Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 28

< November 27	November 29 >

November 28[edit]

Category:Civil rights abuses[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - far too subjective and arbitrary to serve as a basis for categorization. Begs editors to engage in original research and WP:POV in deciding what gets categorized. To answer the anticipated objection, yes there will be sources that call one thing or another an abuse of someone's civil rights but that is a matter of opinion, not fact. The category might be saved if it is renamed to something like Category:Civil rights violations and is restricted to instances where civil rights have been legally held to have been violated but even then it would require constant maintenance. Otto4711 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While I appreciate the idea behind this category, it's just far too subjective and POV to be maintainable. Terraxos (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Civil rights violations per nom. Wikipedia does not search for The Truth. We do not make determinations on our own as editors. We base them off of reliable and verifiable sources. The nominator himself has already confirmed that a hard-and-fast definition is not required, as confirmed by the broad consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:LGBT-related_television_episodes. Based on the standard our nominator has set per WP:CAT, three questions that are useful in determining the utility of a category are: 1) Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? YES - There are libraries full of boos on civil-rights violations, affecting individuals by race, religion, ethnicity, national origin and sexual preference. 2) Is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? YES - The description of the category could not be any clearer as to what is included 3) Does the category fit into the overall categorization system? YES - Given other categories that have been linked here, I'd say yes again. And the first guideline for category usage is that the category groups similar articles together. That is certainly happening here. If we are to end the game that CfD has become, following a consistent set of standards, both as a community and by individual editors, would be a strong step in the right direction. That so many of these incidents are suppressed and underreported, especially attacks against gays and lesbians, argues strongly for the retention of this category. Alansohn (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you wish that previous CFD had any relevance to this one and to the others that you endlessly link it to, the difference is that everything included in the LGBT episodes category has significant verifiable LGBT content. No reasonable person can deny that the episodes have significant LGBT content. Whereas much of what's included in this category has reasonable people flat-out denying that they are civil rights abuses or violations. The category description, which reads in its entirety Civil rights are the rights granted to citizens under the laws of their nation or any of its subdivisions (states, provinces, etc.)., offers absolutely no guidance as to what is or is not included. Should US income tax protesters be included here because they believe that the federal income tax is illegal and abusive? Should the Brady Bill? There are certainly people who claim that it is an abuse of civil liberties. How about Boycotts of Proposition 8 supporters? The article's creator believes it should be included here but several other editors who have worked on it (myself included) do not. And just to clarify, I do not think that the category has much chance of being salvageable even if it is renamed, so your rename !vote is not "per nom". WP:CAT is not the end-all and be-all when it comes to category creation or retention. It is a guideline and it is modified by other guidelines and it is overridden by policy. Finally, you have repeatedly made your point that you believe the CFD process is a "joke", thus disrespecting the efforts of the many editors who have worked with diligence and good faith to craft it. We get it. You can stop now. Otto4711 (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed the sanctimonious nonsense about imposing your arbitrary opinion as to what you feel categories should and should not be, with complete disregard of how they will be used. As you yourself have suggested, this category should be limited to civil rights violations, which none of your usual nonsensical cases meet. You stated your opinion; I disagreed. Learn to accept it and move on to harass others or find another hobby. Alansohn (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the way you, shall we say, follow me from one CFD to the next, perhaps you're the one who might need to take up a new hobby. Otto4711 (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow you around? I use a Wikipedia feature called "watch list" (<-- click on the link for details) that shows me when pages I have an interest in are updated. When the page pops up, I look at the article and respond. Is this concern based on paranoia, narcissism or a subtle blend of both? Alansohn (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto as a title that is too subjective to be a useful means of categorization. Having sources somewhere in the known universe that so characterise something will generally not help. Membership in a category should be far more self-evident and less subjective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GOF. And per Terraxos. Postdlf (talk) 00:08, 4 December 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.

