationale: I became aware of this category when it was applied to John Britton (doctor) to replaceCategory:American physicians, but I see it's also applied to articles like Henry L. Brown (the first one I happened to click on) and to a number of others for whom the idea of a separate field of primary care (or general practice, family medicine) would be ahistorical. Basically, trying to apply this category consistently would be, at the very least, difficult: it would either involve deciding what constituted "primary care" before this became a specialization, or omitting historic physicians performing what today might be called primary care. Too subjective. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Questions: isn't this a matter of moving biographies back to Category:American physicians if they don't belong here? And if the category is kept, should we specify a period in the header of the category page? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "isn't this about moving them", the idea is an upmerge so that they would all be moved back. I think that there's too much potential for subjectivity if the category is kept, because it would inevitably either be full of people who practiced before the specialization existed and/or who practiced after but aren't described as such in sources, but that we put in there via our own judgment (and therefore subjective), OR it would be a smaller category containing people doing pretty much exactly the same thing as people who aren't in the category (and therefore be difficult to use and somewhat arbitrary). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. "Primary care physician" isn't a type of doctor, but a role within a medical institution or insurance system.   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think its important to keep a category which distinguishes generalist from specialists. In much of the world this is called General Practice, but this is not used so widely in the USA.  Category:American physicians applies pretty well universally.   Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Category:American physicians is a superior category, not intended to specify the field of practice. " It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories."  Rathfelder (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure, this means you're opposing the nomination, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Very much so. Rathfelder (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the argument for changing that note is stronger than the argument for diffusing. What's apparent is that we simply can't confirm that most of these people are "primary care physicians" or "general practitioners", so the broader category is the only appropriate place. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That is not an argument about the existence of the category. That's a question of which articles belong in it. There are large number of articles about American doctors which clearly say that they are General Practitioners, Primary care physicians or Family Physicians.  These categories are very similar, though the name used varies and they should be merged.  But they are clearly differentiated from the generic term "Physician" which simply indicates that they are qualified and practice as what is called a doctor in much of the world.  Most of the articles about doctors which elaborate on the subject's practice as a doctor (and many don't) are about specialists, because those are the doctors who do most research.  But it would be a big mistake to lose the category for generalists - who, after all, see most of the patients most of the time. Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But that is the argument I'm making. Most of the articles in "American physicians" cannot be diffused into "American primary care physicians", and any diffusion we can try to do will be arbitrary or subjective in one way or another. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, I looked in quite a few articles and on the one hand many of these physicians are/were indeed occupied as "generalist physicians" (a term that I'm making up now), but on the other hand there is no consistent term that would specifically indicate their generalism. If kept, the category name should become more descriptive. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In other countries they are called General Practitioners. That term is used in a few of the American articles.  I'd be happy with a category American General Practitioners, but I am not sure it would be acceptable. Rathfelder (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Its quite true that the application of categories to doctors varies with time. Before about 1920 most doctors would try their hand at anything, but now doctors, at least in developed countries and urban areas are restricted to an area of practice.  Most of the articles about nineteenth century US doctors don't say very much about what exactly they did.  Something along the lines of "he moved to Clarksville and practiced medicine" is very common, especially for people who are actually notable for being a politician or sportsman.  I don't think those articles should be categorised as primary care physicians.  I've mostly put them in a subcategory of Category:American physicians by state. But the article about Henry L. Brown says he "started his own practice in Laurel" - That seems to suggest it was not in a hospital, though it doesn't tell us anything more. Rathfelder (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * However, this category is populated mostly with 20th-century physicians and the articles aren't very clear either. By lack of clear terminology you have to read between the lines to understand that these physicians aren't/weren't active in a particular specialization. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that certainly by the middle of the 20th-century physicians were either specialists - where you would expect the biography to say so - or generalists. What generalists actually did clearly varies from place to place, and quite a lot of the people I take to be US general practitioners clearly delivered babies and performed abortions, something that is certainly not normal in the UK now. Rathfelder (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that an upmerge to American physicians is not appropriate, because that category should be at least partially diffused.  That said, "General Practitioner" was a commonly-used term in the US until fairly recently (not sure when, but 21st century, I think), when it was replaced by "Primary care physician."  And yes,  it may be TMI, but my own child was delivered by a General Practitioner (back in the 1980s).  Maybe the solution is to create a Category:American general practitioners for those who were so defined as such at the time, and keep this one just for articles on modern people so defined as primary care physicians now.  Montanabw (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be OK by me, certainly better than the proposed upmerge, though I'm not sure that we can really distinguish between "General Practitioner", "Primary care physician" and "Family physicians", as they seem to share important characteristics: Not hospital based and not specialised, which differentiate them from all the other sorts of physicians. However the demarcation lines clearly vary from place to place and from time to time. In the UK, for example GPs no longer deliver babies because their insurance doesn't cover them. Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename both to Category:American medical doctors. This is the actual common usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * But medical doctors is far too wide a term. It includes all the hospital specialists. Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2017 (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:Catholic traditionalism

