The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as empty [1]. ∞Who?¿? 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

empty and uncategorized cat, and I'm not sure if it would have a use.

• Salsb 00:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pov. CalJW 06:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 12:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a rather odd category. -Splash^talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed---pov and odd. Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; category was created by someone who also previously created Category:Minor Singapore LGBT articles, which was previously CfD'd as well. How anyone would determine what constitutes a "minor topic" is beyond me. Bearcat 05:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a Bad Idea. the wub "?/!" 11:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Reverse speedy rename. ∞Who?¿? 19:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

empty and Category:Monster Trucks exists

• Salsb 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely it's a speedy delete the other way round.Category:Monster Trucks should be emptied into Category:Monster trucks. CalJW 06:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if it's speedy, but fully agree with CalJW otherwise. Reverse Merge "trucks" should not be capitalized. - TexasAndroid 17:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It not being a brand name, the 't' should indeed be lower case. Reverse merge as above, and it's a valid speedy. -Splash^talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per CalJW. Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note, closed as speedy rename under CSD criteria. ∞Who?¿? 19:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as misspelling [2] . ∞Who?¿? 19:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

empty and misspelling of existing Category:Mountains of Saudi Arabia Salsb 23:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete empty misspelled duplicate. - choster 05:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy. -Splash^talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy indeed. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 18:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can establish from the relevant article no distinction is made between cities and towns in Belgium. This category includes everything from Brussels down. In this situation it is standard to use the form category:Cities and towns in Belgium. CalJW 23:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• support Vb 11:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed, but some articles in the category currently are neither towns nor cities - for example Etterbeek and Beyne-Heusay are municipalities of larger cities, while Sint-Martens-Lierde is a village. These and any others should be moved to category:Municipalities of Belgium (or its sub-categories of municipality by province) or another suitable category. Should there also be a category:Villages in Belgium? --David Edgar 15:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category

• Delete CalJW 23:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Salsb 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Moved to SFD. ∞Who?¿? 18:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created cat, largely because it was a red link on the corrosponding stub template. I wasn't aware there already was one. Redirecting didn't work.

• Delete Kross 18:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CalJW 23:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• To SfD. -Splash^talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as empty [3]. ∞Who?¿? 19:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant - now empty, and no more will be added.

• CLW 16:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CalJW 23:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as empty [4]. ∞Who?¿? 19:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant - now empty, and no more will be added.

• CLW 16:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CalJW 23:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 00:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 17:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with category:Categories by country Kappa 10:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename CalJW 23:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I wonder how all these things that don't have nationalities per se sprung up. They should certainly all be fixed. -Splash^talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I don't think a hospital has a nationality per se, but it definitely exists within a country. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant; Category:Horn players exists and covers the variations on the French Horn as well. Delete Hathawayc 06:29, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, more so that Category:Horn players has only about 10 articles in it. Karol 21:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 22:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hurry before we end up new categories for sopranino, soprano, alto, tenor, baritone, bass and contrabass saxophones, too! -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant; there's already a Category:Philippine writers. Delete Hathawayc 06:21, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Neither of these two categories seems to be properly parented. Category:Writers by nationality indicates that "writers" is preferred over "authors", but what is the rationale behind using "Phillipine" over "Fillipino"? The latter is in common English usage and is, AFAIK, also more accurate. siafu 22:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Filipino is also the name of a language, "Filipino writers" could be interpreted as meaning only those who write in Filipino. "Philippine writers", on the other hand, would mean any writer from the Philippines regardless of what language they write in. Therefore merge Category:Filipino Authors to Category:Philippine writers. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This logic isn't in use in the rest of the categorization scheme, however. See Category:French writers, Category:Spanish writers, Category:Russian writers, Category:German writers, Category:English writers, and many others, the adjectives for all of which are both the names of languages and the names of nationalities. Stated clearly, the original question I was raising is which term is more common? A term being both the name of a language and a nationality is irrelevant. siafu 17:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, uncategorized category. I think Category:Domesticated animals covers the need quite well. Delete. Hathawayc 05:55, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Livestock has all the farm animals we need. Karol 21:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant per Karol. siafu 23:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Karol. -Splash^talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Karol. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 15:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created eight days ago and empty. The practice seems to be that all settlments in Canada go in the relevant provincial category in category:Communities in Canada. Those that are officially designated as cities or towns also go in Category:Cities in Canada or category:Towns in Canada. Delete CalJW 04:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Communities in Canada is currently far too broad and confusing, as it includes both incorporated municipalities and neighbourhoods within incorporated municipalities. The different types of "communities" have to be separated more clearly. Ultimately, "communities" should only include named communities within larger municipalities, and the municipalities themselves should all be in more specific categories like "cities", "towns", "villages" or "townships". The answer to the category's current emptiness is to populate it, not to kill it. Keep and populate. Bearcat 19:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. Category:Subdivisions of Canada shows the subcategories, which I guess should be present for each region (Ontario, Manitoba, etc.). Karol 21:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But is the term village actually used in Canada? Given Canada's size, level of internet access and majority language, it seemed a fair assumption that it isn't if not one place in the country has been categorised as such by now. If it isn't populated by the end of the seven days, I believe it can be deleted for being empty, even if it has a theoretical use. So perhaps you could start populating it to prove it can be done - even if with just one article. CalJW 06:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term certainly is used. As for why "not one place in the country has been categorised as such by now", try looking at the page history: the category was only just created less than two weeks ago, and none of the Canadian contingent have any particular responsibility to psychically know that the category exists if nobody brings it to our attention. I'll do what I can to populate the category, but since Canadian geography isn't normally my main project you'll have to excuse me if I don't immediately deem it my top editing priority. Bearcat 19:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But no one created it in the previous fourteen months! All I'm saying is that I would have expected someone to have done so if villages are at all common in Canada. There are village categories for Croata, Slovakia and Peru. CalJW 03:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, in other words, any category that hasn't already been created is a priori invalid because if it were needed it'd have already been created before now. How...um, enlightening. Bearcat 05:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This really depends on having Canadian Wikipedians who have an interest in the topic, and the time and inclination to work on it. It's not a reflection of need. Mindmatrix 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Question shouldn't this be something like Category:Towns and villages in Canda per several others we've had through here lately? -Splash^talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not if there is distinction between them in Canada and we have been informed that there is. CalJW 03:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It would be better for it to have been created by reference within an Article, preferably having several members ready to join the Category. If someone knows the topic well enough to populate it, wouldn't populating it be considered part of this discussion? (SEWilco 06:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment. I'd like to request this CfD be postponed, until we've had time to discuss this in more detail at the Canadian wikipedians notice board. I've recently stubbed most Canada location articles, and categorized a significant number of them, but there are many missing categories still. I'd like to make sure we have a sound plan for these articles before proceeding. BTW: the Communities in Canada category (and its children) will likely be deleted in the future, in favour of more specific categories. Mindmatrix 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - after some discussion and fact-finding, it's clear that this category is necessary. There are numerous incorporated villages in at least three provinces - Ontario, British Columbia, and Manitoba. It also follows the current naming convention used for Canadian location categories. Mindmatrix 02:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Previously deleted. ∞Who?¿? 19:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be proposed to be renamed as Category:Law & Order spinoff characters; The main section (Category:Law & Order characters) list the characters from the original series, Law & Order, but the afore mentioned one, has the characters from its later spinoffs. Making it why I wan to rename this page. 'Nuff said!

