Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 12

: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 15:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete—ridiculous over-categorization. Make a bloody list if you think this is so important, but not a category. I personally would like to see all race/ethnic people categories go, but even if some are to stay, this one should be considered over the line of necessity and relevance. Postdlf 23:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Postdlf Honbicot 23:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Listify, and categorise these people to :category:multiracial people. — Instantnood 06:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The people involved can simply be both in the "African Americans" category and the "Italian Americans" category. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Better categories would be "People of Italian descent" and/or "People with African heritage" and "American people." These hyphens make it trickier. -Willmcw 23:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a valid category. This is an ethnic group largely unknown to many Westerners but that doesn't make it any less important or relevant. Italy established large colonies in Africa in the early 20th century and moved hundreds of thousands of Italians to the African continent. Those Italians, in turn, intermarried with African natives, particularly Ethiopians, Eritrians, and Somalis, and formed their own distinct cultural identity, an amalgam of Italian and African. Many of their progeny subsequently emigrated to the United States. It's no less a valid category than Polish-Americans or Italian-Americans or African-Americans. Someone researching African Italian-Americans may wish to find this sort of information. (And I believe the correct punctuation for the ethnicity is African Italian-Americans, not African-Italian-Americans.) David Hoag 06:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• It's just not a prominent cultural identity, as you yourself have stated by saying that it's "largely unknown to many Westerners." We are talking about African-Italian-Americans here. Trying to argue that it's a cultural group on par with the notability of African-Americans as a group is completely meritless, and even Polish-Americans have distinctly documented histories and distinct neighborhoods in America. There are no African-Italian-American festivals, identifiable neighborhoods, advocacy groups, cuisines...but there certainly are of Italian-Americans, et al. Make it a list article and annotate the ethnicity of the listed people, but a category is uncalled for. Postdlf 06:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Could you tell a bit more about Italian Africans, say, their history in Africa, emigration to the United States, and how many are in different countries? Thanks. — Instantnood 06:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What's the matter? This category distinguishes people of both African and Italian Americans from African and Italian Americans. Furthermore, to specify is better than not to specify, and the interest of one reader will be disappointed if he wants to find people of such mixed descent. Furthermore, there is no harm stressing on such facts. Such unique combinations, such as African-German Americans, etc should be created, individuals highlighted in such unique category, and kept. Furthermore, this category is a sub-category of African Americans and Italian Americans. It brings out and highlight the colour. For example, :Category:Macanese people, a subcategory of :Category:Eurasians, which is in turn a sub-category of Multiracial people. Take me as one of such avid readers. I'm a mixed breed myself, after all. Mr Tan 15:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete why is the mix so important? Move the people back to African American and Italian American or make new categories Americans of xxx descent, xxx-American is a label which we should not place on people unless they actually use it personally. Arniep 18:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. RedWolf 03:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Postdlf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 November 2005
• Keep. If the decisions is to delete, listify and group the people under :category:multiracial people. — Instantnood 08:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Mr. Hoag, this is a perfectly valid category. — Clevelander 01:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. --Vizcarra 12:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete These people are Americans. Let's leave it at that. Osomec 15:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

: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 keep --Kbdank71 15:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this request from Requested moves to here. The original request and a vote from WP:RM is below: —jiy (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Wold War II people is a category that could be applied to any person from Japan involved with WWII, from the children making rations to Hirohito. I think the name is rather un-Encyclopedic. Sukiari 23:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is standard. Category names which make assertions of prominence are deprecated. Only notable people should have articles, and therefore there will not be articles about every child involved in the war. CalJW 05:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per CalJW. Postdlf 23:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per the other voters. Honbicot 23:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per above Hiding talk 15:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What about moving the category to something that makes more sense in English, like "Japanese people involved in World War II"? Sukiari 02:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• It would have to be done with more than just this category; the "[nationality] [war] people" category name is standard across all wars. If you want to gather a list of all categories that would be affected and propose a rename, by all means, do so. But it shouldn't be done just for this one. Postdlf 06:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Understood.Sukiari 22:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