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Catholic traditionalism to Category:Traditionalist Catholicism
 * Nominator's rationale: Compare "Irish American". "Irish" is the 'accidental', "American" is the 'essential'. This wording seems just as supported by general sources check, and is per WP:Consistency in accordance with main relevant equivalent language versions. It is also consistent with wording order in Traditionalist Catholicism, Template:Traditionalist Catholicism, as well as in equivalence with Liberal Catholicism. Furthermore, need of this renaming is indicated by Category:Traditionalist Catholics, and Category:Traditionalist Catholic newspapers and magazines. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, reversed word order is in line with related article and related categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2017 (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:French compound given names

 * 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 and delete as nominated.  ℯ  xplicit  01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:French compound given names
 * Propose upmerging Category:French masculine compound given names to Category:Compound given names and Category:French masculine given names
 * Propose upmerging Category:French feminine compound given names to Category:Compound given names and Category:French feminine given names
 * Nominator's rationale: Category:Compound given names does not have enough names in it to diffuse by nationality, and especially by both nationality and gender. Since compound given names are historically a French tradition, most pages in Category:Compound given names would be French anyway. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support; this is just silly overcategorization by hair-splitting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support over-cat. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 03:52, 11 December 2017 (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:CD singles

 * 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 23:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting cd singles


 * Nominator's rationale: The CD single was the primary format for singles during the 1990s and early 2000s (and many still are today) so the release of singles on CD is not a defining characteristic for such songs any more than singles from the 50s through the early 80s being released on 7" inch vinyl discs or songs of today being distributed via digital outlets through downloads and streaming. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The CD single is a rare format today, but in some countries such as Japan, Germany, France and Australia people still have this format for major releases. The CD single also helps a song hit the record charts. I agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's point that the main format of music distribution today is via digital outlets, but this is the reason why I created this category. The most common format of releasing a single is through the digital download/streaming, but some singles in Germany, for example, get a CD release after they achieve certain success on the charts. So, this would be a means of organizing these singles that get this distinction from others. Lucas RdS (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support We have managed without vinyl, rps, 7, 10 or 12 inch. I am sure such potentially enormous category will not prove useful or encyclopedic. Or as I often cry here, "What about the songs, doesn't anybody care about the songs?" --Richhoncho (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Within the period of time from when CD singles supplanted 45s and cassette singles as the standard form of single distribution to the time they themselves got supplanted by iTunes, every single released will have been in the CD-single format as an automatic outgrowth of the fact that they were released as a single at all. So it's not a useful point of categorization — it would be an unbrowsable megacategory that comprised every song released during that time period. It's simply not useful to categorize music by what physical or digital media were or weren't used to sell it on — it doesn't constitute a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the music, any more than books would be usefully defined by whether they were hardcover or paperback (especially since somewhere between many and most books get published as both at different points in their lifecycles.) Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2017 (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:Michael Lisicky

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting michael lisicky


 * Nominator's rationale: After removing pages inappropriately categorized here (stores written about by the subject), there is nothing left. — swpb T go beyond 17:24, 3 November 2017 (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:Articles tagged for copyright problems

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedia pages tagged for copyright problems.  ℯ  xplicit  01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems to Category:Pages tagged for copyright problems
 * Nominator's rationale: Why only articles? It's not uncommon to see pages outside article space listed at WP:CP. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - or rename to "Wikipedia pages ..." (e.g. like Category:Wikipedia pages tagged as create-protected). Note: The text of the category page should also be updated where it refers specifically to "articles". DexDor(talk) 15:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and to "Wikipedia pages..." - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 03:51, 11 December 2017 (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:Trouble Shooting

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting trouble shooting


 * Nominator's rationale: Intended content is unclear. — swpb T go beyond 16:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete DexDor(talk) 15:59, 10 November 2017 (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.