Histories of cities and towns in the United Kingdom[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 Category:Histories of settlements in Foo. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME

Category:Histories of cities in the United Kingdom to Category:Histories of cities and towns in the United Kingdom
Category:Histories of cities in Northern Ireland to Category:Histories of cities and towns in Northern Ireland
Category:Histories of cities in Wales to Category:Histories of cities and towns in Wales
Category:Histories of cities in Scotland to Category:Histories of cities and towns in Scotland
Category:Histories of cities in England to Category:Histories of cities and towns in England

My reasoning is that for the final category, i have also found Dorchester, St Neots and Milton Keynes which do not have city status. They are just towns. However, if the England category was renamed on its own, it would look out of place to the other categories so they should be renamed as well. Simply south (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of changing "cities and towns" to "settlements"? --Jza84 | Talk 00:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surre. Settlements seems to be controversial as apparently it has different meaning in different countries. Simply south (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but prefer "Settlements" would be acceptable in UK and more comprehensive. Towns and cities might still not be comprehensive enough, as we also have villages here, which are neither towns (of which there are many), nor cities (a status for a limited number of places). Complete conformity between countries within WP is impracticable due to differing usages in different countries. I do not expect that we are likely to get many articles on village histories soon (as opposed to a history section in village articles), but the possibility exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but I agree that settlements is more inclusive and comprehensive. Alansohn (talk) 18:13, 30 November 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:Argentinian → Argentine[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 or Delete as per nomination. While there was an issue about deleting the two category redirects I'm not sure what benefit would be had for maintaining these redirects. If it turns out that there is a need for the redirect at what would be the new name then this close should not be viewed as preventing creation of those category redirects. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Argentinian skateboarders to Category:Argentine skateboarders

Propose renaming Category:Argentinian restricted-range endemic bird species to Category:Argentine restricted-range endemic bird species

Propose deleting Category:Argentinian travel writers

Propose deleting Category:Argentinian anti-communists

Nominator's rationale: Rename/Delete. These appear to be the only four categories that do not use "Argentine" out of over 1,600 such categories. Two are redirects which seem unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Delete as per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename All per nom from Argentinian to Argentine for consistency. If this is being presented as a change being made for consistency purposes, the proposed deletions should be omitted and considered separately. If left here, all four categories listed should be renamed. Alansohn (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the nomination, travel writers and anti-communists are category redirects. They do not need to be renamed, as the "Argentine" versions already exist. Otto4711 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 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:Food organizations[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Food-related organizations, which better encapsulates what the category is used for. And besides, what is a "Food organization"? Cgingold (talk) 22:13, 28 November 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:Spanish-Dominicans[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spanish-Dominicans to Category:Dominican Republic people of Spanish descent

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention for cat pages listing Fooian people of Booian descent (for pages not pertaining to the United States) Mayumashu (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I thought the Dominican friars were meant. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REname per nom, accoridng to long precedent, but check that no Spanish friars are included. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 30 November 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:Bangladesh Navy Ship[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bangladesh Navy Ship to Category:Ships of the Bangladesh Navy

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following standard conventions for categories for ships by navy, (Category:Ships by navy), such as Category:Ships of the Argentine Navy, Category:Ships of the Brazilian Navy, etc. Benea (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. Suggested name fits with consensus naming practice for ships by navy; also fixes capitalization, plural problems. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. N.b. "Bangladesh Navy" is the correct term, as opposed to "Bangladeshi Navy". Haus^Talk 22:05, 28 November 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:Friendship associations[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 Category:Friendship associations to Category:International friendship associations. Keep the others pending follow on nominations by interested editors. There are several issues here. One was renaming to organizations. On this point I'm not sure that would be correct since these are generally know as friendship associations and not friendship organizations. So clearly that change needs a dedicated discussion if anyone is interested in pushing it. Some of these categories may be too small and should be upmerged to the parent category. But again this should be discussed under a new nomination since they could be considered as a part of a small series. Finally I have a concern with the naming of these as Category:Foo friendship associations. I'm not convinced that is the correct form. Maybe Category:Fooian friendship associations or Category:Friendship associations based in Foo would be better except for the fact that most of these are named for multiple countries. So in my mind, there are several questions to be discussed. Simply relisting for additional comments would not likely produce a clear result. New directed nominations would be more likely to develop a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:International friendship organizations, Category:Cuba friendship organizations, Category:Israel friendship organizations, and Category:Soviet Union friendship organizations, respectively, per rationale below.

