Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ssd (talk | contribs) at 05:07, 12 September 2004 (→Sept 11). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:07, 12 September 2004 by Ssd (talk | contribs) (→Sept 11)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Guidelines and policies

Shortcut
  • ]
  1. Read and understand Misplaced Pages:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies there, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas.
  2. Do not depopulate / remove the category tags from articles before the community has made a decision.
  3. Add the name of the new category and {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
  4. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day.
  5. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like ]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  6. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
Resources for maintenance
and collaboration
Cleanup
Categories
Create an article
Referencing
Stubs
Deletion
Polishing
Translation into English
Images
Controversy
To-do lists
Disambiguation
More
For a listing of ongoing discussions,
see the dashboard.

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Old discussions from this page have been archived to:

There is currently a debate on Misplaced Pages:Categorisation of people which you may want to look at if you are thinking about nominating a people-related category for deletion. Many such disputes are ending up in /unresolved.


Current (tentative) cleanup practices:

  • Categories nominated immediately after creation by their creator, or due to misspelling may be deleted and de-listed after 2 days if there are no objections. Presumably these discussions are not interesting, and so do not need to be saved on /resolved.
  • People-related discussions that do not have a clear consensus for deletion after 5 days are moved to /unresolved (interim measure until the current mega-controversy is resolved).
  • If there is a clear consensus for deletion after 7 days, then de-populate the category and move it to the "Delete me" section (unless it is a "red link", in which case, it is already deleted). Save interesting conversations in /resolved; discard uninteresting conversations.
  • If there is a clear consensus to keep after 7 days: 1.) Copy the discussion to the category's talk page. 2.) Remove the {{cfd}} tag from the category page. 3.) If the discussion is precedent-setting, put a note in /resolved with a link to the category's talk page.
  • There is currently a poll on Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for deletion about what to do if there is no clear consensus.

Likely nominees

Your help is needed sorting through a list of /likely candidates for deletion.

Nominations

Sept 12

Category:List

Category:List should be merged with Category:Lists, although most of the contents should probably go into a subcategory there. --ssd 05:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 11

Category:Mysterious people

Hopelessly vague and subjective. Lunchboxhero 23:02, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • It's POV. Who's to say what makes a person "mysterious?" What criteria were used? Most importantly, why is this distinction considered significant to begin with? Delete. --Ardonik.talk() 23:10, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • It may be POV, but it's a nice collection of interesting people, ranging from clearly very mysterious to somewhat mysterious. I vote Keep'. --ssd 04:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Middle-earth Sindar, Category:Middle-earth Eldar

Superseded by Category:Grey Elves and Category:High Elves. See also Category talk:Middle-earth Elves. ] 22:09, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:History of Life and Category:History of Climate

Casing errors. Emptied and moved to Category:History of life and Category:History of climate, respectively. --Lexor|Talk 10:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:GFDL images

These are being squirted all over image pages, wasting people time (and database content) .. but are completely meaningless (GDFL explicitly only applies to text). Or, if they are supposed to apply to the text of the image pages, they are redundant. mfc

  • Good gravy, this is one of the largest categories on the Misplaced Pages (I figure only Category:Stub has more articles under its wing.) I'm pretty sure you're completely and utterly wrong about the applicability of the GFDL to images, but I'll withhold my vote until someone more nuanced in these matters than I can provide a comment. Abstaining from the "strong keep" side of the fence. --Ardonik.talk()
  • Keep. Perfectly harmless and automatically added by {{GFDL}}. The GFDL can and does apply to images. Guanaco 20:33, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this category in danger of hitting the 15k limit? --ssd 04:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 10

Category:Priests

As a supposed child of Category:Roman Catholic Church this was very badly named as the word "priests" is too generic and can refer to other religions as well. I moved its contents to Category:Roman Catholic priests which can now take its place. Aris Katsaris 02:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Flags of the states of the United States of America

Duplicates Category:U.S. state flags (or vice versa, but since Category:U.S. state flags is the populated one, farewell to Category:Flags of the states of the United States of America!) Tregoweth 02:49, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Anderson; Category:Bauer; Category:Cole; Category:Collins; Category:Fischer; Category:Farmer; Category:Schmitt

Sorry, but these all seem completely stupid. The guy seems to want to make a different category for each single surname in the English language that there ever existed, or atleast ones that he can find more than two people sharing the name!! This is as much a definition of categorization scheme gone wild as one can hope to find. Please delete. Aris Katsaris 22:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC).