• Rename somehow, but get rid of the ampersand at all costs, and spell it out. -Splash^talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into parent category and delete. -Sean Curtin 05:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note, this category was previously listed and moved. ∞Who?¿? 19:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 14:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was simply that the word "the" is missing, but looking at the other categories in category:images by country it seems that category:United States images is the most consistent option. Rename CalJW 04:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody fill us in on the current state of the policy debate on the naming format for national subject categories? The proper naming format for this category is defined by that policy, not by "consistency within the Images parent category superseding consistency within the United States parent". If the debate is resolved, then rename to whatever format was decided on by that discussion; if it's still open, then suspend this vote pending the result. Bearcat 19:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that these categories are better standardised to images of (country), since the parent is category:images by country. Only people are categorised by nationality as policy stands at the moment. Therefore, propose renaming to category:Images of the United States Hiding talk 21:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider. I generally favour using "American" but IMO that debate isn't relevant here. Looking at it again, This is a special case and there is an unusual but clearly established format. The other categories are in the form "name of country [noun]... images". This is very unusual, but it hasn't been chosen on a whim. The format that is being used for the other countries makes sense. "American images" would include paintings done by American artists on holiday in Europe and the like. The images are not images of X but images of things and places in X. Only a few satellite images are literally "Images of the United States". We must go with category:United States images or come up with a good reason to breach a clearly established standard format. CalJW 06:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have no problem understanding that images of the Statue of Liberty or the White House are images of the United States. Isn't that the common way to refer to groups of images of objects within a country, they are images of that country. I suggest that the format is unusual and not perhaps common usage. I would rather all sub cats of category:images by country were renamed images of country. Hiding talk 13:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please leave that discussion for another time and approve renaming to category:United States images as an interim measure? At the moment there is an obvious error in the name of one of the top-tier categories in what is doubtless the most viewed national menu. This makes Wikipedia look shoddy. It wouldn't be allowed to stand in Britannica or Encarta. CalJW 18:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it probably matters little enough anyway, and either name is as descriptive. Rename per nom. Hiding talk 19:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there isn't an established standard format in this matter; there are competing ideas on what should be the established format ("nation-name subject", "national-adjective subject", "subject by/of/in nation", etc.) Parent categories don't get to each have their own preferred format which has to be upheld regardless of what format is used in other parents; the only real issue at play here is inconsistency in the naming format across Wikipedia as a whole. Furthermore, if you're going to insist on respecting the standard in place within the parent category, why is "Images by country" privileged over "United States" as the parent category which gets to define the standard that should be used here? The category needs to be consistent with other categories in Category:Images by country only in the sense that they all need to be consistent with Wikipedia policy on the naming of national subject subcategories; parent categories do not each set their own individual standard. Bearcat 20:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly no consensus for such an approach - you are offering an extremely contentious personal opinion. You are suggesting that Wikipedia should show no sensitivity whatsoever to normal usage or to local variations in usage. This simply isn't how things actually work. CalJW 19:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are looking at the wrong "parent" category. This category was created under Category:Images of North America, with the topmost parent being Category:Images of places. If you look at the nominated Category you'll see it contains the Wikipedia:List of images notice. (SEWilco 20:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep: until a standard for a new name exists. This is not the place for a rename policy discussion. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). (SEWilco 20:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete subcats --Kbdank71 14:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wario platform games
• Category:WarioWare games

