Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 9

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) at 16:44, 10 April 2007 (→Category:IRA killings: Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:44, 10 April 2007 by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) (→Category:IRA killings: Response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< April 8	April 10 >

April 9

Category:Organisations in Buckinghamshire

Category:Organisations in East Sussex

Propose renaming Category:Organisations in Buckinghamshire to Category:Organisations based in Buckinghamshire

Propose renaming Category:Organisations in East Sussex to Category:Organisations based in East Sussex

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to reflect the convention that organisations are categorised by the locality where they operate, rather than to all the localities where they operate, in line with other recent renamings of categories of organisations for English counties. Hawkestone 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Schools by subject or specialty

Category:Schools by subject or specialty to Category:Universities and colleges by type

Merge, as it is stated to be for post secondary institutions, ie universities and colleges, rather than schools, and is therefore the same as the target category. Some of the subcategories are double-categorised. Oliver Han 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, there has to be some kind of schools by subject, and not all all of these are University level. -- Prove It 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep but the two should be distinct, and the double posted ones should go where they belong--although there are a few,such as Julliard, which combine both & do go in both.DGG 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom, and start again if necessary. These are overwhelmingly and deliberately tertiary institutions. Retention would preserve systematic duplication and factual error. Haddiscoe 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Local Football Team

Delete, Every football team is local ... somewhere ... -- Prove It 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete but only one of them asserts it.DGG 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Early muckrakers

Propose renaming Category:Early muckrakers to Category:Muckrakers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - no reason I can see for arbitrarily limiting the category to "early" muckrakers. Otto4711 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Does Misplaced Pages contain another category that may describe muckrakers? According to muckraker, modern-day people like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein may be described as muckrakers. However, the term is not necessarily used to describe modern-day journalists. Dr. Submillimeter 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - the term also has perjorative meanings (far more common ones), and unless there is some definitive usage of the term, this is likely to only remain POV. Grutness...wha? 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We have Category:Investigative journalists but that doesn't really catch the sensationalist populist aspect of muckraking. Otto4711 23:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename The classification of pre-1950 (approx) muckrakers is not really controversial, and tho the name was originally meant as pejorative, it ha been generally accepted in historical context. But the present list includes IFStone,who doesnt count as "early" I think he might have been pleased to be included, DGG 02:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Investigative journalists - I prefer using this more straightforward term, as it includes both the original "muckrakers" and their modern-day counterparts. Dr. Submillimeter 13:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Slovakian cross-country skiers

Propose renaming Category:Slovakian cross-country skiers to Category:Slovak cross-country skiers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename since it's called Slovak not Slovakian. Punkmorten 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy rename per nom. Baristarim 11:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject U2 Tour Venues

Delete Category for a deleted Project. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jhonen Vasquez

Delete - another eponymous category with all its material extensively interlinked through the main article, making the category unnecessary. Otto4711 18:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pidgins and creoles

Propose renaming the following:

Nominator's Rationale: Rename both to standardize these categories, and to make sure pidgins have a place to go. (I don't think separate categories for pidgins and creoles would be a good idea.) --Ptcamn 18:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nom. Choalbaton 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom. Having both pidgins and creoles in the same category would also avoid the problems of whether a given language is a pidgin or a creole. --Miskwito 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:IRA killings

Over-categorisation. Category:Provisional IRA actions and its sub-category Category:People killed by IRA already cover this adequately. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason this category has been added is because very recently User:Vintagekits has removed from the Category:People killed by IRA the following incidents .

To eliminate this category is to censor the facts and to belittle the deaths of the people that died in all these incidents:

I think that any successful attempt to hide these deaths will result in grossly unfavourable publicity for Misplaced Pages...Gaimhreadhan

• 19:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and think it should be deleted - the category does not accurately reflect these events and they are already in the parent category of "Provisional IRA actions" which is more neutral and a better description of the events. It is therefore superfluous (sp?)--Vintagekits 19:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's take Remembrance Day Bombing for example, and see which relevant categories it's in already shall we? Terrorist incidents in the 1980s, Terrorism in Northern Ireland and Provisional IRA actions - clearly the removal of this one particular category which you chose to create rather than use the existing category is not "censorship" or "spin", but the removal of a superfluous category. You've already falsely claimed that the Provisional IRA actions is for actions where nobody died, which isn't the case at all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you truly believe that then I suggest you revert the actions of Vintagekits in removing all the incidents I named above from the Category:People killed by IRA since it was solely this action (on ostensibly grammatical grounds) which prompted the creation of the new category...Gaimhreadhan

