Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3

[edit]

Category:Unleavened breads

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was a virtual tie between merging one way, merging the other way and keeping the two separate. So no discernible consensus. Timrollpickering 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unleavened breads into Category:Flatbreads

So, the article for unleavened bread was recently merged into flatbread because in American English, it is my understanding that all unleavened breads are flatbreads, but not all flatbreads are unleavened breads.In American English unleavened bread has a distinctly religious connotation (usually referring to matzo) whereas flatbread refers to breads in general which are made without yeast or chemical leaveners.Trying to find online British dictionaries, it seems that unleavened bread is the more inclusive term and that there is no entry for flatbread (in the online British dictionaries I have found).

The other reason I thought to change it to flatbread is that there are many more links to flatbread than there are to unleavened bread as well as more articles in the category of flatbreads than there are in unleavened breads.So, a change that I thought would be simple at first, seems to be much more complicated.There is a lot of overlap between these two categories, with many entries being double listed.I would still support my original merge nom, but with more reservations. --Nleamy 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Naan is a fairly well-known leavened flatbread eaten by hundreds of millions.It concerns me when decisions are made in ways, offering merging flatbread into unleavened bread instead of vice-versa, that indicate a lack of understanding of what is being discussed, what unleavened bread is, what flatbread is.I'm neutral on merging unleavened bread into flatbreads, but to make categories that are wrong, flatbreads as a subcategory of unleavened bread is problematic.KP Botany 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Nleamy is right that the term "flatbread" isn't used in this country; I don't know about the rest of the non- U.S. English-speaking world.It's been made clear, though, that there are flatbreads that aren't unleavened, and therefore Category:Unleavened breads is useful. --Mel Etitis(Μελ Ετητης) 00:17, 8 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Foundations of Norway

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foundations of Norway to Category:Foundations based in Norway
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 section.

Category:Fan Fiction

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fan Fiction into Category:Fan fiction
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 section.

Perth

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all except Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for Perth. Timrollpickering 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Perth" is a common words. in wikipedia article is disambiguation page. all rename.Bongkd 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the old Requested move discussion: Talk:Perth#Requested_move. --Mais oui! 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to - Rename all except Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for Perth, per User:Hesperian. --Mais oui! 15:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is an unnecessary move as Perth is not a "common word" per nom. The major discussion described by Mais oui! related to the articles, not the categories - disambiguation should not be performed for disambiguation's sake. If one of the other Perths (the largest of which is 1/20th the size of the Australian one) decides to create a category as per the above, it can be done on a one-by-one basis.
  2. A lot of work would also be required to convert several thousand articles to the new format if adopted, and it would break several complex templates of which I am aware in the case of the "Suburbs"category (none of the other Perths have suburbs, for the record.).
  3. Also, spaghetti at the bottom of articles is neither useful nor attractive for users. Per WP:NAME, "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimised for readers over editors"
  4. A quick check of the contributions of the user raising the discussion shows this discussion is their only contribution thus far to Wikipedia. While I have no objections to new users raising matters for discussion, I would feel much more comfortable if this radical proposal was coming from a user with an established history, considering most of the categories have stood for two years with no objections. Orderinchaos78 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions ooze the kind of efficiency that comes with experience. This has all the hallmarks of a (legitimate) sockpuppet. Possibly an established editor not wanting to suffer any blowback. Hesperian 02:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Three of these categories - History, Sport and Sporting clubs - should not even exist. Their contents could be quite adequately relocated to the existing Western Australia categories. I would support their deletion. Orderinchaos78 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inherently wrong with these categories but they were certainly premature. The history and education categories are now depopulated and deleted. Hesperian 02:12, 4 January 2007 (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 section.