  • Delete all. Postdlf 22:38, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow this is an ambitious project! I wouldn't imagine it will end up being so useful, though. Delete. -Seth Mahoney 22:41, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tempted to vote "keep", but for the headache of linking and listing similar-sounding and otherwies linked names. -Sean Curtin 01:47, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quadell (talk) 04:44, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • The Misplaced Pages is not a geneology or surname list; I'm surprised that the creator of these articles was User:Jerzy (one of the admins!) This stuff makes better sense in the Wiktionary, where the etymology and origin of specific names can be discussed. I don't envision people trying to find out who the world's most notable Smiths were by typing "Smith" in the search box.
    Delete. --Ardonik.talk() 00:26, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Capital punishment

Duplicates Category:Death penalty. Susvolans 10:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Art galleries, museums, and museums, oh my

Category:Art_galleries_and_museums should be merged with Category:Museums, all the way down to the Art galleries and museums and/or Museums in Location X categories at the bottom of this muddled dual hierarchy. How this might be accomplished is not for me to say, but it is for you. -- Beland 02:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Assyrian_Orthodoxy

I think this may be a reference to the Assyrian Church of the East which is apparently no longer needed. I found it empty. -- Beland 02:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete empty category. I can't even see what articles would be placed in it. --Ardonik.talk() 00:15, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Acadaemia

Redundant with Category:Academia, but it has a weird Misplaced Pages: page in it, by accident, I think. -- Beland 02:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Guanaco 02:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What to do about the weird Misplaced Pages: article? -- Beland 02:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Which article are you referring to? --Ardonik.talk() 00:19, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Category:United States sport

Redundant as Category:American sports already exists and has more entries. GordyB 10:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 9

Category:All_system_messages

I found it empty. There is only one possible member, Misplaced Pages:All system messages, which belongs directly in Category:Misplaced Pages:Template or successor. -- Beland 13:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:American_car_companies

Replaced by Category:Car companies of the United States. -- Beland 13:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Afghan vs. Afghani

To my understanding, "Afghan" is proper English; "Afghani" is not. Thus:

-- Beland 13:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I made both of those categories, and I agree, I was wrong. They should both say "Afghan". Quadell (talk) 04:46, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Afghan leaders

Why not just make it a sub cat? It captures people who should be in the category:Monarchs, while non-monarch heads of state of Afganistan shouldn't be in there. Gentgeen 17:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. OK, done. -- Beland 01:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Aristocrats

This is empty and points to Category:Nobility, which doesn't exist. Was Category:Nobility deleted on purpose? If so, this should be, too. -- Beland 13:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Australian_Liberal_Party_MHRs

It would be redundant with Category:Australian_Liberal_Party_politicians, but I'm not sure this group shouldn't be subdivided. -- Beland 13:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Australian_Labor_Party_MHRs

Same as above. -- Beland 13:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Ontologically uncertain