• 19:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should have discussed it before jumping in with two feet and creating this Catogory - p.s. watch you tone and language in the edit summaries and remember WP:CIVIL, regards--Vintagekits 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I object to your use of "comrade" in your edit summary, secondly if you had read the nomination you would realise why VK's edits do not need reverting. Category:People killed by IRA is a sub category of Category:Provisional IRA actions, so articles go in one or the other not both. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You two have already been active in removing Category:People killed by IRA from its super categories. I predict that you will steadily remove its other super category parents and then finally kill the orphan. I think your edit logs already clarify your agenda....Gaimhreadhan • 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1. You do not predict anything - you have no crystal ball! 2. I will remind you for the last time about your tone and suggest you read WP:CIVIL - next time you pull a trick like that then I will report you.--Vintagekits 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the incivility and personal attacks. I chose to concentrate the majority of my time on a particular group of articles, which to be fair, were generally in a very poor state. Using your argument I suppose it's safe to assume that anyone who edits Adolf Hitler is a Nazi who wishes to start another Holocaust? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment It should be noted that User:Gaimhreadhan has been canvassing support for this discussion - . One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Tangential comment - why is the other category "People killed by IRA" when the group is only ever known as the IRA? And, given Misplaced Pages's downer on abbreviations, wouldn't the full title of the Irish Republican Army make more sense anyway? Grutness...wha? 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was thinking that category could do with renaming myself. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that there has been a concerted (and successful) attempt this evening to remove this categorisation from more than a score of articles BEFORE the verdict here. Presumably this is so that it then can be argued that the category is redundant. My POV is clear: All articles referencing killings by the IRA (whether the article is named for a person or for a place or for a date) should be categorised. The purpose of categorisation is to assist readers to explore topics and the purpose of the requested deletion would hinder rather than assist readers in assessing the scale and paramaters of the killings.

This category was only started because of the wholesale campaign of removal from the pre-existing category "People killed by IRA" of such obvious articles as the Birmingham pub bombings on the ( narrowly correct grounds that a pub was not a person! ...Gaimhreadhan • 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this category (which was only created today) it that it is redunant - each of the articles which the editor wants to to put in this category are already categorised in the Category:Provisional IRA actions - so there is no need for this category. There already in a sub category for "People killed by IRA" which is used for people (individuals) who were killed by the IRA therefore this makes this new category redundant as it is just doing what is already done by existing categories!--Vintagekits 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you were unhappy with the current name of Category:Provisional IRA actions you should have proposed it for renaming, instead of creating a new largely duplicate category that goes on all the same articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That word "largely" is very weasel in the context that in the space of a few hours the categorisation of MAJOR articles as "people killed by the IRA was removed because they bore the name of a pub or another place rather than a human being. It was this concerted campaign of obfuscation that prompted my creation of a new category that emphasised that any article that referenced an IRA killing was appropriate. Please think of how the victims families will feel if the Red Tops report that there has been a successful campaign of obfuscation here on WP...Gaimhreadhan

• 23:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that any attempt to hide, or downplay terrorism should always be resisted, whether that terrorism be by Irish, Muslims, or whatever. TharkunColl 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment This user was canvassed by User:Gaimhreadhan here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And does that make my opinion wrong? Are you suggesting that we should hide the acts of terrorists? TharkunColl 23:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment How are we attempting to hide the acts of terrorists by deleting a duplicate category? I've already demonstrated exactly how many terrorist related categories one article is in above, hardly hiding is it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we're not really interested at this stage in the killings of Gerbils or fish I suggest that the artificially narrow category of "People killed by the IRA" be renamed "IRA killings". Then such articles as the Birmingham Pub and Brighton bombings as well as articles on named individual victims could all be categorised in the newly named category of "IRA killings"....Gaimhreadhan

• 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment That's inconsistent with practically every People... category there is. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaving out the pub bombimgs would give a wholly sanitised view of the IRA. We must be truthful. TharkunColl 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Well your first post here was "shouting" about them being terrorists so if we combine that with the fact the you were hand picked and canvassed to come here it is in my opinion safe enough to say that you may be biased. Please try and be balanced in your contributions. A category which states anything less the Category:Victims if Bloody thirsty baby killing terrorist would be the only thing that some would be happy to see. The whole issue here is that wiki has policies - one is WP:NPOV and we should try and adhere to that. This catoegory is redundant and is already well served by Category:Provisional IRA actions.--Vintagekits 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Birmingham pub bombings is not sanitised, it has Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1970s, please say how that is possibly sanitised? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it categorises by the victims, rather than the perpetrators. TharkunColl 23:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes, and that's we have Category:Provisional IRA actions, so why create a duplicate category? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my temerity in pointing out that these are NOT duplicate categories.

