< March 3	March 5 >

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. — ξ^xplicit 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Bender to Category:People from Bender, Moldova

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Bender, Moldova and Category:Bender, Moldova. Bender as a place name is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to disambiguate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I think of something else entirely if a being is from Bender.- choster (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images with a rationale but unknown copyright status (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty, redundant to Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status, the category that the common template ((Di-no license)) categorizes in. It even contains the shortcut and the category tracker for the "Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status" category. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, together with Category:All images with a rationale but unknown copyright status and Template:Images with a rationale but unknown copyright status subcategory starter. These were created by User:ST47, and used by the outdated User:ST47/rnt, and User:ST47/notagr. I have dropped him a note. Debresser (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ford 300 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We've renamed all the NASCAR race categories to categories based on their racetracks, but this one's a bit different. All the ones we renamed were part of the Sprint Cup Series, the main NASCAR circuit. This is part of the Nationwide Series, which is (kind of) a minor league circuit. None of the other Nationwide races have categories, so this one doesn't need one either. (It's already in Category:NASCAR Nationwide Series races, so we don't need a rename.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. With only two articles it is scarcely needed. Insert optional quip about Ford 500 here.- choster (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree, no need for the category here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. Useful suggestions for reorganising categorisation in this area have been made, however at this stage their implementation is beyond the scope of Cfd. --Xdamr^talk 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

• Category:Majority Leaders of the United States House of Representatives to Category:Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives
• Category:Minority Leaders of the United States House of Representatives to Category:Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Right now, there's a category for Majority leaders (which has 21 articles) and a category for Minority leaders (which has 2 articles). I suggest merging the two into one category which could also allow whips to be included. Thus we'd have a more inclusive category. Many Reps go from Whip, to leader, to majority, back to minority, and it makes better sense to capture that in one category. Let's leave Speakers separate, though. —Markles 11:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative oppose. I don't know the structure of the US Congress as well as I know that of Westminster or the Oireachtas, but my impression from this side of the pond is that in Congress the position of Majority leader or Minority leader is a much more high-profile position than that of a whip, and that Majority leader is the more significant of those two. It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to create a new Category:Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives which could include whips, and to make both Category:Minority Leaders of the United States House of Representatives and Category:Majority Leaders of the United States House of Representatives sub-categories of that.
  Also, I notice that the nominator's proposal omits the existing category of minority leaders, and would leave us with a separate category for the minority leader but the majority. That seems perverse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Just spotted the minority leaders in a separate nomination below, so will merge the two discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Merges The distinction between majority and minority leader is an important one. While there will be some minority leaders who become majority leader after a change in control, the distinction is still worth making. Alansohn (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps Delete and reorganize into Category:Democratic Floor Leaders of the United States House of Representatives and Category:Republican Floor Leaders of the United States House of Representatives. We avoid double-tagging articles for those in charge when control changes, and the relatively ambiguous "Party leaders" nomenclature (Party leaders of the United States House of Representatives notwithstanding, the top leader of the majority is actually the Speaker). The lengthy names are unfortunate, but at least if we specify the U.S. House, we don't need to dab the party names, either.- choster (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like that idea, because it reduces category clutter on biographies. The only problem is familiarity: aren't these new terms much less known han Majority Leader and Minority Leader? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ShipsByWikipedian7878 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, per numerous precedents against wikipedians creating categories for pages in their own userspace. I appreciate the desire of an editor to keep track of all their subpages, but the job can be dine quite simply without a category by using Special:Prefixindex. In this case the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Wikipedian7878&namespace=2 . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Users can keep track of pages in their userspace using Special:PrefixIndex, (e.g., Special:PrefixIndex/User:Wikipedian7878), as noted by the nom, or by maintaining a list of subpages on their user page. There is ample precedent for deletion of similar personal userspace categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This does not aid navigation for readers of Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. Will manually populate shortly. — ξ^xplicit 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educationists by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a redirect to Category:Educationists that is supposed to remain empty. However, the template ((Fooian fooers)) contains an "#ifexist" clause that automatically populates this category if it exists, and as a result Category:Irish educationists has been placed in this category incorrectly, even though it is also in the redirect target category. Deleting this category will eliminate the duplicate categorization and allow the template to function as intended. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I guess this is my fault, because I spent a few hours yesterday adding ((Fooian fooers)) (or its cousins in Category:Wikipedia classification templates) to all sub-acts of Category:Irish people by occupation, and it was me who added the "#ifexist" clause to ((Fooian fooers)). I still think that the "#ifexist" clause was an improvement, because it removed a pointless redlink from many categories, but I hadn't considered this side-effect. However, I don't think that the existence of one link to a redirect is a good enough reason to remove that useful redirect. A permalink to a redirect is ugly, but I think that not having the redirect is likely to impede navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query Why is Category:Educationists by nationality supposed to be empty and not a parent to the various Category:Fooian educationists in the usual fashion? Occuli (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a general convention that a Category:Fooers by nationality is created only if necessary to distinguish nationality from other ways of organising Fooers. In this case there are two such categories: Category:Anarchist pedagogues and Category:Homeschooling advocates, so I think it would be a good idea to create and populate Category:Educationists by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 'By century', anyone? Gender? Occuli (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Add ethnicity to get: Category:21st-century German female anarchist pedagogues of Mongolian descent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "... who have a pro-Wikipedia bias" ? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and a Commendation Medal? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having just created two more national subcats of Category:Educationists, I suggest that the best solution to this is to create Category:Educationists by nationality as a proper category, and populate it. It would start with 25 sub-cats, which seems plenty to justify its existence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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:

• Category:Vs. (series) to Category:SNK versus-series video games
• Category:VS. Capcom series to Category:SNK versus-series video games

--Xdamr^talk 17:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vs. (series) to Category:Capcom series

Propose merging Category:VS. Capcom series to the renamed category.

Nominator's rationale: Not quite too sure what to name this category, but its current name is very ambiguous. Perhaps rename to Category:Capcom series or something similar, but keeping as is would be very obscure. — ξ^xplicit 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Capcom crossover fighting games. I'm sure I've never heard this as "Vs." (that's this collectible card game system, which also features Marvel characters). Most of these articles have the term "crossover fighting game" in them, so that seems like a good name for the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category: SNK versus-series videogames since not all of them are CAPCOM, but they are made by SNK, and are videogames. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Vs. (video game series) and Vs. (Capcom franchise) are the best I can come up with. Whatever it'll be called, you may want to keep the games SNK created in mind, regardless the series belongs to Capcom. « ₣M₣ » 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems that Category:VS. Capcom series was recently created. Reviewing administrator may want to relist this nomination so the aforementioned category can get into the mix. — ξ^xplicit 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added Category:VS. Capcom series to the nomination as it was recently created and duplicates the previously nominated category. — ξ^xplicit 19:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and merge to Category:SNK versus-series videogames per the anon IP ... but I support any solution which merges the duplicate categories. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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 all. — ξ^xplicit 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages
• Category:Broken redirects for speedy deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as broken redirects
• Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations
• Category:Empty pages for speedy deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty pages
• Category:Importance or significance not asserted pages for speedy deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted
• Category:Nonsense pages for speedy deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as nonsense pages
• Category:Spam pages for speedy deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam
• Category:Unspecified pages for speedy deletion to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for unspecified reason

