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 as part of a wider scheme, unless Romania has only one triumphal arch, in which case the issue ought to be revisited. Black Falcon(Talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A look at the list at Triumphal arch shows this tree has a long way to go in terms of completeness (though that also shows only the same one in Romania). From my brief visit, I rather doubt it is the only one in the country though. Anyway, part of wider scheme. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary classification scheme, difficult and subtle at best to classify a dish into "winter" or "summer". Stlemur (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Only items the articles state are eaten in those seasons, and inextricably tied to these seasons, are included in the cats. In fact, contrary to the proposing editor's supposition, certain foods are associated very closely with the seasons in which they are prepared and consumed, and these cats are thus valuable to those researching and working with cuisine-related articles. Badagnani (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are only eaten in that season then, these categories may be OK. But exactly how can you demonstrate that the foods are only eaten in the specific season? I'd contend that you can not prove this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The way I do it is that I actually read all the articles in question straight through before commenting. Badagnani (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So given your thorough reading, why did you not move barbecue into all 4 categories? I use mine all year long and there are many restaurants that are barbecue ones and they don't shutdown for 9 months of the year. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Badagani is dead on with his reasoning to keep. There are certain dishes that are associated with the various seasons. True not are all eaten only in those time periods, these cats are well ordered and deserve to be kept. I can think of dozens of examples of seasonal foods. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with list articles. This is one of those categories that I am dubious about, since inclusion of an article is quite a bit of a judgment call on an editor's part, and those have proven troublesome in the past. While the concept of seasonal food is possibly encylopedic, I have the feeling that it will be applied arbitrarily by editors, not necessarily based on reliable sources. I came here my means of pepita which is on my watchlist, which was added to Category:Autumn cuisine, which is not really justified; since pepitas have become a processed, packaged food, they are commonly available all year and consumed all year. Perhaps this concept might do better as a list article, where the sourcing would be more immediately visible. --MCB (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all What is meant by winter in say Nigeria? If a country was specified these might possibly make some sense. (I find that nuts are autumnal. For squirrels perhaps.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As stated earlier, if there were a winter dish or food traditionally consumed in Nigeria, and the article about that dish stated that, and it was sourced, we would include it. Even the Emerald Buddha is dressed in a sweater each winter in Bangkok. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as winter in Nigeria. There is a wet season and a dry season. This applies to many tropical countries. Any vegetable could be described as seasonal - they grow in the wet season and not in the dry season (ignoring irrigation). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then i suppose that answers the question. there would be no nigerian 'cuisines' categorized as "winter cuisine". and ambiguous "vegetables" can be removed from the category. why is that a problem? if you find one of these hypothetical conflicting vegetables you can remove it from the category. The category is for "cuisine". anything else doesnt have to be in the category. Some thing (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These categories do not create a definitive for all foods but rather reflect the content of cuisine related articles that describe the food in question as either most popular or a traditional meal in a particular season. This reflects not only harvest and processing seasons of each food such as summer squash but it's biological effects from consumption such as ginger (medicinal) or frozen deserts (temperature). As to the argument that no foods are traditional or popular in particlur season, I can only say that the claim is unfounded. Many cultures have particular dishes which are considered either more popular or more appropriate to a particular season like Naengmyeon which is popular throughout Korea during the summer. On the subject of the foods in question being exclusive to said categorized season. They are not exclusive: Cider is categorized as a "halloween food" though it is be no means only eaten on halloween. This does not mean it shouldnt be in the halloween food category. Obviously a pecan is edible any time of the year, but its ability to be preserved through the winter has allowed it to become a staple of various traditional winter holiday recipes. Another important aspect to this category system is that it is cross cultural. You can see how many similar dishes are eaten by a variety of cultures at certain times of the year. Such categorization is also valuable in the current popular fusion cooking industry. These categories were also just recently created and are due to have some refinement, such as introductory explanations on each cat page as well as maybe a more harmonious category hierarchical integration.Some thing (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note(s) Both Strong Keepers above between them created these categories (it is considered polite to mention this when commenting here). Some thing means apple cider above, although, like cider, this is a drink, and it is cider (ie the alcoholic one) in the Halloween category. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arbitrariness and it also fails to take into account the differences that exist in the Southern Hemisphere with respect to seasons and holidays. Christmas in the South is in summer, so classifying food that is traditionally eaten at Christmastime as "winter cuisine" (e.g., eggnog) is not correct, since in the South it is considered to be a type of summer cuisine. