Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 19: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:01, 19 January 2006

January 19

Category:Pilots merged with Category:Aviators

Both categories currently consist of military pilots, solo pilots, adventurers, etcetera...there's no distinction made, and it would be difficult to ever make one. Since Aviators is a more complete category (including subcats, etc), I suggest we keep it, and move all the "Pilots" over. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military of the Republic of Ireland

duplicate of Category:Irish Defence Forces, which is the name of the main article (the only one in the CFD category) Joestynes 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American string instrument musicians

Empty. I don't know whether it was ever in use, but there are other categories for the relevant articles. Bhoeble 18:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, overcat. R adiant _>|< 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12 Stones albums

Obviously, every band on Wikipedia does not need its own category. — simpatico ^hi 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. R adiant _>|< 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nickelodeon_Actors → Category:Nickelodeon child actors

Carly 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was placed in speedy. I'm moving it here because I don't believe it qualifies for a speedy rename. --Kbdank71 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stanley Cup Champions → Category:Stanley Cup winners

To be consistent with other sports award categories. ThreeAnswers 20:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was placed in speedy. I'm moving it here because I don't believe it qualifies for a speedy rename. --Kbdank71 15:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For the record, Stanley Cup Champions is more prevalent. --Kbdank71 15:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be sure? It's not difficult to find 'Stanley Cup winner' for individuals including on Wikipedia.--ThreeAnswers 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. List of Stanley Cup champions is a list of the teams that have won the Cup. One or the other will have to be changed to avoid confusion, and it seems better to me to change the newer page rather than the older. Even if kept, the 'c' in Champions ought to be lowercased.--ThreeAnswers 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child prodigies

This seems to be being used indiscriminately for any one young(ish)that takes someone's fancy. The Wikipedia article Child prodigy suggests that the term be use for people up to the age of about 11 who have achieved something notable. The first few names I clicked on this list were various ages from 11 to early twenties. Some of them had articles which showed that they went on to have great careers, but of their early years there is often a nondescript sentences on the lines of 's/he was looked on as a prodigy' without specifying what was so amazing. To speak two languages by the age of 5, specified for one listed person, is in fact a commonplace achievement. As the category is being used so widely as to be meaningless, and as there is no mechanism to police it so that it contains 'real' prodigies as defined by WP, it should be deleted.- Smerus 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Smerus 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep but define the category as people who were notable for their accomplishments before age 12. basically, the standard ought to be that they would still deserve an article if they had died at age 12. keep the name though, it's simple.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derex (talk • contribs) 2006-01-19 12:30:37 (UTC)
Keep per Derex. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, peacock term, not objectively defined. R adiant _>|< 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but strictly define it as being under 12, and only in the fields of instrumental music, art, sports or academics. We don't want actors included on there, for example. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living people

too broad, unnecessary, no use (nominated by Street walker)

Note from Jimbo: This category is desperately needed to deal with a growing problem. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is an attempt to deal with the problem, but in order for that policy to be effective, we need a convenient way for people who are interested in this topic to systematically go through vetting these articles. I am flexible on the title and structure of the category, of course, but I believe that CfD is not appropriate.--Jimbo Wales 15:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Note from Jimbo: Let me be clear about this. This category is desperately needed and is not optional. I am willing to impose it from top down if necessary. I am flexible as to the title and structure of this category, but CfD is not appropriate.--Jimbo Wales 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations to Category:Healthcare occupations

Merge and redirect - Superfluous category, I am aware it is part of the Standard Occupational Classification System, but it adds nothing, and a redirect would work instead. John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect the same articles are in both categories, and I think "healthcare occupations" is the more appropriate name --CDN99 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the shorter version. Golfcam 18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chiropractors to Category:Chiropractors by nationality

Merge - Superfluous category. John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There aren't any chiropractor specialties, so I don't imagine there will be any other subcategories for chiropractors. Maybe the merge should be the other way around?--CDN99 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I thought the reverse might be a good idea, but this fits with other professions by nationality. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 14:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The "top level" of the hierarchy should clearly be called Category:Chiropractors. Perhaps the proposer has put these back to front in error? Category:Chiropractors by nationality may be superfluous, but it appears to be standard practice to add such a subcat above the individual nationality subcats. Valiantis 15:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - One of them is superfluous. --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge The top category should always be named after the occupation alone. Where there are no other subcategories, put the top category into category:Occupations by nationality. CalJW 17:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oriental medicine to Category:Traditional medicine