Pastors by nationality

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:Christian pastors. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Sons of Confederate Veterans

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for so many reasons ... let's just call it gendered. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or rename the modified and re-populated cat - to something like Cat:Sons of Confederate Veterans (Organisation) (cf a host of CfDs re ambiguity) and remove anything not in or of the organisation.roundhouse 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cat as nominated for discussion was (I think) a single element cat containing Clare Purcell only (whose father was a confederate veteran). CP has now gone. Don't we need a new nomination on the present manifestation of this chameleon of a category?roundhouse 10:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. >Radiant< 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as there is an explanatory note making clear that the category is for members of the organization. I think it's pretty well-established that categorizing people by their relatives is a bad idea. Recury 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of the old votes address the old version of the category, while other votes (both keep and delete votes) address the new version.Given that this discussion has now become very confusing, perhaps the discussion should be closed and restarted?Dr. Submillimeter 15:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Kittybrewster 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sons of Confederate Veterans is an organization, like Daughters of the Conferacy and the Boy Scouts, which have categories.Besides that the original nominator gave no valid reason, he obviously did not understand that it is an organization. -THB 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn.At the time I nominated this category, it had exactly one member, an actual son of an actual confederate veteran.Since everything about this category has now changed, the best thing to do is withdraw this CFD ... anyone wishing to proceed, please feel free to start a new one.-- ProveIt (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Wikipedia subject-specific style guidelines

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was upmerge. Timrollpickering 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedia style guidelines. Most style guidelines are subject-specific, and the distinction is pretty much irrelevant. >Radiant< 15:30, 3 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Zionism in Somalia

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zionism in Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 section.

Category:Towns in Belarus

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in Belarus to Category:Cities and towns in Belarus
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 section.

Category:Cities with trolleybus system

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities with trolleybus system to Category:Cities with a trolleybus system
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 section.

Category:Eastern Air Lines Flights

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Eastern Air Lines, which currently contains only 9 articles, or at least Rename to Category:Eastern Air Lines flights, see also Braniff Flights. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:American missionaries in Angola

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American missionaries in Angola into Category:American missionaries
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 section.

Category:Computer and video game sequels

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video game sequels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overcategorization, too trivial to be useful. Combination 09:32, 3 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Wikipedian military

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 00:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian military (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category was superseded by Category:Wikipedian military people a long time ago.I was trying to figure out why there are 3 items in this category still, but they are pretty complicated pages. —Kenyon (t·c) 08:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Kendrick7talk 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. keep those contributions coming![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 section.

American films by year and by decade

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This includes Category:1890s American films through Category:2000s American films by decade and Category:1890 American films through Category:2009 American films by year (a total of 132 categories)

Delete all these empty categories.These were created recently, before a consensus was reached at the Wikiproject for film categorization.They may be part of the final consensus, but I hope not.These are overcategorizations, a set of category intersections that are not needed. Even if they are eventually part of the consensus, they can be recreated later.Until then, I don't think they should be populated. -- Samuel Wantman 07:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and populate It is not necessary to obtain a consensus in advance for the creation of new catgories. A project cannot own an area of Wikipedia any more than an individual user can. Olborne 14:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct.It is not necessary to get a consensus in advance to create categories. It is necessary to get a consensus to delete these categories once they are created and nominated for deletion.It is harder to get them deleted than to create them.This is the forum for getting them deleted.Since Wikipedia runs on good faith, you have to realize that a major change to an established taxonomy undertaken unilaterally is bound to create opposition.Convince enough of us that we are wrong, and these categories will remain. -- Samuel Wantman 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this intersection makes navigation more difficult. >Radiant< 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization. — coelacan talk — 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear necessary yet to subdivide by-year category into national subcategories.Dugwiki 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These categories do not only subdivide the chronological categories, but also the national categories, several of which are enormous. Sumahoy 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather than a giant A-Z of American films which beleive me when all American films are categorized as they should be American films will be enormous category on maybe as much as 100 pages - my navigation box would take you the lists of American films organized sensibly by year of relaese in America rather than 115 years of film in one category. And the categories are as yet only empty because we haven't been allowed to proceed with filling them. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have a solution. ALthough I created those many categories I would prefer the film categories to be as simple as possible and according to Brion the wikipedia tech man it wouldn't be a server problem to list all American films in one category. So Category:Amercan films should remain untouched. However I do feel that my idea of the lists of American films by year serve some educational purpose that the categories cannot, and rather than delete the categories they could be moved to List of American films. A List of the more notable American films could be compiled in a film chronology see List of Argentine films. Organized by the navigation box above (replace the categories with the lists) we could provide a list of films produced in America by year which are not only lists but provide summary details of direcot actors and date of release and maybe studio of production. E.g List of American films:1975 would provide a detailed summary of all of the American films of that year, by providing these summary details on one page as with List of Argentine films. Obviosuly though the compiling of the lists would be a very long process but I beleive it could be a very important source eventually. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frequent feature request.See Wikipedia:Category intersection. -- Samuel Wantman 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom; these cats are totally unwieldy, will make navigation and maintenance unbearably difficult, and their only purpose is to get around a limitation in the Mediawiki software itself (namely, the absence of category intersection, per User:SamuelWantman above). --Quuxplusone 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete I created these categories but it best if any compioing of American films by year is done it should be in lists not cluttering up categories. Please dleete all the caegories asap but PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE NAVIGATION BOX AS THIS WILL BE ADAPTED FOR LIST OF AMERICAN FILMS BY YEARErnst Stavro Blofeld 16:12, 7 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:American films by medium and subcats