Delete (or Rename) per rationale below.

Nominator's Rationale: While many of these articles are, indeed, about entities called associations, many others do not use that term. The generic term that has been agreed upon for Category names is "organizations", hence this proposal for renaming of four categories. For the sake of clarity, I've also added the word "International" to the parent category.

A second issue that needs to be addressed is whether we should have single-article sub-cats, as represented by the latter group of three that are proposed for deletion. I'm not a big fan of tiny categories; however, there is a case to be made for keeping/creating sub-cats for all "target" countries, because the names of the organizations don't necessarily indicate which of the named countries is the "target". If kept, these categories should be renamed as per the other four. Notified both creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, while I think its a good idea to add 'International' to the main category, I think the rest should be kept. 'Friendship association' is an established term, at least in the communist terminology. Comparing [1] and [2], [3] and [4] shows that 'association' is a more common term. As per the single article subcats, they all have a scope of expanding 20-30+ articles each. All Socialist Bloc countries ran a system of these friendship associations. --Soman (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on association vs. organization aspect, but wouldn't a better naming style be (Group name) of (Country), like Category:Friendship associations of Cuba, etc.? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very important for the country-names to come immediately before the word "friendship", because that ties the two words together in a single term. Without that adjacency, the meaning is lost. Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for first group - Keep the present names. In Soviet Union this groups were called "societies" (e.g. Anglo-Soviet friendship society, Soviet-Chinese friendship society). "Organisation" is too broad term.
As for single-article categories in a second group - delete them.
Adding international to the main category is OK.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename first to Category:International friendship associations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). One difficulty with the use of organsiations/organizations would be an argument over the coirrect spelling. Additionally, embassies, trade missions, etc. might come into it, which is I think not what is intended. The present first item might include Friendly Societies, which is also not as intended. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling of organi[z/s]ations is not an obstacle here, any more than it is anywhere else -- i.e. it's already covered by the general rules pertaining to American/British spelling. And the super-category contains a sub-categories with both spellings, as is usual. The article Friendly Society is what you Brits refer to as a "one-off" case, hardly a fatal concern as it relates to the name of this category. Cgingold (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those categories with multiple articles. The single article categories, unless evidence of potential expansion is provided, should be upmerged to Category:Friendship associations. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So far, nobody has tackled head-on the fundamental issue that prompted this CFD: "associations" is a somewhat narrower term than "organizations", which has already been settled on as the preferred generic term for Category names. Given that about half of the articles currently included in these categories use terms other than "association", I think we are obliged to rename them using the broader term "organizations". Cgingold (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial close comment. There is consensus in my view to rename Category:Friendship associations to Category:International friendship associations, I'm not ignoring the point on organizations raised by several editors, and I will make that one happen. However I'm still looking at the other nominations and the proposal to rename to organizations. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 9 December 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:People with sickle cell anemia[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 Category:People with sickle-cell disease. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Like some of the other medical-condition categories that have been deleted, I suggest that this may not be defining for those who have had it. However, it does shorten one's life span, so it's not completely trivial. (But then again, ones for diabetes and eating disorders have been deleted, and those also can kill.) If there is no consensus for delete, then at least rename to Category:People with sickle-cell disease to match the article Sickle-cell disease and the subcategory Category:Deaths from sickle-cell disease. (Sickle cell anemia redirects to Sickle-cell disease.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People with sickle-cell disease to match parent article title, rename subcategory to Category:Deaths from sickle-cell disease. Alansohn (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:People with sickle-cell disease to distinguish from people who only have the milder form of sickle cell anemia referred to as sickle-cell trait. While there may be some individuals for whom sickle-cell disease happens not to be "defining", I'd say they would be the exception. For most people, living with sickle-cell disease and the omni-present anticipation of a sickle-cell crisis is comparable to living with epilepsy and the omni-present anticipation of a grand mal seizure. Cgingold (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:People with sickle-cell disease per Cgingold. That it is genetic makes it of greater interest, especially to those groups at high risk, and especially distinguishes it for our purposes from "lifestyle" conditions, I think. Rightly or wrongly, often said to be a neglected, overlooked condition, & I would not want WP to be seen to be adding to that. Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines, I just added a new parent cat, Category:People of Black African descent. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the common stereotype, not all people with sickle-cell are African. Even saying "most people with sickle cell are black" is only true in the United States. It is also relatively common among Greeks and Italians (which despite being partly "sired by Moors" are generally not considered black), and in South America and southern India and other tropical areas with a high incidence of malaria [5] [6] [7]. — CharlotteWebb 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

