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: Being "straight" (whatever that means, as the term is undefined) is not a defining characteristic of an actor, or anybody else. This category is therefore useless as it would include most actors, er, as far as we know. Rodhullandemu21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Are you kidding me? I removed the one on Mel Gibson's page (he's on my watchlist), and I see you're busy tagging away with this "category", which you've now clarified[1]. This is a totally useless category at the very best. At worst, BLP issues... Doctalk21:55, 6 February 2011 (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:Rename. This is a highly ambiguous name. "Main" is a common English word, so this category is the category for the "main" basin of any given topic. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd rename this even if the article didn't change, because it's so confusing. "Main (river) basin" would seem the right rename if the article changes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not confusing in context. If you're reading a river article and you see it's categorised by XXX basin you would not think of kitchen sinks. And if you have a little general knowledge of Europe, you would probably know about the Main. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment categories have no context. Categories are not articles, they are not supposed to have a boatload of text to explain their meaning. The name of the category has to explain everything about the category. As "main basin" is ambiguous, it can be a category to store all the main basins of oceans, etc. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course they have context! They sit underneath an article. So if an article is about a river, then funny old thing the basin has to be a drainage basin! Anyway the issue has gone away because "Main" is now "Main (river)" so we can call it "Category:Main (river) basin" which should be clear enough. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while this could be confusing in theory, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone would actually be confused by it in the context they're likely to encounter it. If you get to it from Category:Rhine basin or Category:Drainage basins of Germany, it's obvious it refers to a river; likewise if you get to it from Main (river) or any of the other articles in this category. I don't see the need for disambiguation here. Robofish (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2011 (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: This is a slightly odd category. Zionism could be defined several ways, but broadly it refers to support for Israel as a Jewish national state. By that definition, the vast majority of Israelis are also Zionists: it's pretty much the mainstream view in Israel. I suggest that having a category for 'Israeli Zionists' is therefore a bit redundant; it would be rather like having a category for 'Americans who support the United States' or 'Irish people who support an independent Ireland' or indeed 'Palestinian people who support the existence of a Palestinian state'. Where a view is the mainstream view of a particular group, it doesn't need a subcategory. Category:Israeli Anti-Zionists would be fine, as that's a minority position, but this one just strikes me as unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-Zionist Israelis are a small minority, usually either on the secular left of politics on the religious right, and such people should be categorised accordingly ... but this category would include 90% of Israelis, which renders it pointless. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slightly difft situation, because although players of Aussie footie are Aussies, it would be wrong to describe most Australians as " players of Australian rules football". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions/tentative keep. If the fact that a nationality category will include 90% of a population renders the category useless, why isn't stuff like ‹The templateCat is being considered for merging.›Category:Irish Roman Catholics also useless? Isn't the answer to only categorize people in the category if that feature is a defining aspect of the person's notability? Aren't there Israelis who are particularly notable as being outspoken Zionists? Shouldn't this category be retained for that purpose? This seems to fit someone like Leo Goldhammer fairly well. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem with the category if it were restricted to Israeli people who are particularly notable or outspoken as Zionists, or were involved in the original Zionist movement that led to the creation of Israel. (Indeed, that may be the idea behind the category.) It was the thought that this could be added to almost any modern Israeli that gave me pause. The Irish Catholics article is similar, but that one's slightly easier to source (being a Catholic is arguably an objective, yes-or-no fact; being a Zionist isn't), and in any case the description states it should be limited to people where their Catholicism is related to their notability. Robofish (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2011 (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.