Merge Is Oriental distinctive enough to merit a subcat, considering every single article under traditional is oriental?. John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --CDN99 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The orient is one part of the world. Category:Traditional medicine needs populating. Golfcam 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The orient may be one part of the world, that does not mean that Oriental medicine requires an entire category, especially since the individual articles are already classified as Chinese, Ayuverdic, etcetera. This just adds a needless layer to categorization tree. There aren't enough Traditional medicine articles to justify further subcategorization by region as well as by nation or specific tradition. Keep in mind, there are no Category:Occidental medicine, Category:Northern medicine, Category:Southern medicine, or Category:Central medicine, under Category:Traditional medicine.--John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 19:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bach flower remedies to Category:Homeopathy

Merge Only 3 articles in the category, the named article, the originator, and an alternate form. John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree^^--CDN99 14:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homeopathic remedies to Category:Homeopathy

Merge The distinction is lost on me. And the category has one article nosode. John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only created two weeks ago, but it seems to have been orphaned. Nothing to put in it anyway. --CDN99 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Traditional medical practices to Category:Traditional medicine

Merge The distinction is lost on me. John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Couldn't have said it better. --CDN99 14:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the others said. Golfcam 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jakobstad

This category has been bothering me for months. It's the "odd one out" in the subcategories of Category:Cities and towns in Finland. Jakobstad is way too small to deserve its own category at this point. The category has a total of three articles, one for the city itself and two for historical people associated with it. To see how minor this city is compared to the others with their own categories, see List of Finnish municipalities by population and the other Finnish city categories. Currently the next smallest city with its own category is Kajaani (see Category:Kajaani), which also has very few articles. Kajaani is at place 21 - Jakobstad is at place 54. That's a bigger difference in placings than between Kajaani and the biggest city, Helsinki. According to the list, Kajaani has 35842 people, Jakobstad has 19457. That means Kajaani is 1.84 times as big as Jakobstad, and still is a reasonably small city in Finland. Keep in mind that of the other cities with their own categories, Kajaani is the smallest, and even then it has such a huge difference compared to Jakobstad. I recommend this category be deleted. JIP | Talk 11:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rankings aren't important, but the non-existence of articles for categorisation is. Biographies are marginal items in a city category anyway. CalJW 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By the same argument, Category:Kajaani and Category:Lahti, which I created, should also be deleted, as well as Category:Porvoo, which was created by someone else. I have no problem with that. There are still at least four or five Finnish categories with a reasonable number of articles. JIP | Talk 17:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisville education to Category:Education in Louisville

Rename to the same format as the other 53 categories in Category:Education by city. Choalbaton 07:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename Golfcam 18:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisville transportation to Category:Transportation in Louisville

Rename to match its eleven siblings in Category:Transportation in the United States by city. Choalbaton 07:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename Golfcam 18:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Negative numbers

Delete. Wikipedia don't have articles for negative numbers, and the only existing one, -19 is being deleted. -- Egil 06:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but note there are also articles for −0 (number), -1 (number), and -40 (number) that are not being deleted (though they're not members of this cat either). In the future someone can make a subcategory for negatives in Category:Integers. ×Meegs 07:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not do it today? Yes, the current cat would need to be cleaned up, but that's not hard. Vegaswikian 07:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it doesn't qualify for speedy renaming, but we could change the nomination into a rename. Or, if you want to make a [[Category:Negative integers]] from scratch, go for it. There are only three members (excluding -9 and -19), and doesn't seem to be much growth, though. ×Meegs 08:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a subcategory for negative integers. A negative integer is still an integer (and technically, -0 isn't even negative :) ). Put them in Categoty:Integers. R adiant _>|< 09:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've changed the sort keys for the three existing − articles, so they sort immediately after their + counterparts in Category:Integers. — sjorford (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Graded American Stakes Races to Category:United States horse races

Like the item below, this one has been renamed to a non-standard form and redirected. No attempt has been made to perform the useful task of actually dividing the races by grade. Merge into Category:United States horse races to return things to how they were before. Choalbaton 04:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Merge as proposed. The names is wrong anyway. Golfcam 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Horseracing Trainers to Category:American horse trainers