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how about a citation to back that claim up. It may be a drink of some novelty in australia. But i bet it is hardly considered integral to the summer season.Some thing (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the 4 seasons, but keep the main categoryCategory:Seasonal cuisine for things like Category:Christmas meals and feasts, which was in no food category at all until I added it just now. There are also sub-cats for Easter & Halloween. Otherwise sensible lists (no ice cream) could be produced, finding some way round the hemisphere issue. These categories are extremely US-centric also, anyone from the homelands of the kebab would find it very odd that they are regarded as seasonal. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree with this reasoning, but the dissection needs to be done carefully; otherwise the deletion-worthy categories will just get re-created. --Stlemur (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (a) trivial, (b) geographically dependent, (c) arbitrary, and (d) ultimately, false. A quick browse through winter foods shows that nuts, pecans, sweet potato, Edam cheese, and cat are winter foods. All without sourcing. I would hazard a guess that people in the US eat nuts, pecans, sweet potato, and Edam all times of year, and cat almost never during winter. Meaningless... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dog has been egregiously omitted from the list of winter delicacies (see the China section). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative approach / issues I agree with the comments above regarding southern versus northern hemispheres impacting with festive occasions, etc. Perhaps the categories should be traditional foods by season and traditional foods by festive occasion . . . ? Also, some new world countries in either hemisphere are more aligned with the seasonal traditions of their initial migrations . . . from a different hemisphere . . . ? Peet Ern (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concede, that might be a better approach. I have found in actuality that the holiday meals are usually local to particular countries or continents, so you dont really find seasonal conflicts between north and southern hemispheres. I also think that keeping the categories more specified to prepared "cuisines" would eliminate alot of conflict over vague differences, as brought up over the "nut" article. i guess i'm supporting traditional cuisine by season?Some thing (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course you're not mistaken, because the articles themselves mention in which season they're eaten. Those commenting that the categories are "totally arbitrary" haven't actually taken the time to read the articles, and when they do find an article that's ambiguous they don't argue for debating the removal of that article from the category but instead for the destructive act of deleting all the categories. It all comes down to actually reading the articles contained in the categories straight through. Badagnani (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm eating turkey in April and see nothing wrong with it. Appears to suffer deep issues of systemic bias and original research. — CharlotteWebb 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
turkey was never in any of these categories. youre not even bothering to read anything.Some thing (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The case is very clear from the comments of those in favor of deletion and the weakness of the answers for keeping. It is possible that some of these may be able to return with a more precise name and less ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I think the claim that arguments for keeping are week and that arguments for deleting are strong is without due support. First i've removed most articles that were considered questionable. Next lets take a moment to examine an example, Dongchimi. Badagnani has pointed out that "Dongchimi are consumed primarily in winter--in Korea. If someone in Korea or elsewhere wants to eat it at some other time of the year, or because it's colder in July in New Zealand and someone wants to eat it there, none of that negates that dongchimi is a food intimately associated with winter--and, in fact, "dong" means "winter."" The issue is that a seasonal cuisine is simply a cuisine considered integral to a season. Particular cultures take these considerations. A russian christmas pastry does not conflict with the southern hemisphere's consideration of such a pastry because Russia is not in the southern hemisphere. The same counter argument to the northern/southern hemisphere argument can be applied in nearly every categorized article. take a momment to read the articles in question. Note, This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.Some thing (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable as categories, and meaningless without context and further explanation. All of the above criticism is valid as to why this doesn't work as a category system. So make lists to present the information properly, to the extent that it is not OR and is verifiable. Postdlf (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2008 (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:Court cases litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union[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. Kbdank71 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - categorizing court cases on the basis of what person or organization represented one of the parties is overcategorization. Court cases are going to have litigants on both sides and in many instances more than one law firm or organization per side. Articles could end up with several such categories. No other groups appear to have such a category. A list article already exists. Otto4711 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were known on which side they were on, it were one thing. There is a common thread in the issues that they fight for. But in most of the articles, if you want to know which side they were on you have to make an educated guess. The cat, therefore, is overly vague. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 21:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is indeed a "common thread" in these. However I would support the deletion of Category:Case law lists by party or amicus as I can't think there are many similar perennially litigating organisations, other than state bodies. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might wish it were so, but there are lots and lots of impact litigation outfits. Plus of course how to distinguish one type of counsel from another -- are we going to have categories for all the many different law firms? --Lquilter (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep the list is in year order making it difficult to find a case if all you know is the name of the case; the category is in case name order (since the articles are named for the case), thus providing additional information (information includes order) that is not found in the list. Hmains (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Hmains (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, if you know the name of the case, you're probably going to get to it by typing the name of the case in the search box. Otto4711 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very hit and miss process, given the strange ways of case names, few of which probably have enough redirects. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that his comment is premised on the notion that he knows the case name but nothing else. Is someone looking for a case, who knows the name of the case, going to go to Category:Court cases litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union to find it? No. They're going to type the name of the case, which they know, in the search box. Even if they don't know the name of the case, are they likely to locate another case litigated by the ACLU and navigate to the category from it? Highly unlikely. Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Suppose one is looking for Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and can remember it had "Boy Scouts" in the name, but little else. Searching on "Boy Scouts law case" does in fact bring it up 4th, but there will be plenty of cases where this is a long and tiresome process. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you think it's more likely that the person will find the case through the category than through the search you suggest? Otto4711 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, yes. I spend a lot of time using the search box & am always surprised by the faith some people have in it. If a category is available, it is normally far quicker. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it's just nonsensical to think that someone searching for an article about a specific case who knows little or nothing about it is going to know that the ACLU was involved in litigating it and then search for a category containing cases litigated by the ACLU in hopes of finding it. I'm a paralegal, and as someone who has been intimately involved in doing legal research I can assure you that it is rare to the point of non-existence that the name of the litigating attorney or interest group is used to locate a specific case. It just doesn't happen. Otto4711 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the type of thing that is perfectly suited for a list, and very ill suited for a category. Quale (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the ACLU (and many other groups) often submit briefs on behalf of litigants or as Amicus curiae, putting these in a category is a very poor idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all criticism above. A list is the way to go. Postdlf (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and other reasons. I actually think this is interesting information, and it may well be a defining characteristic of some cases. But I think the category will be problematic. For one thing, are we just looking at ACLU national, or at the various state affiliates? Are we looking at only those cases where ACLU staff was primary counsel and how would we tell? What about cases in which ACLU was an amicus, or joined in some fashion but not a litigant in the original case? As a category this will just be painful. As a list it stands a chance of being edited into a functional reference. --Lquilter (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - categorizing Supreme Court cases on the basis of who wrote the opinion seems like a poor scheme. This appears to be the only such category. Given the fragmented nature of how some cases are decided, some cases could end up with four or five such categories on them. Not to mention all the concurring opinion and dissenting opinion categories that could be spawned. If retained, it should be renamed to something like Category:United States Supreme Court cases with opinions written by Benjamin N. Cardozo. Otto4711 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cardozo is most remembered for his writing. There's a good reason why he is the only Justice with such a cat. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 21:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Cardozo is remembered for his writing is beside the point. The cases are not defined by the fact that he happened to have written the opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rather think they are! The vast majority of references in the legal literature will only give the name, Cardozo's name, and the point he made in judgement that keeps them well known - that is the way common law works, and Cardozo's judgement is the only reason any (I would think) of these cases have articles. None would seem notable except for the legal precedents established. Note btw that most of these cases (but not all) are from before he was in the Supreme Court. Law case articles are not over-categorised & I see no harm in categorizing cases for major judges this way. Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could have a more concise name, but Cardozo opinions are famous for being Cardozo opinions. His writing while on the high court of New York established doctrines in many areas of tort and contract law, which is what led to his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. bd2412T 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