There are (and will be more in the future) Misplaced Pages articles that detail actions that are not provisional ira actions but are republican actions. Equally, there will be actions that do not result in killings (eg: maimings, tortures, arsons, ~~rapes~~, blackmails, robbings, kneecappings, etc). I therefore suggest two new categories of Category:Republican killings and Category:Loyalist killings then we may be able to subsume your proposed Category:British Army killings into the latter since the numbers (tens of millions) are too great if that is proposed as a serious category for all documented killings by one of the greatest terrorist forces the world has ever seen.W. Frank 15:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

May I ask a question? Is it permissible to change the categorisation of multiple articles before a conclusion has been reached here?

[The reason that I ask is that I notice that within the last couple of days the Category:IRA killings has been removed from more than a dozen major Misplaced Pages articles involving multiple killings by the same two participants of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism
see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism#Participants
and also see the edit histories of:

W. Frank 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I ask that you strike through rapes, unless you can provide evidence that a rape has been committed in the republican cause? The category was removed to maintain some level of NPOV, given it was created purely to add the term "killings" to articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rapes are an example of non-lethal actions and the word rape is contained in a sentence that introduces my suggested two new categories of Category:Republican killings and Category:Loyalist killings rather than in the prior sentence dealing with provisional ira actions and republican actions. I have read editions of an poblacht (sorry if I've got the spelling wrong) that do detail "Loyalist Rape"s but I am happy for you to strike through the word "rape" if you find it misleading (I can't since I'm too ignorant to know hoe to use strike thtru.)

Apologies in advance for any offence caused.

What do you think of the multiple categorisation deletions before we've reached a conclusion here?

No problem, I wouldn't particularly class a rape committed by a Loyalist or Republican (or anyone else for that matter) to be a Loyalist/Republican rape. I'm more concerned about the addition of the new category to articles for the sole purpose of adding the word "killings" to the article, when it's already made very clear in the article that people died. With one exception every single article it's been added to was in Category:Provisional IRA actions, and that article is Dunmanway Massacre which according to the category description shouldn't be in there anyway as it's before the arbitrary cut off time of 00:01hrs 1 January 1948 UTC. So it's quite clear it's not being added to articles for any navigational purpose, but simply to add the word "killings". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point, 303.

I agree with you and others that we should be bold and call a spade a spade. The reasons we have articles on these incidents at all includes:-

The fact that people died
The fact that people died by intentional action (rather than influenza or other act of god)
The fact that people died as a result of a planned campaign by a republican organisation

That's why I think it important that we choose between Category:Republican killings and Category:IRA killings. Which do you prefer?

And would you please also comment on my previous question:

Is it permissible to change the categorisation of multiple articles before a conclusion has been reached here?

see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism#Participants
and also see the edit histories of:

W. Frank 16:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely permissable to remove articles from that category - the issue at hand here is the category itself - so ifarticles are incorrectly added then they can be removed. I just think that this is a poor category and adds nothing that is already provided by Category:Provisional IRA actions, additionally your "point number 2" above is incorrect.--Vintagekits 16:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I prefer neither of the proposed new categories, as they add nothing that the existing categories do not already. As you agreed above the only purpose of the category is to add the word "killings" to articles which are already clearly stating that people died, and are categorised as terrorist attacks. If this category remains on articles, I will be adding {{NPOV}} to the articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Shaun White

Delete - another eponymous category without the volume of material to necessitate it. The articles are all interlinked and the images are properly categorized in image-related categories. Otto4711 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Misplaced Pages:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons seasons

Category:The Simpsons episodes, season 1

Category:The Simpsons episodes, season 1 to Category:The Simpsons episodes

Merge, As per the Futurama seasons merge Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 8. Limited categories with a maximum of about 24. Data already presented in a list. I've tagged the other 17 categories too. Lugnuts 17:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the reason these categories were created in the first place was because Category:The Simpsons episodes had gotten too big and unwieldy. --Redeagle688 03:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Goonies

Delete - Lightly populated category with little chance of growth. The various articles are already well-interlinked with each other and the main Goonies article. Otto4711 16:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hollywood families

Propose renaming Category:Hollywood families to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - the title as it exists is US-centric especially since the category is capturing families from outside Hollywood and the US. I'm unsure what to suggest as a new name, though, because the categories include family members known for a variety of disciplines and mediums. Otto4711 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Seems non-defining. What exactly is a Hollywood family? --Ezeu 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete vague, useless category. Doczilla 01:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ghouls 'n' Ghosts characters