• NOTE: I've combined the two nominations, see below for the cutoff point. ALttP refers to to the two categories above in his nomination. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't enough Wario games to warrant splitting Category:Wario games into this and the CfD below. Delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:27, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - this category is currently empty, but only because the nominator depopulated it. --Pagrashtak 04:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I created both this category and its parent (Wario Games) to take pressure off Category:Platform games and Category:Nintendo games and to reduce the number of groups to which the Wario Land/World games belonged. It's my opinion that orthogonally strict and informative parent categorization outweighs the cost of small intersecting sub-groups in cases like this. I have done a lot of (IMO) clean-up of Platform games through subcategorization of franchises, splitting into sub-genres as needed. Ex: Category:Mario Bros. games => Category:Mario platform games + [...] If this is improper categorization behavior, I will stop. 167.76.159.30 19:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's irrelevant, there's already a category that both WarioWare and Wario platform games can go. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think per the anon and repopulate. The nominator should not really be trying to second guess everyone by depopulating in advance. What is the category referred to where they can currently go? Just the platform games one? I think there's room for more specific cat'ing here. -Splash^talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The group has parents properly separated for several levels upwards and was already repopulated by Pagrashtak. This follows style conventions and will probably end up growing over time in any event. Consider renaming to the less accurate but more recognizeable/less awkward-sounding 'Wario Land games'. 24.207.163.96 04:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, how about Category:Wario games ? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It didn't even exist until I made it a few days ago, and it wouldn't be of any use in linking into game genres unless subdivided. The category for these games is fully traversible upwards by several different criteria. See again how sprawling Category:Platform games still is. I'll say again that correctness and usefullness should trump distaste for a small category intersection in cases like these. Subcategorizing 'Wario platform games' to 'Mario platform games' again (something you've apparently previously undone) may be a good idea for that matter. 167.76.159.32 12:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for my reasons listed above. I did this as much for cleaning up Platform games as for helping the individual games. 167.76.159.32 12:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's terrible logic. The fact of the matter is that there's no good reasoning to split the category; now that the Wario category exists, there exists no point in splitting up a Category that would only have ten articles on it in the first place. You're arguing that Wario games take up space on platform games, they can just be moved to the Wario category. By the way, IPs can vote on anything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try to be coherent here. First of all, I assume you mean that anonymous users can't vote. O well. Primarily, however, I'm arguing that you can't have any other categorization without either a) filling up a parent category, b) losing the secondary categorization (your suggestion, I think), or c) having incorrect categorization by making the group union (WG) be a member of both genre categories (Platformers and Puzzles). 167.76.159.30 13:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: I've combined the two nominations, all comments up to this point were identical. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedie Delete one category for all wario games is more than enough! --Cool Cat ^Talk 21:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just silly. The keepers are arguing that they want to keep them to prevent them from going back to the Platform games category, which they know won't happen. How about you explain why it can't move to Category:Wario games? - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the games should be reachable through a PG or Puzzles subcategory. Collapsing C:WG and making it a member of both genre categories (which is what I think you're trying to say) is a patently incorrect heirarchy decision because the members do not belong in each genre. On the other hand, if you're trying to say that cleanup of C:PG is futile (your 'which' has an ambiguous antecedent), say so clearly and I'll disagree as a matter of opinion. P.S. Please be more careful in linking categories. This is your third CfD post that I've had to edit to keep these pages out of C:WG. 167.76.159.32 15:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, let me explain something. Eleven articles is NOT a big category. The only reason to split a category from a larger one is size or if it's a spinoff. What about that don't you get? Jeez, I am not suggesting that Wario games be put on either. Mario platformers are at a count of fourteen, while Wario games aren't even half that. Tell me, without cracking a grin, that categorizing WarioWare games and Wario platform games would make the category too big. Right now, it's too SMALL. When there's only FOUR ARTICLES ON A SUBCATEGORY, without ANY reason to split it apart other than "it's of a different genre", it SHOULD be put back into the category. There is LITERALLY no good reason to split them apart.
      • Watch this:
        • Wario games - Two articles (one of which isn't a Wario game)
        • Wario platform games - six articles
        • WarioWare games - four articles
      • And you know what? They would add up to a good number at eleven. Will you just drop these categories? They don't convenience anyone. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are obviously incapable of understanding my point. Please let third parties decide the fate of these categories. I will not post here any further and will not contest or undermine a consensus of deletion. 167.76.159.30 19:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zach (Sound Off) 22:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ALttP. — Phil Welch 23:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.