This category defines its purpose as, "there is some uncertainty of the existance of the things in this catagory. It may sound odd to have a catagory with members that may or may not exist, but the various beliefs regarding their existance is the cause of many great cultural events." Category is inherently POV, and includes such miscellaneous items as God, Aryan race, and unicorns. Smerdis of Tlön 13:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I kind of like the idea behind this category: all things about whose existence we are uncertain, though I think the title could use some tweaking. I don't think it represents a problematic POV to say, for example, that we are, as a species, not certain that God or races in general (not just the Aryan) exist. The topic is heavily debated. Unicorns, I think, we are agreed don't exist. But yeah! I kinda jive with the category its self. Maybe it just needs some cleanup. -Seth Mahoney 22:48, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Highly POV. The idea can be preserved by making sure that all of the contents are in some way subcategorized under categories that make their status as beliefs apparent (Category:Belief, Category:Theories, etc). -01:53, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • As everything ultimately comes down to a belief, theory, or assumption, not so good an idea. Postdlf 06:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I was going to make the obvious argument that there is a difference between my believing, say, in you and my believing in, say, God, when I realized the category should be deleted for an entirely different reason. God should be its only member, or at least is the only member I can think of off the top of my head. Then I realized that other things can be put there, if we're talking strictly philosophy, like numbers, ideas, thoughts, and so on. Now I'm going back to keep, but maybe with a different title and as a subcategory of Ontology. Also, remove the mythical beasts. I still don't think their ontological status is uncertain. -Seth Mahoney 07:03, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: could one of you who think this category is POV explain why? It doesn't seem POV at all to me to say "the existence of this thing is contested". -Seth Mahoney 07:04, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Contested by whom? After all, if we really want to remain NPOV we'd have to include Holocaust in this category - the vocal minority of Holocaust deniers probably outnumbers the people who believe in unicorns. And there are still Flat Earthers and non-heliocentrists out there, so all articles relating to space travel and the circumnavigation of the globe should be given this tag. -Sean Curtin 23:23, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Category:1900s (decade) and Category:2000s (decade)

(These were moved from Empty orphans, below, where it was suggested that they be replaced by Category:1900s and Category:2000s.)

The phrase 1900s usually refers to the period from 1900 to 1999. I suppose there should be a separate way to refer to the years 1900 to 1909. (The Twentieth century refers to the years 1901 to 2000, which is a slightly different timeframe than the 1900s.) But I'm not sure if we even need categories for these time frames at all. Quadell (talk) 04:56, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...see also Category:20th century. If there are going to be categories regarding time periods, the existing scheme of decades and centuries and years for well-documented periods seems reasonable to me...though it might be nice to align the two with something like Category:1900-1999? -- Beland 06:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Empty orphans, 0-A

The following categories (in the left-hand column) were orphaned and empty when they found them, and they all had an obvious replacement or replacement. After the -> are shown the replacements. If you object to one or more of these being deleted, please separate it out into its own section so we can more easily discuss it. -- Beland 06:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

category:American actors

We already have Category: U.S. actors and actresses ] 06:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Hurricane seasons

The structure looked like this: 

I. Category:Tropical cyclones
   A. Category:Atlantic hurricanes
   B. Category:Hurricane seasons
      1. Category:Atlantic hurricane seasons

The Category:Hurricane seasons is an unnecessary level. This is similar to the previous Olympic discussion. I moved Category:Atlantic hurricane seasons into Category:Tropical cyclones. —Mike 05:27, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sept 8

Category:Misplaced Pages:Template

This violates the "don't show category structure" rule, and is also a little confusing. If this is a useful category, I think should be re-named to "Category:Misplaced Pages templates". -- Beland 01:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages:All_system_messages

There's only one article, and no potential for expansion, as far as I can see. -- Beland 01:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages:Infobox_template

There's only one article, and no potential for expansion, as far as I can see. -- Beland 01:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages:Navigational template

There's only one article, and no potential for expansion, as far as I can see. -- Beland 01:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject:Texas

  • Only two articles, the Wikiproject page and its discussion page. I think someone may be missing the point here. -- Beland 00:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)



Sept 7

Category:Vivisection

This category represents a POV expansion of the concept of vivisection as discussed in the vivisection article to include all animal experimentation and cast it in a POV light. An appropriate category would be Category:Animal Experimentation or some such. While arguably, there could be a category about only vivisection strictly construed, only 1 current resident would qualify (there are only 4 as it is) and it would be difficult to verify many residents, and would require constant POV creep policing which we have experienced re: vivisection. Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 21:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Category:LPMud Drivers

Violates naming conventions (capitalization). Entries transferred to Category:LPMud gamedrivers. -- Naive cynic 19:24, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

New category is more properly "LPMud drivers" --Nspollution 20:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Category:Life

