The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 18:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To follow English usage and that of most of the articles. Septentrionalis 19:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 18:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Arts lists to Category:Arts-related lists
• Category:Culture lists to Category:Culture-related lists
• Category:Geography lists to Category:Geography-related lists
• Category:Mathematical lists to Category:Mathematics-related lists
• Category:Philosophy lists to Category:Philosophy-related lists
• Category:Science lists to Category:Science-related lists
• Category:Society lists to Category:Society-related lists
• Category:Technology lists to Category:Technology-related lists

Rename all Since the proposal to change them all to the other way failed, I'm proposing that the other subcategories be changed to the x-related lists format. I just want to get them to be consistant. Again, I'm not proposing to change Lists of people since that would change its meaning from lists of items to lists of anything related. --JeffW 18:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Wikipedia is inconsistent; and cat names should be short. Septentrionalis 19:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes it is inevitable that there is some inconsistency in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to reduce the amount of it. Osomec 00:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The reason I want them to be consistant is that I am trying to improve the Lists category page to make it easier for editors to find the right subcategory(s) for their article. One step was to sort all the subject-oriented subcategories in front of the other subcategories. Making all the titles of these subcategories the same format will make it even easier for editors to scan the list to find what they're looking for. --JeffW 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Osomec. David Kernow 03:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... a category with bad typo and that has more description that articles in it? And also, the category says games but includes Sonic the Hedgehog (character) igordebraga ≠ 18:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. David Kernow 03:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Empty category. Circa 1900 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino is used for people. Category:Visayan writers should be merged to Category:Filipino writers. Also, "Filipino" used in this context refers to the people/inhabitants, not the language. Circa 1900 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem though is that "Filipino writers" is ambiguous since "Filipino writers" could mean "writers in the "Filipino language". "Philippine writers" is not ambiguous. Also, I have doubts as to whether Visayan writers should be merged. I think it would be better to make "Visayan writers" a subcategory of "Philippine writers". For one thing, Visayan writers, taking into account the languages they write in (the multiple Visayan languages plus English, Spanish, Tagalog/Pilipino/Filipino) has the potential to make the "Philippine writers" or "Filipino writers" extremely larger --Harvzsf 03:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Filipino is ambiguous per Harvzsf, and also ambiguous per my comment to the proposal below. Carlossuarez46 23:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As pursuant to other articles in Category:People by nationality, where the format is Fooian people. Circa 1900 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : "People of the Philippines" is not necessarily identical with "Filipino people". Without checking through the category, does "People of the Philippines" mean "People from the Philippines" (and, in turn, does that mean "Philippine citizens" and/or "People born in the Philippines"?); or "People living in the Philippines"; or "People associated with the Philippines"; or some combination of any of these?  Should "Filipino people" mean "Native/aboriginal Philippine people"?  Advice please, David Kernow 04:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object the two names have different meanings Filipino is racial/ethnic; Philippines is nationality. An ethnic Chinese person who was born and lived his/her entire life in Manila belongs in this category. A person born in the USA or wherever but the Philippines of parents who are ethnically part of the aboriginal peoples of the Philippines who identify as "Filipino" belongs in the proposed renaming category. Note: some peoples who are from the ethnic groups considered aboriginal to the Philippines do not identify as "Filipino" (notably, the Moros). Carlossuarez46 23:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake when I created these categories. Merge Pasig to Pasig City, they're identical. Circa 1900 17:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a speedy...? Merge per nom. David Kernow 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename with full expansion. Syrthiss 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper capitalization. Or if Wikipedia is really strict, then rename it to National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines) championships. Circa 1900 17:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines) championships to match main article. Also tagged Category:NCAA Philippines to be renamed to Category:National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines) Vegaswikian 21:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vegaswikian. — Dale Arnett 19:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 17:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are 8,000-12,000 such schools but thankfully only six are in the category so far. This just isn't an important characteristic of a school. I suspect this is advertising. Delete Hawkestone 17:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Trivial item of classification. Delete. Bearcat 02:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree Shrew 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 19:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Vossanova 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 17:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulated and set up a more approp cat name. Alan Liefting 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty cat Where ^(talk) 16:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 17:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

depopulated and set up a more approp cat name Alan Liefting 07:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty cat Where ^(talk) 16:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulated and set up the more approp. Category:Environmental fiction books. Alan Liefting 07:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty cat Where ^(talk) 16:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have depopulated it and set up Category:Environmental books with sub-cats. It was poorly named. Alan Liefting 07:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty cat Where ^(talk) 16:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 17:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed, useless category. Also, it's empty. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pagrashtak 13:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete empty cat Where ^(talk) 16:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User:Oscara has made worthless contributions, this is one of them. Lord Falcon 20:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vague criteria, redundant with other cats. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, and seriously suggest further discussion about limiting User:Oscara from creating any more useless categories.

