Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 28 March 30 >

March 29[edit]

Category:Academic journals produced by university presses[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Produced" makes me think of type-setting, printing, binding, etc. "Publishing" is much more appropriate in this context. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support w/ clarification note on category (see below) - See my response to the related "Academic journals produced by scholarly societies" category below. However, I would note that my rationale is weaker in this category, since university presses are probably more likely to publish their own journals, whereas scholarly societies are very likely to publish with a commercial publisher. --Lquilter (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is consistent with the verifiability guideline in Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. I looked at a few of the web sites of the university presses, and they do consider themselves publishers of the journals. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looking the first member of the category Category:Cambridge University Press academic journals and the description of that category "Academic (including scientific) journals published by Cambridge University Press." shows that published is the what these presses do.--Salix (talk): 22:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We can argue the semantic distinction between produce and publish, but as RockMagnetist says, following the sources shows that these institutions consider themselves publishers. I don't see any NPOV problems with the term, so 'publish' is best. --Mark viking (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename publish is what these presses do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- obviously right. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2013 (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.

Category:Academic journals produced by learned societies[edit]

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. I'm aware that there's no hair so fine we can't split it, but that doesn't mean we should always do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Produced" makes me think of type-setting, printing, binding, etc. "Publishing" is much more appropriate in this context. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support w/ clarification note on category (see below) - I don't care all that much, but I went with "produced" deliberately. To me, "published" specifically means edited/prepped for printing; whereas "produced" might mean editorial control, calls for publication, etc. Since many scholarly societies "produce" journals that are then "published" elsewhere (universities; university presses; commercial publishers; their own society presses; even libraries), I thought "produced" would be a better indicator of the broad possibilities of responsibility for the journal. --Lquilter (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's the other way around. We call companies like Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell "publishers" and what they do is "publishing". Things like prepping stuff for printing, printing, mailing, etc. are almost invariably contracted out to other companies in India or Malaysia. They call that "sending stuff to production"... Editing and such is what falls under "publishing". So learned societies publish journals and subcontract the actual production to others. --Randykitty (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I understand the distinction you are making. But scholarly societies also very often contract with professional publishers. So the scholarly society holds the copyright, does the editorial, and so forth; the professional publisher does the marketing, (technical) production, and coordination of printing & shipping. So a journal will often be "produced" (in the broad sense) by multiple entities, including a commercial publisher, a printer, and a scholarly society. The distinction that I worry will be blurred here is that "published" might refer to, say, either Wiley (commercial publisher) or Scholarly Society X (which "owns" the journal). So a journal might well be considered to be "published" by two separate entities. The principal editorial function of calling for papers and selecting them is the really key and useful distinction, and that's what's not necessarily clear in the term "publishing". --Lquilter (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looked at that way, things always may be less than absolutely clear. I have been editor of a journal myself. It was jointly owned by a major publisher and a learned society. As editor, I was responsible to a "management committee" composed of 2 representatives of each. Once an article had gone through the editorial process, it was sent to "production", which the publisher had contracted out to an Indian company (typesetting) and a Malaysian one (printing and shipping). The publisher provided not only marketing, but also the website used for manuscript handling and review. In addition, they provided assistance with problem papers (possible cases of plagiarism/scientific misconduct, etc), basically providing all the publishing experience that the society didn't have. In any case, I've never seen a society claim that they "produce" a journal, they always say that they "publish" one, sometimes in collaboration with a publisher. I think this category should be for society journals where no separate publisher is involved. In the case of "my" journal, it was obvious that the major publishing effort came from the publisher, with the society being limited to the selection of the editor and suggestions for editorial board members. So that one, I'd definitely would categorize as "academic journals published by FOO publisher", not in this category. Perhaps we should add a clarification at the top of this cat specifying this. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a clarification note on the category would be very helpful, noting that "published" can mean multiple things, and the individual title should be looked at to see if it is more properly referred to as "published by" the scholarly society or some other entity. Happy to support change to the more commonly used term now. Thanks for working to figure out my concern & a solution. --Lquilter (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is consistent with the verifiability guideline in Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. I looked at a few of the web sites of the societies, and they do consider themselves publishers of the journals. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support publishing is what the societies do.--Salix (talk): 22:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename What the societies do is publishing more than producing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Some academic journals are produced and published by a society. Others are produced by the society, but publihsed by a commercial publisher. For example, Economic History Review is published by Wiley, but produced by Economic History Society. Others such as Midlands History are published by a commercial publisher, without there being a learned society involved. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Economic History Review is one of those journals that Lquilter and I discussed above and that should not be included in this category at all. It is published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Economic History Society. This means that the society has a contract with WB, who handle the complete process of publication, from the technical aspects of editing (peer-review website and such) to producing the actual PDFs, journal website, and print version of the journal (the actual printing probably being subcontracted to another, specialized company). According to the society website, the editor of the journal is a member of the executive committee of the society, so they probably select the editor and that's the end of the society's involvement. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But there are definitely a lot of models. Societies whose journals preexisted publishers may maintain much more editorial control over the content of the journals; technical and business support from the "publisher" notwithstanding. Wiley Blackwell publishes English Literary Renaissance, as well, and there the editorial board runs the content end of the show. At any rate, I think the scope note can help. It may be the case that some journals will simply be "published by" in more than one category. --Lquilter (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People will find this discussion User_talk:DGG#Predatory_journals and the NYT article linked very relevant. I still think that societies "publish" journals, even if jointly, & even if effective control is slipping from their grasp into the hands of the publishers. Many journals, including the The Economic History Review will belong both in this category and the publisher's one, as long as the society allows their name to be used. "Produced" is just that bit more unclear, & helps nothing. Who handles the online edition that is often now the most important for journals with no big publisher involved is a whole different can of worms, but we can't cover everything by categories. In practice choosing the editor and agreeing the budget are the main methods of control whoever "owns" a journal, & always have been. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (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.