: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 keep --Kbdank71 15:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The above are two examples of the naming scheme used for subcategories in :Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state. This was put up for renaming a few months ago or so, but failed without consensus being reached. I am proposing that all of these be renamed, to reduce ambiguity and to remove the abbreviation of United States, to :Category:United States Congressional Representatives from Alabama, where Alabama would be replaced with each state's name. This would be along the lines similar to what :Category:United States Senators from Alabama (again, replacing Alabama with other states' names) was renamed to. --tomf688^{talk} 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rename instead to "U.S. Representatives from X", per below nominations. Postdlf 23:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Considered as an a abstract, maybe. But a long list of long titles for categories at the end of a bio becomes just clutter. Use "U.S. Representatives from" as outlined below. Lou I 23:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

::Hmph, didn't even see the one below. --tomf688^{talk} 04:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. SEWilco proposed a system over at Category talk:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives some time ago that I think was the best solution. I'll repost it below, and I suppose if in the ensuing discussion there's broader support for it, then we standardize that way instead.

:We're good? The Tom 06:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I supported the SEWilco's proposal there, and I support it here. Hiding talk 15:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Gah. This obsession with expansion of abbreviations is just plain nuts, IMO. The only proposal I would support is changing all to "U.S. Representatives from X". older≠wiser 15:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Avoiding abbreviations is already a tenet of the category naming conventions. If you wish to question its applicability for this debate, you should question its applicability for all debates. The Tom 18:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, I do indeed doubt the usefulness of such an arbitrary rule adapted with little debate (that I'm aware of) from the general naming conventions. That rule, I believe, phrased as "avoid abbreviations" was only relatively recently re-interpreted as meaning "abbreviations should be eliminated in all cases and without exception". Turning easily understood, unabiguous common abbreviations into lengthy, awkward, ugly phrases is just plain stupid, IMO. older≠wiser 20:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• I concur. Postdlf 04:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• It is actually rooted in the Manual of style, which states something along the lines of when listing countries, do not abbreviate the United States. My understanding is that it only applies when categorising by country. Hiding [[User talk:Hiding|talk]] 12:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• If you can find such a reference in the MoS, please share it. The only justification that I see cited in discussions on this page is "avoid abbreviations" which is from the MoS, but is not country-specific. older≠[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 13:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States. (for example "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S."). Wikipedia:Manual of Style Hiding talk 13:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• These U.S. Representatives categories are not "in a list of countries," nor is the MoS addressing categories in that quote. Postdlf 14:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• A category when categorising by country is a list of countries, that's how the category pages display, hence the MoS guidance being adopted here and at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), thus my making this cite when asked by User:Bkonrad, was in support of my point that the expansion of country abbreviations, to my understanding, only applies when categorising by country. I am not seeking to insert such an argument into this debate, my intention was merely to correct what I perceived as misunderstandings of the expansion of abbreviations. Hiding talk 15:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for the reference. I think it is a stretch to go from not using "U.S." in a list of nations (which is quite understandable) to having to always expand the abbreviation. The applicability to categories in which multiple nations would be listed side by side is also OK IMO. But to arbitrarily require it for all categories doesn't make much sense to me. older≠wiser 17:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, and I agree completely with Bkonrad that this recent predilection for expanding acronyms needs to be reviewed.- SimonP 01:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Um, I don't know what happened to my original nominations, but the issue at hand was cleaning up four category titles that were out of sequence with the remaining 46. Can we please address these four before diving into the issue of the total set? I'm working on clearing out :Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and it would help a lot to have uniform category names. Thank you. jengod 22:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::Category:Members of the U.S. House from Maryland >> :Category:U.S. Representatives from Maryland