Delete. It's simple. There's no characters in this category. Basara-kun 04:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In which case, if it's empty for at least 4 days, you can speedy delete under CSD-C1 {{db-cat empty}} Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment How do we know this category wasn't emptied by a vandal? Greg Grahame 11:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I only found one article on a character from the game (Red Arremer) that used to be in the category, but was moved back into the main Category:Ghosts 'n Goblins category a while ago. It's possible that someone just created this category for one article. Recury 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Captain Commando characters

Delete. Same that above. Captain Commando was moved to Category:Capcom characters. Basara-kun 04:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

as above, speedy delete if empty for at least 4 days. Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Nonprofit organizations in New York

Propose renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations in New York to Category:Non-profit organizations based in New York

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Match true spelling/hyphenization of "Non-profit" and follow Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Miscellaneous to use "based in". Scarykitty 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nominator. --Ezeu 06:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nominator. Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Nonprofit organizations in Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations in Illinois to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Illinois

Rename per nominator. --Ezeu 06:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nominator. Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Nonprofit organizations based in Colorado

Propose renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations based in Colorado to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Colorado

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Match true spelling/hyphenization of "Non-profit" See Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United States. Scarykitty 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nominator. --Ezeu 06:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nominator. Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Nonprofit organizations in California

Propose renaming Category:Nonprofit organizations in California to Category:Non-profit organizations based in California

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Match true spelling/hyphenizatino of "Non-profit" and follow Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Miscellaneous to use "based in" Scarykitty 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nominator. --Ezeu 06:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nominator. Bencherlite 09:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Vogue Magazines

Delete, Category redundant; Category:Vogue already exists --Mhking 03:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete, redundant. --Ezeu 06:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Worldperks

Delete, No individual entry on WorldPerks exists. There was a WorldPerks entry however it was merged with Northwest Airlines in 2006. A list of participating companies should be included at Northwest Airlines#WorldPerks. Many of the linked company's individual articles do not mention WorldPerks at all, an example is Aeroflot. Russavia 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 10:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Projects

Delete, Too vague. Consists merely of articles with the word "project" in the title. Ezeu 01:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep — I am aiming that individual entries will be diffused down into sub-categories and that this will mainly be a holder for sub-categories and articles that need narrower categories in general. The category currently already has some sub-categories (not mentioned above) and I would propose more as the structure becomes more apparent. The articles have been selected less randomly that might be inferred from the first comment above. The articles are all projects in some sense and many articles with "project" in the title that are not actually projects have not been included. This is work in progress that I am happy to continue if the category remains. But I guess I don't want to put in the effort if it will be deleted. So let the Misplaced Pages process commence! — Jonathan Bowen 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete category whose title is vague beyond any semblance of usefulness. Doczilla 08:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - This is the categorization of anything named a "project", which is a form of overcategorization. The various articles and subcategories have little in common. For example, Project Cadmus, a fictional genetic engineering program in DC Comics, has nothing in common with Project 211, a massive university construction project in China. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. There is no essential connection between the disparate articles to which the very vague term "project" may be applied. Haddiscoe 10:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OC#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names; having the word "project" in their name doesn't necessarily suggest any commonality between the entries. Walton 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment — "Project" has a perfectly good Misplaced Pages article defining the essence of a project, linked from the category. I have filtered all the articles into more appropriate sub-categories so many of the arguments above no longer apply. Instead (not mentioned above) the sub-categories given different domains of projects. — Jonathan Bowen 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This does not solve the problem. This is still the categorization of unrelated things by name. For example, Category:Building projects does not contain articles that are related to Category:Research projects aside from the fact that both things could be described as "projects". Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Xaverian Brothers Sponsored Schools

Propose renaming Category:Xaverian Brothers Sponsored Schools to Category:Schools sponsored by the Xaverian Brothers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename The capitalization is speediable, and the supplementary rephrasing will hopefully be seen as an improvement. ReeseM 01:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Chemical engineering topics

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as user mistake Physchim62 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaning(ed), as per consensus in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemistry, Category talk:Chemical engineering topics. Rifleman 82 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with deleting this category. Essentially, it just duplicates the Category:Chemical engineering which has been in existence for a long time. This new category is completely redundant and unneeded. - mbeychok 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The category is redundant with Category:Chemical engineering and List of chemical engineering topics. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The category talk page has been archived at Talk:List of chemical engineering topics. Physchim62 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.