Category:Egyptological journals[edit]

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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make name consistent with all others in the academic journals tree (e.g., this category falls under "History journals" not a "Historical journals"). Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2013 (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.

Category:Things named after Leonardo da Vinci[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES and many previous discussions, we don't categorize things that are named after a particular person. No objection if someone wants to listify the category first. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:18, 29 March 2013 (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.

Game of Thrones (TV series)[edit]

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. The indefinite article is not enough to guarantee disambiguation.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the main article, which was moved from Game of Thrones (TV series) to Game of Thrones.  Sandstein  12:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per C2D. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since the novel and TV series are named after the term, and the term is used itself in the TV series and the novel, in keeping with its actual meaning (kingmaking, infighting, succession crises, etc) this seems like the article should be reverted, and the category kept the way it is, while someone properly disambiguate to the real life topics of the game of thrones. (which should exist on the disambiguation page, but are completely missing) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with the above that the article and not the category should be renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Renaming the article was done after talk page discussion without opposition. The novel and the TV series have distinct titles ("A Game of Thrones" vs. "Game of Thrones"), and so the additional parenthetical disambiguator is not needed to distinguish them. There is, as far as I know, no term "Game of Thrones" that preceded the novel; Martin appears to have invented the catchphrase. Consequently, there are no other "Game of Thrones" articles that would need disambiguating, other than those related to the novels and TV series.  Sandstein  19:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no formal WP:RM proposal, only a discussion among regular editors of the article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the TV series is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, while the book is merely one book in the series, and the GoT games can be in 'Games based on X'. Primary-topic is clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is a category, not an article. Categories can be disambiguated, whatever the status of the article name. That ambiguous categories will collect things that don't belong (like the novel) and require constant patrolling if they are overly ambigous is one of the problems of categorization, as people HotCat categories without looking at their descriptions. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sometimes category names need to be clearer than article names, as here, or time is wasted going to articles to find you are barking up the wrong tree. It was probable a mistake to rename the article, but that is not our concern here. Johnbod (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A Game of Thrones refers to various media under the A Song of Ice and Fire brand (a novel, a comic book series, a card game, a board game, and a tabletop roleplaying game), while Game of Thrones refers only to two pieces of media: the television series and a comparatively obscure video games. They have clearly distinct titles. Of all the aforementioned media, the television series is by far the most well-known and likely to be searched for, and the disambiguation page will quickly redirect those few who happen to arrive at Game of Thrones while looking for A Game of Thrones. As for categories, most other related articles fall firmly under the scope of Category:A Song of Ice and Fire, which has a sufficiently distinct name from the Category:Game of Thrones for television series-related articles. Finally, Category: Game of Thrones episodes in particular could only logically refer to episodes of the TV series and certainly does not need further clarification. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whether or not the article rename was appropriate, removal of the disambiguator from these categories will lead to miscategorisation by editors, and cause confusion among readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is unreasonable to expect the presence or lack of an indefinite article to effect categorization. Category names should be clearly distict, not getting their distiction from "a", "an", "the", or capitalization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2013 (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.

Soviet space program vs programme[edit]