Redundant with Category:Biology and Category:Origin of life. --Lexor|Talk 03:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is Category:Life intended to be the beginning of the tree of life? —Mike 04:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
If so, it needs a different name, perhaps Category:Evolutionary tree of life, or just Category:Evolutionary tree. --Lexor|Talk 12:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This reads like one of the fundamental categories listed on the main page. Maybe it should be added to that scheme. Category:Evolutionary tree as a replacement for Category:Life, BTW, would be POV. -Seth Mahoney 22:51, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
If the intention of the category creator is as an evolutionary tree, i.e. in the sense of the WikiProject Tree of Life (which it certainly currently looks like), then that's not POV, it's describing what it is. I'd also be happy with Category:Tree of life in that case if the word "evolution" raises hackles, since it's often referred to it as that by biologists too. What I'm saying is that if we have Category:Biology, and the intention of category is about topic relating to life in the biological sense (i.e. not personal life etc), then we don't really need it. If it means anything else then it also needs to renamed to avoid confusion with life in the biological sense. --Lexor|Talk 10:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sept 6

Category:Rebel Alliance and Category:New Republic

Since there was a huge overlap between those categories (a character in one of them was 95% certain to belong to the other one as well) I asked about merging the two in the relevant talk pages. Getting no objection, I proceeded to create Category:Rebel Alliance and New Republic characters and moving the items into it. Please delete the now empty categs above. Aris Katsaris 01:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    • I thought that it might be a bit *too* long if I also added the word "Star Wars" in there -- it's already stretching the limits of length, I think. Besides with both "Rebel Alliance" and "New Republic" in there, I don't think there can be much confusion that we are talking about Star Wars. Aris Katsaris 03:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Category:World cities

See also Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/World_cities.

Inherently POV, listing a city under this category means what exactly? That someone arbitrarily considers it important enough to be of note? Should be emptied and removed IMO. Someone already placed it in vfd it seems. Aris Katsaris 12:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • We already have World cities and Thirty most populous cities in the world. This would be OK as an annotated list, but not as a category. It has also already been voted for deletion by the VFD crowd. Delete. -- Beland 03:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, with some regret, because I like the concept, but it has inherent POV problems—you know sooner or later Birmingham, England is going to be placed in it. Annotated list is the way to go rather than a category. Postdlf 01:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Are there any cities not in the world? Any cities not worth the world's notice. Quadell (talk) 05:07, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Historical liberal parties/Timelines

I think this should at least be renamed "Timelines of historical liberal parties". See "General naming conventions" on Misplaced Pages:Categorization. -- Beland 04:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Football venues

Contains one article, might be better within the other categories' Category:Football (soccer) by country -gadfium 04:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you proposing "Football (soccer) venues in the United States"? If so, "Football (soccer) venues" should probably unify them, but this category would still need to be deleted. -- Beland 04:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article it contains is not a soccer venue, it's a football/baseball stadium (or, was, it has since been demolished). Don't delete it. anthony (see warning) 02:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical images

Misspelling of Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial images ("Commerical"). Not sure how the articles that are there now are being assigned there. -- Beland 02:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete spurious category. --Ardonik.talk() 00:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Creative Commons NonCommerical images

Similar misspelling of Category:Creative Commons NonCommercial images. Once again, I can't remove these images from this category, so this category needs attention even though it doesn't really exist. -- Beland 02:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Periodicals and Category:Journals

This was an orphaned category, but I attached it to Category:Publications for the time being. It has two subcategories and no articles.

Category:Image:Satellite images and children

Category:Image:Satellite images and children are orphans that belong under Category:Satellite images and should obey the naming conventions there (i.e. "Image:" should not appear). -- Beland 01:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Category:Image:Satellite_images
Category:Image:Landsat_images
Category:Image:TERRA_images


Sept 5

Category:Image:Maps and children

The entirety of this orphaned tree looks like this:

Category:Image:Maps
Category:Image:Historical_maps
Category:Image:Canadian_historical_maps
Category:Image:United_States_historical_maps
Category:Image:Relief_maps
Category:Image:United_States_relief_maps

-- Beland 00:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I moved the images over to the correct categories. These are all cleared now. —Mike 08:32, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Sept 3

Category:Dictators

For a general discussion on how to apply categorization to people: see: Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people (and its discussion page).

Given that votes on VfD went heavily against keeping List of Dictators (now a redirect to Dictator) this presumably has the same problem. I notice that 172 and possibly others have been systematically deleting all uses of the category; listing here seems to me a better way to go about this.