::Category:Members of the U.S. House from Minnesota >> :Category:U.S. Representatives from Minnesota

::Category:Members of the U.S. House from Kansas >> :Category:U.S. Representatives from Kansas

::Category:U.S. Congressmen from Wisconsin <> :Category:U.S. Representatives from Wisconsin

• On edit: Ahhh...I see a separate category was created and the conversation drifted here. Anyway, the larger issue is not my concern at the moment, just the baby issue. (That said, the obsession in this section with U.S. >> United States is not really useful and I oppose it being the be-all,end-all guideline for category naming conventions.) Thanks again. jengod 22:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• My obsession isn't with the name (not that I really have any obsession), but with the description. I created these "U.S. Representatives from X" originally, but on afterthought it would seem that "U.S. Representative" is far too vague, and needs another descriptive word. --tomf688^{talk} 00:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

: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. Martin 19:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

XFL does not stand for "Xtreme Football League", the XFL article says explicitly that the X does not stand for anything in particular; therefore, this cat should be renamed. Anthony 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support The Tom 06:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Mayumashu 12:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

: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. Martin 22:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view, or something similar. Self-reflect and do not use abbrev. Radiantmeta:mergist 11:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support The Tom 06:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support; good idea to spell out the topic area. Courtland 00:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

: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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say that I have strong misgivings about this trend for renaming categories from, for example :Category:Natives of London to :Category:Londoners. The former makes it crystal clear that only people born in the city are eligible. From now on these cats are going to become absolutely packed with all kinds of people who only lived in the city for part of their life. Some people may end up being categorised to a dozen different places. Anyway, since this seems to be the trend, I would like to bring to your attention to a tidy-up issue. A few weeks ago someone manually renamed :Category:Natives of Edinburgh to :Category:Edinburghers. Being an Edinburgher myself (even though my mother gave birth to me in her home burgh in the west of Scotland, making me not a "Native of Edinburgh"), I did not mind too much, but the old category is still floating about uncategorised with a couple of biographies in it.

As :Category:Glaswegians is long-standing, and :Category:Aberdonians and :Category:Dundonians are proposed below by a fellow contributor to the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board, I though it was a good moment to tidy-up.

Delete and Move. Mais oui! 09:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object, while I don't particularly like the term "native", several cities have rather unknown adjectives so using those in cat titles would encourage misfiling. Radiantmeta:mergist 10:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, this is the commonly used term for people from Edinburgh and should be kept as per :Category:Londoners. Leithp ^(talk) 10:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agree - Mayumashu 15:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Why do we want people by city subcategories at all? Why not listify? An annotated list would be more appropriate for cities and federal states because the relationship of birthplace, workplace, vacation home, place of death, etc., could be clearly stated. Why is it not enough to categorize by nationality? Postdlf 23:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

::in the case of many people, they identify more with their city then with their county, province, and i would guess state too. in the end, why not have it both ways as cities almost always lie within one state, provincial, county, or other regional jurisdiction and are therefore effective sub-cats -Mayumashu 03:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• And how are these local categories limited to people who "identify more with their city," as opposed to those whose association was relatively insignificant? And might it not be more important to the city to list off the notable people associated with it, than the city is to many individuals? Postdlf 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

:they re not limited to just people who identify true, i admit i made a poor point there. the other benefit again is that they provide solid sub-cats for long lists of people categorized by state - i admit here too there is a problem though that if you don t know what city they re from (and for that matter what state) then navigating the system is problematic. actually, i think i ve come around quite a bit to your line of thinking on this User:Postdif but i not sold and it seems clear the majority of users prefer having the cats as opposed to the lists -Mayumashu 02:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support per arguments below The Tom 06:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