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 to "program." This isn't unanimous, but there is a strong desire in the comments to standardize, and it's weighted more heavily on the American English side.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Option One: standardize on Program.
Option Two: standardise on Programme.
Nominator's rationale The top-level category, Category:Space program of the Soviet Union, was renamed to that format under this discussion, and the top-level main article is also Soviet space program. Unfortunately its subcategories are in a mis-mash of "program" and "programme" names, which wasn't helped by the fact that when the need for standardisation was brought up at WP:SPACEFLIGHT and three article-renaming discussions (linked from the WP:SPACEFLIGHT discussion), the argument was made that WP:RETAIN prohibited the standardisation of a WP:ENGVAR within a single country-topic intersection on one or the other. While that may or may not be the case for articles, the categories need to be standardised on one or the other, and that is the subject of this discussion: option one standardises on 'Program' per the top-level parent category for the nation, while option two would change all to 'Programme'. Note that I am neutral on which should be preferred, but one or the other is needed. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Programme is the more widespread option, so if there is a consensus to make a change we should change to that, however I don't see the harm in leaving it as it is compared to the potential sh!tstorm that could accompany a change of this nature. At the end of the day other programmes are still going to be using different dialects, and complete standardisation is impossible because we can't have "British space program" or "US space programme", so I think partial standardisation, for one part of the structure, could do more harm than good. --W. D. Graham 15:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take a look at, which categories are proposed to be renamed? They are all related to the space program of the Soviet Union. There are no other nations represented. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was if you can't standardise universally, doing it on a smaller scale will cause all of the problems and carry few of the benefits. --W. D. Graham 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "program", the Soviet and American programs are intimately linked, and are Cold War political oneupsmanship, dealing with the two superpowers. As the only superpower that used English, the categories should use American English, as the program is closely tied politically to the American efforts. Since the British abandoned much of their space program early on, British English should not enter into this. Of the other English localities of this era, Canada had a much smaller space presence than the Americans (even if it was the third country to have a national satellite in space), and Australia even less so. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, all articles relating to competitors of the US or events during the US's tenure as superpower should be written with US spelling.  —Sowlos  10:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option Two: standardise on Programme. Articles relating to non-American subjects, should default to British spelling.  —Sowlos  10:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option One mainly because it is just plain wrong to impose British use on everything that is non-American. The specific competition with the US progam also has resonance, but even more so to assume British domination worldwide outside the US is extreme British chauvanism that I do not think we should tolerate. It basically says "British is right, and we will use it unless forced not to."John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very much for the standardization/standarisation of the spelling in all of the Soviet space-categories listed. I don't have a strong view which way it goes after that, whether to Option 1 or Option 2. Is there any way to find out how the Soviets themselves typically did it when they translated their own Russian language to English during the Soviet era? N2e (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Since the major English language space exploration was American, and the British and European ones relatively modest, I would not oppose the American spelling in this case. However, this should not be a precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option Two: - involves the least change, which is in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. Or leave them mixed, which wouldn't be the end of the world. The size of the American program is wholly beside the point; Russian things go to the first mover under the ENGVAR policy. Johnbod (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2013 (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.

Category:Mars spacecraft[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wholly duplicates the scope of its parent Category:Missions to Mars (which is also its only parent). No other planet under Category:Missions to the planets has this sort of category; WP:OC. The Bushranger One ping only 10:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. My first thought was that as both categories have a substantial population, this is a useful sub-cat, and it doesn't matter that no other planet missions cat has one of these sub-cats. However, on closer inspection, I agree that it duplicates the scope. After merger there may be scope to create more useful sub-cats instead, but I don't see a use for this one. – Fayenatic London 17:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are more spacecraft to Mars than missions. One categorizes spacecraft, the other categorizes missions, so they don't categorize the same thing either. Several missions have involved multiple spacecraft. That other planets don't have this structure is WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't exist. The fact is is that Mars has had the most missions and spacecraft visit it, so would be the only planet that could end up with this. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the context of the tree Category:Missions to the planets, "missions" is synonymous with "spacecraft". - The Bushranger One ping only 08:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are not, since we already have a category for Mars spacecraft. We have the mission "MESUR Pathfinder" which resulted in two spacecraft, "Mars Pathfinder" (Carl Sagan Memorial Station) and "Mars Sojourner", Sojourner was not a separate mission, it was a separate spacecraft. The "MER" mission consisted of two spacecraft, Spirit and Opportunity, so this is another one where the mission and the spacecraft are not synonymous. Let's use a lunar mission as an example. Is "Apollo 11" a lunar mission or are "Columbia" and "Eagle" two lunar missions? Are Mars Sojourner and Carl Sagan station two separate missions, or two separate spacecraft part of one mission? We can extend this categorization scheme to many of the other planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Venus), but not all (Uranus, Neptune, Mercury) as these three planets only received missions composing of one spacecraft. The former three planets received missions that had multiple spacecraft involved, like the Venus Multiprobe, or Vega with its four spacecraft cluster. Saturn has had Cassini and Huyens but one mission. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge AFAIK Mars has not spaceships. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2013 (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.

Category:Deaths with bayonets[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy. As noted in the original nomination, the proposed name follows other subcategories of Category:Deaths by blade weapons and Category:Deaths by violence. The Bushranger One ping only 10:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at Speedy page
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.

Category:Unique aircraft carriers[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Missed nominating this one when all its companion categories were deleted at this discussion. All articles already properly categorised elsewhere. The Bushranger One ping only 09:52, 29 March 2013 (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.

Category:Mathematics source templates[edit]

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: reverse merge.---Mike Selinker (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#math template cat hierarchy The two categories largely duplicate each other and the diference in scope is subtile. Happy for the merge to go either way with a slight preference for referencing resources as its a more inclusive title. Salix (talk): 09:06, 29 March 2013 (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.

Category:Catskill Fire lookout towers[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Originally had the first of these nominated for speedy, but after some discussion regarding the second (which had been nominated for a simple caps change), decided to take it here to see if there would be any other opinions. The proposed titles fit the subject parent category (Category:Fire lookout towers in New York), and also better fit the area parent categories (Category:Catskill Park, Category:Adirondack Park). Note that "the" is not used before park names for categories of this sort (note for instance subcats of Category:Yellowstone National Park etc.). The Bushranger One ping only 08:41, 29 March 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_29&oldid=1138398339"