Braintree, Massachusetts

 * 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/delete as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Braintree, Massachusetts‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Churches in Norfolk County, Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Former buildings and structures in Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:Buildings and structures in Braintree, Massachusetts, Category:History of Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Former buildings and structures in Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:High schools in Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:Buildings and structures in Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:High schools in Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Houses in Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:Buildings and structures in Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Houses in Norfolk County, Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Libraries in Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:Buildings and structures in Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Libraries in Norfolk County, Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Middle schools in Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:Buildings and structures in Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Middle schools in Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Museums in Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:Buildings and structures in Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Museums in Norfolk County, Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Parks in Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:Geography of Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Parks in Norfolk County, Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Railway stations in Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:Buildings and structures in Braintree, Massachusetts, Category:Transportation in Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Railway stations in Norfolk County, Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Sports venues in Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:Buildings and structures in Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Sports venues in Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Artists from Braintree, Massachusetts‎ to Category:People from Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Artists from Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Clergy from Braintree, Massachusetts‎ to Category:People from Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:American Christian clergy
 * Propose merging Category:Mayors of Braintree, Massachusetts‎ to Category:Politicians from Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Mayors of places in Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Musicians from Braintree, Massachusetts‎ to Category:People from Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Musicians from Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:Writers from Braintree, Massachusetts to Category:People from Braintree, Massachusetts and Category:Writers from Massachusetts
 * Propose deleting Category:Burials in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Culture of Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Education in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Media in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Neighborhoods in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Organizations based in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Places of worship in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Politics of Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Religion in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:South Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Sports in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Squares in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Tourism in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Tourist attractions in Braintree, Massachusetts‎
 * Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, enormously complicated category tree for a small-medium town with some 50 biography articles (which allows some diffusion) and a dozen buildings and structures (which presumably should become a single category) and not much else. Some categories, like Category:Neighborhoods in Braintree, Massachusetts, only contain redirects to the Braintree, Massachusetts article. Probably we can even merge further, but let's first wait and see how the category looks like after the above mergers. This nomination is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support all per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This looks like someone noticed the structure of a major city category an decided to mimic it for a small town. Well-meaning, but not our way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support all. Every place that exists does not automatically need such a highly developed tree to overcategorize a few articles; these are justified for major metropolitan cities, but not necessarily for places the size of Braintree unless there are a lot more articles involved than this nest is actually mothering. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2017 (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 educated at Atlantic College

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People educated at Atlantic College to Category:Atlantic College alumni
 * Nominator's rationale: Awkward wording not used on other articles. TM 09:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The rationale is inaccurate; this is the standard form used throughout Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom settled after some very intense debates several years back. Timrollpickering 10:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per everything in Category:People educated by school in Wales. Oculi (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the form used for UK categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2017 (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 educated at a United World College

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There is no clear support to rename the category one way or the other.  ℯ  xplicit  01:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People educated at a United World College to Category:United World College alumni
 * Nominator's rationale: Awkward phrasing. I understand there are more than one United World College but I "educated at" is not used elsewhere to my knowledge. TM 09:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The rationale is inaccurate; this is the standard form used throughout Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom (where UWC is based) settled after some very intense debates several years back. Timrollpickering 10:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per Timrollpickering. If there were to be say a Canadian subcat, that could use the Canadian term, which is probably alumni. Oculi (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the form used for UK categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Alumni" is the term used these days by the very UWC movement itself, which is international rather than British, see http://www.uwc.org/alumni. UnitedW (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per User:UnitedW (though I think that username might be a problem per WP:ISU, and this user should be careful about editing in relation to this topic at all, per WP:COI).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can understand the views of those that say it should be alumni because that's the form used by the organisation itself, although I'm sticking to what I said above (due to the usual WP arguments about the subject's preferences not being the be all and end all and UWC being a British-based organisation). However, if it is moved to an "alumni" category then it should at least be to Category:Alumni of United World Colleges, since that's the form we use in British (higher and further education) categories (see Category:Alumni by university or college in England), thus sticking to the British English form already in use for this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the last two. I propose Category: Alumni of the United World Colleges. UnitedW (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The United World Colleges is a UK-based organisation, so this parent category should follow the UK "people educated at" naming convention. Subcats for individual colleges should follow the convention for the country where thy are located. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt rename to Category: Alumni of the United World Colleges, which follows English conventions, per Necrothesp. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support nomination. The claim that alumni of is the English convention is just false. It is actually just a fluke of who has participated in Wikipedia category discussions. Putting alumni at the end of the phrase is just as common in Britian as in the US, and should be done universally.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We go for consistency. And all British alumni categories are named this way. Who's to say that this version didn't come first on Wikipedia and it shouldn't be reverse naming to the "Alumni of" form? Which looks much better, in my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2017 (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:Fahrenheit 451

 * 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: Symbol move vote.svg Relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 18. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting fahrenheit 451


 * Nominator's rationale: Only navigates three articles other the the main one. Upmerge where appropriate (e.g. main article can go directly into Category:Dystopian novels). ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 3 November 2017 (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.