Reason: To match Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator, for consistency, and to clarify that these are not necessarily pages which "will" be speedy deleted; they are "candidates", because they appear in these categories when tagged by an editor who asserts that zie believes the fit the criteria. They won't be speedy-deleted unless an admin agrees with the nomination, and they won't be speedy-deleted in there is an objection. Note that this discussion is a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 28#Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to more clearly describe the contents of the categories. Alansohn (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Use "Wikipedia" in the naming of whatever names are chosen, since these are maintenance categories. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - more descriptive, slightly less bitey, and shows the hierarchy better. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. If we were to add Wikipedia to the name, and I don't have any particular feeling on the matter, then we should also do it to the main category at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. It's less of an issue than it might be, since these are hidden categories. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom and per BrownHairedGirl. Anything to get rid of that annoying "This category is being considered for renaming" template from the pages. But seriously, for the sake of consistency, for the fact that all the candidates for speedy deletion will have uniform prefixes in the categorization. Valley2city^‽ 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per Nom. I'm all for standardization, and I agree it seems a little more friendly towards newbies. ^Avicenna_sis @ 05:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knowles family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category of four family members per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Articles adequately (at least!) and consistently link to articles of other family members. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - it isn't eponymous as there is no Knowles family article. It is certainly ambiguous as Knowles (surname) is a common name. Category:Beyoncé Knowles family might be defensible ... I suppose being related to Beyoncé might well be defining. Occuli (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --The content can be adequately covered within infobox or other templates (as already applies to Beyoncé's mother). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FOX network shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FOX is a redirect to Fox Broadcasting Company, and redirects are cheap. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Debresser. Redirects are cheap, and there is no claim that this one causes any problems. Mild WP:TROUTing to the nominator for not a) not merging two very similar nominations, and b) not withdrawing this when there was no support for deleting any of the other redirects. It seems an unfortunate use of admin time for these two harmless redirects to be relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This seems like a perfect example of where a redirect would be useful, since the Fox network always capitalizes FOX when it prints it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FOX network affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FOX is a redirect to Fox Broadcasting Company, and redirects are cheap. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Debresser. Redirects are cheap, and there is no claim that this one causes any problems. Mild WP:TROUTing to the nominator for not a) not merging two very similar nominations, and b) not withdrawing this when there was no support for deleting any of the other redirects. It seems an unfortunate use of admin time for these two harmless redirects to be relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This seems like a perfect example of where a redirect would be useful, since the Fox network always capitalizes FOX when it prints it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Districts of the Constitutional Province of Callao to Category:Districts of Callao Region

Nominator's rationale: Category:Districts of Peru is subcategorized by region first and by province second. Since the Constitutional Province of Callao is the only province in Callao Region (see Callao and Provinces of Peru), I think that the category should be at the level of the region. Also, as "Callao Region" is a proper noun and should not, therefore, be preceded by a definite article, I have dropped the "the" in the proposed name. If there is no objection to this second change, then I will nominate the approximately 200 similarly-titled Peru-related categories in the next day or two. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Provinces of the Callao Region to Category:Provinces of Peru

Nominator's rationale: The Callao Region of Peru contains only one province, the Constitutional Province of Callao (see Callao and Provinces of Peru). In light of this, and since the article Callao is already in Category:Callao Region, this added category layer seems to be unnecessary. On the other hand, its existence ensures that Category:Provinces of Peru contains subcategories for all 25 regions of Peru. (Category creator and WikiProject Peru notified using Template:Cfd-notify)

At this time, I am neutral, and merely want to bring the issue here for discussion. By the way, any thoughts as to whether articles about provinces of Peru should be categorized into the regional subcategories only or into both Category:Provinces of Peru and the regional subcategories? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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 all the categories. Any other relevant page needs to be taken to other deletion processes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:WikiProject Antarctica Highways to Category:Wikipedia humor

Propose deleting

• Category:Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:Antarctica Highways articles by importance

• Category:High-importance Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:Low-importance Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:Mid-importance Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:NA-importance Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:Top-importance Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:Unknown-importance Antarctica Highways articles

• Category:Antarctica Highways articles by quality

• Category:A-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:B-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:C-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:FA-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:FL-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:GA-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:List-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:NA-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:Start-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:Stub-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:Template-Class Antarctica Highways articles
• Category:Unassessed Antarctica Highways articles

Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Antarctica Highways is a joke project, yet it wields the category structure of a full project; in effect, we have 21 categories to categorize just one page: a userspace template. I have no objection to the project page itself, but I think that the categories perhaps take things a bit too far. They are placed in other, legitimate assessment categories and are indistinguishable from valid WikiProject categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & merge per nominator. Keeping a joke page is one thing, but it doesn't need a complete category structure to accompany it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Abolish project. Delete all categories, placing the main article in a suitable humour/hoax category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also WP:HOAX. Material of this kind has no place in WP. Well, almost: McMurdo-South Pole highway looks as if it may be genuine, though I am not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid of the whole thing. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Antarctica Highways participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a userbox-populated user category for a joke WikiProject and, as such, does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration between users. Displaying the userbox is quite fine, but the category serves as nothing more than a "bottom-of-the-page" notice and is merely a byproduct of the userbox. The category should be deleted as overcategorization on the basis of a characteristic that is primarily humorous or satirical, and per consistent precedent for deletion of similar categories grouping users by defunct or non-existent project. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Abolish project and delete user category and related user box template. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid of the whole thing. Debresser (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.