• Delete: Many Mario articles already have too many categories as it is; this new category doesn't help. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pagrashtak 13:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above Where ^(talk) 16:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User:Oscara has made worthless contributions, this is one of them. Lord Falcon 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any category name containing "things" is pretty much doomed. --Vossanova 19:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete stuff items and more1!11!. Syrthiss 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally empty, totally useless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, and seriously suggest further discussion about limiting User:Oscara from creating any more useless categories.
• Delete. Alan Liefting 08:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and where are the commas for the love of Mario?! Pagrashtak 13:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete empty cat Where ^(talk) 16:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User:Oscara has made worthless contributions, this is one of them. Lord Falcon 20:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Again.. any category with "stuff" in the name is pretty much doomed. --Vossanova 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 17:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is redundant to Category:Washington state highways, as everything numbered - State Routes, U.S. Routes and Interstates - is a state highway. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is similar to the California setup, which was agreed upon by compromise. I mean I'm not attached to this category overly, but to placate the people who want it this way this should stay. Also, I wanted this to go to CFD because originally this category was orphaned and tagged for speedy, which is against process. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense - you think it should go but you vote to keep? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I poorly phrased that. I wanted this to go to CFD rather than be speedied to allow others to comment on this process. I'd prefer that the category stay since it does include everything (some people have a problem with putting Interstates in Category:Washington state highways.) Thus this category exists. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstates belong in state highways, as they are state highways. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, I don't think Interstates belong in a "state highways" category at all, except possibly as a subcat. AFAIK, the standard understanding of "state highways" in the U.S. is roads that are part of a state-level numbering system that are not also a part of a federal road system. — Dale Arnett 19:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was make a redirect. Syrthiss 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under Missouri statues, there is no such thing as a town in Missouri. Such places are cities or villages (if incorporated). I have already moved the articles formerly categorized here into their appropriate categories (many were actually unincorporated ). All locations in Missouri should be in Category:Cities in Missouri, Category:Villages in Missouri, or Category:Unincorporated communities in Missouri. Rt66lt 01:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Where ^(talk) 16:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to redirect to Category:Unincorporated communities in Missouri and ensure explanation above is included at the top of these categories for the sake of those not in the know. I suppose this situation is a legacy of Missouri's history...?  Regards, David Kernow 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there never were any towns in Missouri. There is a generic category:towns for most states, and probably all states to begin with. Where the individual got the information that there were towns may have been the US Census (it seems to be connected to a lot of census-type statistics), but where their information came from, I don't know. According to the State Manual (issued by the Missouri Secretary of State's office) no towns currently exist and apparently never did. If they ever did, there would probably still be some around (there's an old type of city charted issued in the 1830s(?) which is still in use in some city's, but not permitted any more). Rt66lt 19:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one redirect to any of three different categories? The previous places listed as towns were a mix of cities, villages, and unincorporated communities. They weren't all from the same place.Rt66lt 19:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since (a) you found that many of the articles listed in Category:Towns in Missouri were unincorporated communities; and (b) Unincorporated communities sounds like the catch-all term for any settlements in Missouri that are neither villages nor cities, then, knowing no better, I'd say make the redirect point to Category:Unincorporated communities in Missouri. What seems important is that, regardless of where the redirect points, there needs to be that explanation that "there ain't no towns in Missouri" ("so", in so many words, "you've been dumped here."). If nothing more, it might dissuade folks from trying to recreate an otherwise deleted Category:Towns in Missouri. Phew!  David Kernow 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would work with me. Thanks.Rt66lt 04:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have amended my vote above accordingly. Thanks for your input!  Best wishes, David Kernow 09:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very small group being categorized, and all the relevant info is already mentioned (repeatedly) in the relevant articles, particularly Eevee. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per A Man In Black, unneeded. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 04:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per AMIB, pointless. --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too small a group to be a cat Where ^(talk) 16:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is a very useful category for a Pokemon game player. It cleanly and completely categorizes a class of Pokemon. And it hardly hurts anyone.--Mike Selinker 04:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are (and only ever will be) about a half-dozen members of this cat, and they're all already listed in Eevee (in more than one place in that article). This is wholly redundant with that article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted, but I respectfully disagree. We can categorize Pokemon in different ways.--Mike Selinker 18:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 17:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat, POV criteria, just generally unneeded. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per A Man In Black, point of view perspectives unrequired. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 04:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete empty cat Where ^(talk) 16:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kinda baffling.--Mike Selinker 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 17:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon species are currently broken up by type, not evolutionary stage. There's no need to have yet another way that the Pokémon species articles are split up in cats, especially since it's not completely implemented. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per AMIB. --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Again, this seems a fine way to categorize Pokemon. It's a category that neatly and thoroughly defines a subset of Pokemon that collectors and game players use to define them. Totally harmless.--Mike Selinker 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already categorize Pokémon by type. I don't see the need to have an additional, parallel set of subcategories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • People might want to know about them in ways OTHER than type. Wikipedia can be multidimensional.--Mike Selinker 18:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 17:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories with overlapping scope. Since there are only four (arguably five) Pokémon regions, there's no need to make this a subcat of Pokémon places. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, for reasons stated by A Man In Black. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 04:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. category:Fictional locations is broken up by types of locations, like cities and lakes and castles. One of those categories is category:Fictional regions, which holds areas which are large land areas not defined by either terrain type or government entity. There are lots of regions in that category, and I just made this one of them.--Mike Selinker 04:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that this is still far too narrow a category. Right now, it has three members, and should have four (and possibly five or six, depending on how you feel about the Sevii Islands and the Orange Islands). Maybe after a year, it'll have another member, depending on what happens with D/P and Pokémon Ranger. It's just not worth having a separate subcat, especially when I plan on merging a ton of the members of Category:Pokémon places when I get done with the Gym Leaders and Cipher members. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I can see that. Just make sure that they all have Category:Fictional regions or some other way to get into Category:Fictional places. I'll change my comment to Merge.--Mike Selinker 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 17:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, which will never have any articles save for one umbrella article about Pokémon berries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, as said articles aren't so notable. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 04:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, too narrow. --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I just created a category called Category:Pokémon items for stuff like this.--Mike Selinker 04:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.