  • Oppose. Removing this is to remove from Misplaced Pages knowledge of one of the more significant facts about the 20th century and to adopt the systemic point of view editing of User 172, creating a false impression in what passes as an authoritative reference. Fred Bauder 10:39, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • However as Talk:List of dictators shows, due to poor definition of dictator the category or a list is problematic. I would made a good definition and proceed but that seems to lack support. Fred Bauder 10:52, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • 172 alone removes references to being a dictator whenever they appear, citing Talk:List of dictators from a year and a half ago as justification. However, many of the objections given there were to lists generally, and it was a long time ago, so this conversation should probably be had again. (Notably, 172 has added "dictator" to rightist figures , although he removes it sometimes too.) VV 11:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Regarding the Hitler and Pinochet page history links to which you're pointing, I was reverting back to versions by other users and I overlooked the removal of the term "dictator" in the intro. I have been consistent in my usage of the term, despite what you seem to be insinuating. 172 19:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • In the Hitler page, yes; in Pinochet, not as I recall. But, as I noted you also at times removed them from those pages, as in, e.g., your edit war with Trey Stone on Hitler. VV 20:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless and a potential POV battlefield. Everyking 11:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • No. Dictators suck and this is their hall of shame. Grue 14:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV. ] 16:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see any more of a problem with this category than most others, other than the fact that it's currently empty. I oppose a ruling against filling this back up. anthony (see warning) 19:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's empty because 172 removed all the entries. I think procedure is that it should have gone through CfD first. VV 20:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Because the term is somewhat ambiguous (read the article Dictator), the category should not be used. A listing of authoritarian governments might be useful, but I don't know if a list of so-called dictators would be. —Mike 22:56, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete This category was originially made around the end of May and deleted at the beginning of June. This is a re-creation of a deleted page. For reasons given above, we cannot have such a category. Previous decision here was to delete. --Jiang 01:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • For the ancient Romans. "dictator" was just another civic office, should be no more controversial than consul or praetor. I suggest Category:Roman dictators or Category:Ancient Roman dictator for these so we don't have to have this same argument over and over ad infinitum. Stan 15:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • How about a category dictatorship instead of or in addition? Fred Bauder 18:54, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we can't get consensus to keep the list, keeping the category should be out of the question. -Sean Curtin 19:11, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This category can never be from a NPOV. RustyCale 20:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • There is plenty of room for the Dictator's side of the story, about how "dictatorship was necessary" and how good life was. Fred Bauder 16:42, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictators really do suck, but that darned NPOV policy keeps coming back to haunt us. There's no escape from it.  :-/ --Ardonik.talk() 20:39, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • There is plenty of room for the Dictator's side of the story, about how "dictatorship was necessary" and how good life was. Fred Bauder 16:42, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. All the articles currently categorized in this category actually held the office of dictator, therefore the cat is factual, neutral, and usefull. Gentgeen 21:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everything on there is covered in Roman Empire The category doesn't add anything that isn't covered there. Wgfinley 21:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • actually, none of the people categorized as dictators lived during the Roman Empire, so that article covers none of them. Gentgeen
  • I moved the Romans to Category:Roman dictators. —No-One Jones 20:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Cities in the Netherlands

This category already exists in Category:Dutch cities. I thought they were the same thing, so I moved all the links to Dutch cities. Sorry about that. However, this does not appear to be a neccesary category. — Braaropolis | Talk 04:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Unusual articles

Inherently POV (which is a shame -- I love Misplaced Pages:Unusual articles...) Tregoweth 17:59, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • It's a useful parallel to Misplaced Pages:Unusual articles, but I can see the inherent POV — typing ] into an article that you don't like in order to denigrate it is just a little bit too convenient, and I can forsee edit wars taking place over this. That said, my vote is to keep so long as the criteria used to include the category in any article are the same criteria used to list that article on Misplaced Pages:Unusual articles. The category should not be applied arbitrarily. --Ardonik.talk() 00:12, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Delete me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories have been de-populated, and any documentation of this decision taken care of. Admins may delete these categories at will. If there is a particular category which is replacing the deleted category (if redundant, misspelled, etc.) as noted below, that should be mentioned in the deletion log entry.