keep since the cases are notable (they have WP articles), having a category for them is certainly appropriate. Moreover, they are notable to what Justice Cordozo did: as a judge and justice, he wrote case opinions. Also, a simple reading of the articles shows they do not all involve the US Supreme Count so that renaming idea is valueless. If renamed, then try something like Category:Court cases with opinions written by Benjamin N. Cardozo might help. Hmains (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Comment I started this category as a sort of reference index for myself and another user. Perhaps it is better off as a list instead of a category? --Eastlaw (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per Eastlaw. This seems to be a very reasonable approach. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify each case during Cardozo's tenure on various courts (barring his personal recusal) "involve" him - even if he didn't write the opinion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cardozo extremely important judge, and many opinions he wrote are amongst the most cited in the common law tradition; a law school was named for him. Listify otherwise. Bearian (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify because of vagueness and overbreadth, as any case in which he voted would be a case "involving" him, and because even if limited to opinions this is better handled as a list. See 2004 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia as an example of how this can be handled; also Template:antoninscaliaopinions which provides easy navigation from the justice's bio article. Any particular fame of Cardozo or significance of his opinions, relative to other judges, is really irrelevant, because there is no principled way to draw such a line so that only "truly famous" judges have categories. Instead, if this category is permitted, then every case article is ultimately going to be categorized by every justice or judge "involved" in it, and as in many SCOTUS cases there are multiple opinions this will become unwieldy clutter of really no net navigational value, considering how Cardozo's biography is going to be linked to any case in which he was "involved." Postdlf (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also prior CFD on Category:Opinions of Justice Scalia. I started creating the SCOTUS list articles largely as a response to that poorly conceived category. People could always help me expand and fill them in rather than creating more category clutter. Just a thought. Postdlf (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But as several have pointed out, most of these are from before his time on the Supreme Court. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that the category has determined that, lacking as it does any reference to a particular court. But anyway, what's your point? Obviously a list of New York Court of Appeals opinions of Benjamin Cardozo could be created just as easily, and as you'll notice in the Scalia opinion template, for example, redlinks for future lists of lower court opinions are easily integrated. Postdlf (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "involving" ? wouldn't that be almost every case he was on the bench with? At the very least this needs to be renamed to make it clear what should be included, e.g., "opinions written by Justice Cardozo". I think a list might be better, and of more interest since it could include his opinions from multiple courts. --Lquilter (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2008 (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:Albums containing at least one cover version[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. Black Falcon(Talk) 22:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an encyclopedically notable characteristic of albums. Besides, so many albums contain a cover song that this category would effectively be too massive to be maintainable. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as i said before the Category is need if you need to delete this category you will need to go and delete nearly every category for music album like album for 1998 and stuff like that the is a great category to have (as it help a lot of people find cover songs.
Speedy delete as a recreation of a deleted category. So what if the name is different? The category was clearly created as a bad-faith attempt to circumvent concensus. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per re-creation, non-defining, arbitrary, trivial. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without assuming bad faith. Unmanageable as noted by Bearcat. Could probably contain over half of all albums ever released. — CharlotteWebb 15:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely pointless, virtually unverifiable, and totally fails the "can a head article be written about this topic" test. --Lquilter (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. When referring to the bird (which this does), the plural of kiwi is "kiwi". "Kiwis" is only the plural when the term is being used as a nickname for New Zealand people (see the note at Kiwi (disambiguation)). Grutness...wha? 12:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I never knew that. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it's standard with most loan words from Maori (Maori words are spelt the same in singular and plural, and differentiated by the definite article - a bit like the difference between "this fish" and "these fish"). So the same would be true for, say, Category:Fictional moa or Category:Fictional tuatara. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This appears to be a peculiarity of New Zealand English, since non-NZ dictionaries I've looked at say the plural for the bird is "kiwis". Incidentally, my NZ Oxford dictionary says the word is pluralized when referring to the fruit. More than one kiwifruit are "kiwis"; more than one NZer are capital-K "Kiwis". But more than one bird are "kiwi". Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, kiwifruit isn't a loanword (they were called Chinese gooseberries until about 20 years ago). FWIW, in New Zealand, the plural of kiwifruit is kiwifruit - they're never called "kiwis" here, as it would be confusing! Grutness...wha? 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My dictionary (which says the fruit can be called a kiwi and that its plural in this context is kiwis) says otherwise. As do I and my family, though we are not "native" Kiwis so we probably regularly mangle the language. My grocery store, however, always advertises "kiwis", but I know they're not selling the birds. :) But as you say, as applied to the fruit it isn't a loanword so that explains the difference. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise you were a Kiwi (capital K, there :) Perhaps it's a regional thing - I've certainly never heard the fruit called anything other than kiwifruit here in the deep south. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 15 April 2008 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge.The two categories are redundant. They should be combined under the company's current name: WWE DrWarpMind (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Roundhouse0's solution. bd2412T 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