This has been unilaterally changed from the standard form by the use of a redirect. Merge back into pre-existing Category:American horse trainers. Choalbaton 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Someone's ignoring the rules. If you want to change a category name, you have to come here and ask. Golfcam 18:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World of Stephen Colbert

Overlaps heavily with Category:The Colbert Report and possibly Category:The Daily Show. Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Category:Articles by person, typically only exceptionally notable people have their own category. --Interiot 03:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. All the things in the category are linked from Steven Colbert. --waffle iron 03:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; he's just not THAT important. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syracuse buildings to Category:Buildings and structures in Syracuse

Another irregular buildings and structures category. Rename as per convention for subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures by city. Choalbaton 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename Not enough voters on this page. 17 hours and I'm the first. Golfcam 18:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manitobans to Category:People from Manitoba

People from Place style. JonHarder 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Choalbaton 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Category:Australian people by states and territories

All subcats within listed category need to be renamed--nixie 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Iranologits

Misspelling of Iranologists. JonHarder 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Perhaps it's about gits who practice Iranology. JIP | Talk 14:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unused typo. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourist attractions in California to Category:Tourism in California

To match the format used by the other subcats of Category:United States tourism by state. Vegaswikian 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 '''Note from Jimbo:''' This category is desperately needed to deal with a growing problem.  [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] is an attempt to deal with the problem, but in order for that policy to be effective, we need a convenient way for people who are interested in this topic to systematically go through vetting these articles.  I am flexible on the title and structure of the category, of course, but I believe that CfD is not appropriate.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 15:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
+'''Second Note from Jimbo:''' Let me be clear about this.  This category is desperately needed and '''is not optional'''.  I am willing to impose it from top down if necessary.  I am flexible as to the title and structure of this category, but CfD is not appropriate.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' L-O-L. Michael Jackson, Mustafa Sandal and Brian Curtin, who knew? --[[User:CDN99|CDN99]] 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' Danny and Jimbo have created this category for the purpose of a project to improve and monitor [[Wikipedia:biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]]. Further information is to be provided on the mailing list; I will update the discussion with a link when I have it. [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 15:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-**[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/037453.html An announcement] has been made. [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 15:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep'''. It's a good idea. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment'''. This category will, if updated accordingly, contain tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of articles. Who will ever have the time to go through them? '''No vote'''. [[User:JIP|<font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment:''' What about implementing a Special page that lists all articles with a birth date category, but not a death date category? This would effectively be the same as a "Living People" category (after fixing articles that mistakenly omit a death category). [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 15:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*:There really isn't a simple way to accomplish what you've requested. It would basically require some HUGE set operations (union of all years born - union of all years dead) and thus couldn't be made available via a special page. I can however perform this query offline, which will be good to tell people what to tag. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 16:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*:Perhaps you could create a bot which finds articles which fulfill these criteria and adds them to [[:Category:Living people]]. You can have it collect articles with a year of birth category for years higher than, say, 1890, and no year of death category. Somehow I think that using [[:Category:Living people]] will be more maintainable in the long run but we can use the information we already have to jumpstart it. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 16:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*::I'm already on it, I'm halfway done, see [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/living.txt here] (caution 3mb list).. The problem is that all 64,000 must be checked by hand, because there are quite a few who look alive in their analysis because we don't know their year of death. If there weren't quite so many I'd make a semi-automated bot show me all the first paragraphs and let me say yes/no.. In any case, even if all these were added this would not be our largest category by a pretty reasonable margin. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*:::Wow! That was fast. And the page crashed my browser :) Now we just have to find out what we do with it. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 16:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' unless something better is suggested. There are a number of people whose year of birth is known but year of death unknown so I'm not quite sold on Carbonite's idea :) There are also a number of living people whose year of birth is not public information. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 15:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-**If the year of death is unknown, let's create a "Year of death unknown" category. We could also have a "Year of birth unknown" category. The Special page would basically just select all articles where the person was born but hasn't died. This is a fairly simple SELECT query and the results could be cached to reduce server load. The majority of biographies are already tagged with birth and death categories, so it makes more sense to use the information we already have than to create a whole new category. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 15:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-***Because of the great many articles involved the query is actually fairly time consuming (although it is simple as you say). It took 4 minutes to generate. You're right about the need for the unknown deaths ... Gonna fix some of them? --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 16:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' It is an administrative category such as cleanup or unsourced images, and a *very* useful one at that. JIP, this category will be used by recent changes tools to flag edits to these articles for review and by edit filtering bots. So even if the category becomes huge, it will still remain useful. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Conditional delete''': I like Carbonite's second idea about a special page, this seems unmaintainable in its current format. Don't delete until proof-of-concept exists for the auto-categorization scheme, though. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 15:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete'''—Yet another patch created for the sole purpose of obscuring the truth: that bureaucratic manipulation of a supposedly open editing system doesn't work. This category was created to hide the fact that the few people controlling content at Wikipedia can't keep up with the workload. By shifting our attention to ''living'' people, the premise is that ''dead'' people won't care as much if their biography is incorrect. This patchwork of obfuscation is coming apart at the seams. Wikipedia will work when everyone has equal power to police each other. Editors come in here assuming good faith that their contributions will be judged on content, not Wikipedia politics and hierarchy. Category patches like "Living people" just delay the inevitable outcome of lying to these editors. *[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 16:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*:It's not just that dead people "don't care as much". It's also that living people are much more likely to have enemies and trolls inserting libel into their articles. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 16:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-:::"Enemies and trolls" make up a small percentage of the total Wikipedia membership and have a relatively small voice when editors have equal power to police each other. Against the few content controllers in the ''current'' system, however, "enemies and trolls" are overwhelming. Also, I'm sure most people would agree that Wikipedia bureaucracy '''''creates''''' "enemies and trolls." *[[User:Peace Inside|Peace Inside]] 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' Very practical solution to an evolving problem. Useful for verifying categories and facts of BLP.--[[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 16:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Speey Keep'''. Requested by Jimbo. If someone doesn't like the idea, think of another one and implement that as well. Both can work together. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color="#222222">BRIAN</font></b>]]</span></sup> &bull; 2006-01-19 17:01</small>
-*'''Delete''', per Carbonite's reasoning above. If this a requirement then come up with a ''smart'' solution using the database and year born / year died dates. Speedy keep because Jimbo says so - oh please... Thanks/[[User:Wangi|wangi]] 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*:Or even better: [[Wikipedia:Persondata]]. Thanks/[[User:Wangi|wangi]] 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' It's just useless category clutter - useless because no one is going to monitor the contents effectively. If it becomes fully populated there will only be a known sensitive article on every other page or so, so they won't be easy to spot in a sea of unfamiliar names, unless you know which articles you are looking for, in which case you can use the search box. No-one has any significant knowledge about more than a fraction of the living people with articles, so clicking on names at random won't be very productive. I don't want to see a link that is such a waste of space on tens of thousands of articles (and it will be hundreds of thousands before long). If we want a useful tool for the stated purpose it should be called something like [[:category:Previously vandalised biographies of living people]]. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 17:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''delete''' this seems like a real kludge, and its adoption for short-term convenience encourages long-term sloppiness and clutter.  the main purpose of categories ought to be to provide further links for readers interested in a general topic. this category is useless in that regard.  on the other hand, it is useful to wikipedia editors -- as a type of database entry.  perhaps a more elegant & useful solution would be to allow "invisible" database tags on articles.  i suppose it's just a matter of aesthetics, but seeing "living people" at the bottom of the page just looks stupid to me -- so do birth/death cats though. why not just keep a '''list''' (or lists) of these ... that's about as easy as adding a category tag. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 17:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*:See [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] for those "invisible database tags on articles"... Ta/[[User:Wangi|wangi]] 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-:::Perfect! adding that template should be no harder than adding a "living persons" category. it's also more generically useful.  then, living persons is trivial per carbonite.  double-delete this silly category.  [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-::::This would only be useful for offline analysis, not for flagging recent changes.. for example. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' I just saw this on Dubya's article and I thought it was some little kid's prank. I've read all the stuff, and it still seems like some kind of prank. It just has to go. [[User:Golfcam|Golfcam]] 17:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Delete''' Much too broad and silly. -- [[User:MisterHand|MisterHand]] 17:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''', one of silliest categories I've seen. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete'''. To interprete Pavel's words in my way, "This category is a shit". - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] 19:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''', this is a silly idea that won't even accomplish what it's intended to do, it'll just create a big pointless category. I have no clue why Jimbo is involving himself. To deal with vandalism, get more RC patrollers. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[:Category:Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations]] to [[:Category:Healthcare occupations]]====