: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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Rename both as has been sugguested on the Scottish Wikipedians board to less bulky name as is near norm with people of city categories where the city name has commonly used adjectival form -Mayumashu 05:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, as per above. Leithp ^(talk) 08:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Rename I have strong misgivings about this trend for removing the word "native". In doing so, you are actually changing the whole nature of the category, by including lots of people not born in the city.--Mais oui! 09:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Object, while I don't particularly like the term "native", several cities have rather unknown adjectives so using those in cat titles would encourage misfiling. Radiantmeta:mergist 10:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• I wouldn't say that they are unknown, certainly not in Scotland. Leithp ^(talk) 10:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Aberdonian and Dundonian (and Glaswegian) are very well-known and widely-used adjectives. Edinburgher is not quite so popular, but still in very wide use.--Mais oui! 11:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. If there're enough people to stick in a category and the city is notable enough to merit a category, then I believe the term for the city's residents is thereby notable enough for usage. "Aberdonian" is really no more difficult to puzzle out than "Surinamese" The Tom 05:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - in fact I was the one who raised this. Either we are consistent, and get rid of entries like ":Category:Novocastrians" or ":Category:Glaswegians" or we use these. "Edinburgher" is not in wide use IMO (I live there), but Dundonian and Aberdonian certainly are. NB, by the by, I gather Kurt Cobain would be an "Aberdeenian", since that's what people from that other Aberdeen are called! --MacRusgail 17:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agree Catchpole 12:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

: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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There is already a page for this at :Category:Spider-Man_titles.

• delete, it's obsolete. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

: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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

To bring it in line with 46 other categories in :Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state. jengod 03:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Agree We will still have the disagreement about the name (US vs United States, etc.) but at least they will be the same for all states. Ditto for next 3 renames... Lou I 15:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Postdlf 23:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment These should be put together under an umbrella using {{tl|cdfu}}. pfctdayelise 04:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per past displeasure with the current naming system. See also my comments to tomf688's proposal further up the page. The Tom 06:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support older≠wiser 16:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support this merge. Putting aside the naming convention debate, here we have two categories meaning the exact same thing. One needs to be merged into the other. And, since 46 other categories do not use "U.S. Congressmen", then merge into the "U.S. Representatives" one. It is less populated, but I volunteer to do the work involved. HollyAm 05:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --tomf688^{talk} 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

: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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

To bring it in line with 46 other categories in :Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state. jengod 03:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Postdlf 23:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per past displeasure with the current naming system. See also my comments to tomf688's proposal further up the page. The Tom 06:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support older≠wiser 16:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, see above, Lou I 12:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support rename per nom. HollyAm 05:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --tomf688^{talk} 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

: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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

To bring it in line with 46 other categories in :Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state. jengod 03:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Postdlf 23:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per past displeasure with the current naming system. See also my comments to tomf688's proposal further up the page. The Tom 06:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support older≠wiser 16:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support see Wisconsin above, Lou I 12:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support rename per nom. HollyAm 05:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --tomf688^{talk} 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

: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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

To bring it in line with 46 other categories in :Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state. jengod 03:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Postdlf 23:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose per past displeasure with the current naming system. See also my comments to tomf688's proposal further up the page. The Tom 06:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support older≠wiser 16:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support see Wisconson above, Lou I 13:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support rename per nom. HollyAm 05:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --tomf688^{talk} 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

: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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with :Category:Wikipedia collaborations. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Concur, merge. Radiantmeta:mergist 10:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Not all collaborations are weekly, so it isn't entirely redundant. I am unminded as to the importance of the distinction though. Hiding talk 15:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• : Don't you think it might be overcategorisation if we have a category for weekly/monthly/fortnightly collaborations? Talrias (t | e | c) 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• ::Thta's not the point to hand though, is it. With regards to the actual point, that of a seperate category for weekly collaborations, I don't really have a mind either way, as already stated. Therefore I see no need to delete, since it may be of use to some people. Weekly collaborations turnaround quicker, so maybe it makes sense to highlight these within the category structure. Are you so sure it is unneccessary? Hiding talk 14:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - SoM 13:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

: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.