Question. I'm not clear on why we would delete the country-wide category but keep two categories for Selangor. If we keep the ones for Selangor, shouldn't the one for Malaysia be kept as a container category for the Selangor ones? Or they could all be deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I've tagged Category:Endemic species of Malaysia, which is just an unnecessary container category. I'm not proposing deleting the content, just categorizing it like similar categories which don't use the unspecific word "species." We have several "Endemic fauna" and "Endemic flora" categories (such as Category:Endemic fauna of Brazil), so I'd like to see the Selangor category broken up appropriately, rather than plants and animals dumped into the same category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge/split as nominated. I see—I misunderstood what the nomination was actually accomplishing. I see no reason not to proceed to make these categories consistent with all the other ones. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:27, 20 February 2011 (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: Redundant category. It's barely populated and the vast majority if initialisms are already in Category:Redirects from abbreviations, an older, established and more widely known redirect category, that's inclusive of acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations. Ϫ07:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. I was planning on creating categories for other types of abbreviations too. Some redirect categories are very large and I think splitting them up a bit would make them easier to deal with. McLerristarr | Mclay105:32, 13 February 2011 (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:Delete. We can't categorize articles about cities by features the cities have—doing so is overcategorization because there are countless numbers of features that could be categorized in this way. Having a light rail system is not particularly defining for a city anyway. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to rename as per the suggestion above. FWIW, the three categories created last night were based on preexisting Category:German cities with light rail systems which has existed for at least six months, been edited by multiple people and propagated around the web accordingly, so any conversation about these three categories should take that category (and possibly others) into account as well. I'll hold off on making changes to any of these three categories until a consensus is reached on the idea of the Gcwlrs category -- just to avoid being hasty -- but please don't take it as foot-dragging on my part: I think that having the renamed categories on these city pages would still get the idea across. Premierathon (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator and follow up by deleting Category:German cities with light rail systems, and any other similar categories. Categorising cities according to their features would lead to massive category clutter, and this sort of grouping is much better handled by lists. The renaming proposal by AllyD does nothing to solve this problem of overcategorising cities, because the "Light rail in <country>" categories should be used to group articles on the light rail systems, rather than articles about the cities where these light rail systems they are located. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good -- two voices of consensus are good enough for me. I like the idea of using a list too -- thanks for pushing for that, BrownHairedGirl. I'll plan to delete the categories and add "List of tram and light-rail transit systems" to the "See also" sections of the cities involved. I'm going to be away from the computer for awhile this afternoon/evening -- a small sporting event -- but I'll try to get it done pretty promptly after that :) Premierathon (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICS, these categories contain between them a total of 41 articles. Splitting that up into four separate lists seems a bit pointless, so I suggest that any list should have a Europe-wide scope. That way it could include countries such as Ireland which have only one light rail system. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 7 February 2011 (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.
Oppose per my opposition to the existence of the categories by any name as there are not enough articles to have all of these categories and with most people settling for lists of episodes despite claims of eventually making full season articles these categories might never see any use that would merit their existence. One category for all tv show season articles would be sufficient. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you count different than i do but i don't see even 1000 articles let alone 5000. What you are probably doing is counting many of the same shows' seasons when they are grouped by date and by genre and sub-genre. Also you are grossly blurring the line between lists of episodes and season articles. What you claim as part of this 5000 are every single "List of SHOWNAME episodes" article and those are by design not single season articles and are explicitly not within these categories - if they are within these categories then these categories are nothing but duplication and ought to be deleted not renamed or merged. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The category only has 395 (not counting those in subcats) now because I have been moving articles to the broadcast season categories. By this time tomorrow it might only have 250. You can total subcats by looking at the nubmer before P in parenthesis. E.g., when it says Big Brother seasons (154 P), that means that subcat has 154 pages. However, most of the shows that I have been adding to season cats actually previously were not in this category. By my estimation for every article that was in this category there were three that were not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While this works for episodes which are on a single date for their initial broadcast this fails for seasons which in most countries are not in a single year. The category name is inherently flawed in this counter-proposal. As there is no way to categorise the seasons because of the great variance i do honestly suggest the whole be scrapped and never pursued again. Those who point out Dexter season one was in 2006 alone and don't like it being in the 2006-7 season are countered with Rookie Blue season one which was in 2010 alone but is in the 2009-10 & 2010-11 broadcast seasons and House MD season one which was in 2004 & 2005 and is entirely within the 2004-5 broadcast season. No matter the category settled upon at least one of these will not fit it. At its core this proposal will simply be almost a complete copy of Category:Lists of drama television series episodes because every season article contains at lease a list of episodes. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~21:43, 8 February 2011 (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: I know this is a real term. I get that, honest. But... really? We're categorizing people by the occupation of their boyfriends? I do not believe this meets the defining standard of, say, Category:First Ladies of the United States. A list might add some detail (perhaps who they're WAGs of), but a category seems content-deficient and sets a bad precedent. At least Category:Groupies defines something vaguely sort of like a career, bizarre as that might seem. The speedy nomination that triggered this one is copied below; it proposes a simple capitalization solution, whereas I favor scorching the earth.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative oppose. Isn't this kind of like a formal title bestowed by the press? It's not just anywives and girlfriends of footballers being categorized here—it's ones who are part of the WAGspress phenomenon. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So many people became famous purely because of their relationship with a footballer. Coleen Rooney, for example. Per previous CFDs, this should only be for people for whom it is defining. I can see that some people who are famous as singers and not generally known as WAGs are included, like Jamelia. They should be removed. –anemoneprojectors– 11:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnemoneProjectors. Whether or not anyone approves of notabilty being gained in this way, a significant number of women in England are notable solely (or primarily) as WAGs, esp of the very highly-paid Premiership footballers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as others have said, this is very much a current term. It started as a very British term, however it is increasingly being seen in the foreign media such as German, Scandinavian etc press, as WAGs,even though the acronym would not spell this out in German etc. People are defined as being a WAG and everyone, in Britain, would know exactly what is meant by the term - so much so that the old meaning of Wag has all but completely lost its meaning now in British English. You can dress like a Wag, behave like a Wag, it's in every newspaper and this absolutely needs to remain in situ. --Tris2000 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by WP:IAR if necessary. With the exception of people like First Ladies who hold an official post, we simply should not be categorising people by who they're in a relationship with. I don't have a problem with WAGs as an article (well, less of a problem), but to use it as a basis for categorisation is absurd. At the very least, this should be renamed to something like Category:Partners of professional footballers (although that only draws attention to what a silly category it is). As for the fact that 'for some people this is all they're known for' - in that case, per WP:NOTINHERITED we shouldn't have an article on them at all. Robofish (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to expand on that last point: what I mean is, we don't have an article on Coleen Rooney because she's the wife of a famous footballer. We have an article on her because she passes WP:BIO, ie she is independently notable in her own right. Robofish (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm more than willing to endorse Robofish's above approach to this. There's got to be a way around this, and I see the easiest way is just to say we don't categorize by relationship—if that means they are not categorized by their principal claim to notability, then so be it. There's no requirement to categorize by any feature, so we can make an "editorial decision" like this to delete, I suppose. And to anticipate criticism of my comment: you're right, I do not like it. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:37, 18 February 2011 (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:Endemic species of Mendocino County, California[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.
Keep. It should certainly be added as a subcategory of Category:Endemic flora of California but it also makes sense to have this as a separate category. Ten articles is not too small for a category, and it makes more sense to have it organized this way than to have these articles categorized under the catch-all Mendocino County category which is where I found some of them before adding the category. And no valid reason for deletion has been presented: one might imagine (although he didn't say so) that the nominator had in mind WP:Overcategorization#Intersection by location, but in that guideline it says first thing that "Geographical boundaries may be useful for dividing subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics" and being in Mendocino County is directly related to these species characteristics as it has a distinctive climate that is different from that in other parts of California (hence, the existence of species that are endemic to it) and is physically large for a county (more than three times as large as the whole state of Rhode Island). Endemic Flora of California is huge (around 600 species) and the additional county-level structure would be an aid to navigation. It might make sense to group Mendocino with Humboldt County (its closest neighbor in terms of climate and flora) but there is no natural name for that grouping. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any other county-based Endemic flora or fauna categories. Why is Mendocino worthy of singling out? Size doesn't seem a good enough reason to me. Also, do you believe that this should be the only "Endemic species" category outside of the Malaysian ones mentioned above, or do you think it should be "Endemic flora"?--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming it to endemic flora is fine by me, since after all it is currently only flora (though I imagine there are probably also endemic insects) and that matches the state categorization. As for why it should exist, when the corresponding categories for the other counties don't: Because nobody's yet gone to the effort of creating the other ones that should exist? Because it's already the same size (in number of entries) as the non-California state ones that already exist? Because a state-level category with 600 entries in it, all of which are unfamiliar Latin names, and no subcategories, is near-useless as a navigation tool? Because the articles in it are relevant for the Mendocino County category, and should therefore go under that category somewhere, and this is that somewhere? Because if it didn't exist as a category then we'd need it as a list instead, and categories are better integrated into the other subtopics related to the same area? How many reasons do you need? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If no one has gone to the trouble, maybe no one thinks it's a good idea (are you planning to do all the counties of the US this way?). The size of the state is immaterial; there are more of everything in the California categories. A category with 600 entries is hardly useless as a navigation tool; that's only three pages of names. No county category has to have its species in it. And categories and lists have different functions, and the definition of "need" here is suspect. So I guess the answer to the question of how many reasons I need is, "More than those."--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My definition of "need" is: someone is going to ask "What are the species endemic to this region?" (indeed, I was already one such asker) and we should have an answer prepared for them. The state category is inadequate as an answer because it's too big to open up and read all the entries in it: if you already know the name of a species, you can find it in a three-page list, sure, but if you already knew the name of the species then why would you be looking in the category? Now, as for the other question usually asked at CfD, "Is this a defining characteristic": it's mentioned early in the lead paragraph of most of the articles in this category (that is, those paragraphs don't say "It's endemic to California", they say "It's endemic to Mendocino County") so I think that it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. I don't see this becoming part of a scheme for endemic species by U.S. county. It seems strange to single out this one county among the hundreds in the U.S. Several of the species included are not truly endemic to this county anyway, since they are also native to surrounding counties. "Endemic" generally means native to a particular place and no where else. U.S. counties don't form very good zones whereby the divide flora and fauna because they are political areas and don't conform well to borders that apply to biomes or other environmental zones. U.S. states is a bad enough way to do this, but it's really the best we have I think without switching entirely to broader biome categorization, which no one has been keen to do. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I'm open to an endemic by county cat if there was an island or whatever which truly had endemic wildlife. These appear to be endemic to northern California. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference between your argument and an argument that the current categories by states and countries should be merged into a single category of endemics to the Americas. And yet, we do categorize by country and by state within the US. Why shouldn't we have a finer subdivision where it is warranted? I agree that county-by-county is not the ideal subdivision but what do you have to replace it in cases such as California where the category is too large to provide any useful information to readers wishing to find more localized species? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or listify -- This category is much too specific to keep. Categories are not intended as bullet points, but as naviagation aids. If we allow this to stay, every species might get a category for every county. This would be a form of madness. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (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 based on the comments here and the previous discussion. Not notifying the creator is not a reason to ignore the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again, for the same reasons. "Closed because the creator was not notified"? Since when is it fatal to a nomination to not notify the category creator? Tagging the category with Template:Cfd is sufficient. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:19, 6 February 2011 (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.
Upmerge - 'miscellaneous X' or 'other X' is always a sign of an unnecessary subcategory. Articles which don't fit into any of the existing subcategories should just be left in the main category. Robofish (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2011 (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:African-American people by occupation[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.
Nominator's rationale:Decide. The names of categories for African American people, culture, etc. are all divided. Some use the hyphen and some don't and there's a mish-mash of category redirects pointing from one form to the other. While I nominated these two categories in isolation as representative of the division, there should be a discussion as to whether the hyphen should be used uniformly or uniformly discarded. The lead article is at African American but there is diversity in article names as well. The lead category does not use the hyphen but the category for Afrian American people right below it does. One way or the other there should be uniformity across the category structure. I prefer not using the hyphen but if the decision goes the other direction I'm OK with that too. Whatever the outcome scads of sub-categories will need to be renamed too. I Want My GayTV (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's really quite simple. Grammatically speaking, a hyphen is used when "African-American" is used as an adjective, as with "They are African-American people." No hyphen is used when it's a noun, as with "They are African Americans". The hyphen is necessary when it's an adjective because it is a compound adjective—they are not American people who are African, they are African-American people. So here, the first nominated category is already correct; the second nominated category should be renamed. This seems to be the direction this discussion was going before it was closed because none of the categories were properly tagged. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:36, 6 February 2011 (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:African American culture in Omaha, Nebraska[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It seems strange to me to categorize people under "Culture of (Place)". People move around and can potentially affect the "culture" of wherever they are. The few articles that are about African American culture in Omaha as opposed to people from or who lived in Omaha I would think can be placed in the history category or in the parent category for Af-Am people in Omaha. I Want My GayTV (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2011 (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.