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American films by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and its subcategories:
Category:American films by medium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American films by director (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American films by genre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American films by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American films by series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American films by actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all of these empty subcategories.These were created prematurely before consensus has been reached at the films wikiproject.They can be recreated if consensus is reached, but I don't think they should, as they are overcategorizations.Even if they are part of the consensus, they should be deleted now so that they don't end up getting populated. The films by actor category in particular would lead to a huge amount of category clutter that serves no good purpose.This information is much better handled by filmographies in each actors article. Samuel Wantman 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. speedy delete I created these categories and even I now want to get rid of them asap. Any compiling by year should be done in lists not cluttering up categories, Delete asap. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:09, 7 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Rat breeds

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; rename. Timrollpickering 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rat breeds to Category:Rat species Category:Species of rats
subcat Category:Extinct rat breeds to Category:Extinct species of rats
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 section.

Category:Mouse breeds

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; rename. Timrollpickering 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mouse breeds to Category:Species of mice
subcat Category:Extinct mouse breeds to Category:Extinct species of mice
subcat Category:Lab mouse breeds to Category:Strains of lab mice or Category:Strains of mice
subcat Category:Mouse genus to Category:Genera of mice as a subcat of Category:Mouse
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 section.

Category:Canadian Halls of Fame

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Halls of Fame to Category:Halls of Fame in Canada
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 section.

Category:British air disasters

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British air disasters to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United Kingdom
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 section.

Category:Genes associated with congenital genetic disorders

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genes associated with congenital genetic disorders to Category:Genes associated with genetic disorders
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 section.

Silver medals, Gold medals, Civilian cross decorations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Silver medals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Gold medals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Civilian cross decorations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, As part of ongoing efforts to rationalise categorisation of orders, decorations, and medals I have hit upon these three categories, all resident in Category:Orders and decorations.All three are poorly utilised and they are of questionable value.

  • Silver medals - 1 article
  • Gold medals - 3 articles
  • Civilian cross decorations - 10 articles (mostly on Polish medals)

In addition to under-use, the scope of these categories is so expansive as to be of little utility.Most orders and medals are made of either gold or silver - it doesn't strike me as being a categorisable attribute.I'm also not sure why it is useful to distinctly categorise civilian medals that are in the shape of a cross - why not those in the shape of stars, or disk-shaped awards, or better yet, why bother to do it?

Xdamrtalk 02:30, 3 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Video Games based on Movies

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video Games based on Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as nom. I just happen to click on the contribs of EJBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in a fit of boredom. What do I find? Another wholly deletable, miscapitalized category! As many gamers and film buffs know, the two industries aren't exactly strangers to one another. In fact, it seems every other new movie since the 2000s has a video game tie in. Unmanagably broad? I think so. If kept, at least give it the decent name of "Category:Computer and video games based on films". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:21, 3 January 2007 (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 section.

Subdivisions of France

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communauté de communes to Category:Commune communities in France
Category:Former French colonies to Category:Former colonies of France
Category:French overseas departments, territories and collectivities to Category:Overseas departments, collectivities and territories of France
Category:French région flag images to Category:Images of flags of the regions of France
Category:Communauté urbaine to Category:Urban communities in France
Category:Communauté d'agglomération to Category:Agglomeration communities in France
Category:Sous-préfectures to Category:Subprefectures in France
Category:Préfectures to Category:Prefectures in France
Category:French health organisations to Category:Health organisations in France
Category:French government agencies to Category:Agencies of the government of France
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 section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_3&oldid=1115159088"