saying "most people with sickle cell are black" (not that anyone here did) is certainly true in the UK, and of course in Africa. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not exclusively Black African, but is the incidence of the disease (not the trait) among other groups actually high enough that other parent cats would be appropriate? Cgingold (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of them would be appropriate, unless you also believe "cystic fibrosis" should be a sub-category of "white people". — CharlotteWebb 05:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing the relevance, people. Since when do we categorize diseases by the ethnicity of a large portion of the sufferers? Sure, one could cherry-pick the statistic that 3/4 of AIDS-related deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa (which seems to be true), and make "HIV-positive people" a sub-category of "Black Africans", but they'd be reverted if not blocked for it. — CharlotteWebb 08:18, 30 November 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:East Asian Religions[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 DELETE, creator-requested. Postdlf (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Incorrectly capitalized. Editor2020 (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the category, you can simply put {{db-author}} on the category page, and voila!, it will be Speedy Deleted. I see you've already created the correctly spelled category. For future reference, typos & spelling errors in Category names are routinely handled at WP:CFDS, rather than requiring a full-blown CFD. Cgingold (talk) 09:15, 28 November 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:Divisions of the ABC[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: No consensus on merge, Rename to Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation divisions. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Divisions of the ABC to Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Nominator's rationale: Merge - I'm not seeing any reason to maintain this level of categorization between the parent and the articles. If retained it should be renamed to expand the acronym since there are other ABCs. Otto4711 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Divisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to match title of parent article. Parent category is large enough to meaningfully subdivide into a grouping of articles with a common characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 29 articles in the parent category. Increasing that by five is hardly going to swell it beyond usability. Otto4711 (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy issue here or is this just pushing an arbitrary personal preference? What does upmerging accomplish? CfD is disruptive enough that a nomination that accomplishes nothing is entirely unnecessary. Keeping one more category that you don't like is not going to decrease usability. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, there you go again, falsely ascribing motives to me. Sweetie, just because someone disagrees with you about a category doesn't mean that their motives aren't pure and I do wish you'd figure that out at some point. I am simply answering your claim that the size of the parent category warrants the subcategory by pointing out that the parent category is not really very large at all. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you use profanity or condescending terms of endearment, your persistent abuse of the most basic concepts of civility demonstrate that you need to resolve the problem or find another hobby. Your proffered rationalization for deletion is that you are "not seeing any reason to maintain this level of categorization". I would say that my description is a rather accurate summary, and anything but "falsely ascribing motives". Your justification is not based on any policy; this is your personal preference and bias. There are clear reasons to group by this subcategory. If you have a policy reason for merging the category out of existence, please allow other editors to evaluate the justification.

Comment if kept, rename per Alansohn, because this is a highly ambiguous name. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EXpand abbreviation if kept. No view as to retention/upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept to Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation divisions. I believe this is the normal form for companies, but many of these are of the form Category:Foocompany divisions and subsidiaries. This is shorter and the emphasis is on the company rather then the divisions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe the division is necessary because of the navigational barrier it presents I concur that Vegaswikian's is the best rename choice. Otto4711 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I can't see any good reason to keep this subcategory, and there would be some utility to having all of the ABC articles in one category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]