Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 9

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Old Style common years. It is clear from the discussion that there is a presumption that the two are different, but closely related enough to cause confusion. Since the articles are specifically common years, I decided the best solution was to specify what the category was about. This can be brought up again if anyone thinks I misnamed the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Old Style calendar to Category:Julian calendar

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Old Style calendar redirects to Julian calendar and I don't see much need for the extra subcategory. Pichpich (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep separate. The "Category:Old Style calendar" was created as an index for pages about the Old Style calendar (each year begins on 25 March), which was used over 500 years in England, Wales (and the American British colonies, etc.), centuries longer than the current Gregorian Calendar. The intent is to list 14 daily calendars for each Old Style common year starting on Sunday-Saturday and for 7 Old-Style leap years starting on Sunday-Saturday. This category is intended to emphasize those articles, and help overcome the unusual systemic bias which had shown calendars starting on 1 January, but almost no calendars starting on 25 March, even though March was typical for over five hundred years up to 1752. Surprise about seeing this category is understandable because people do not realize how many years had started on 25 March, far longer than starting on 1 January. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wikid77, OS calendar would be the spring new year calendar, not the pre Gregorian calendar or Orthodox calendar. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- The Julian calendar and "old style" are not the same as Wikid77 says. We certainly need separate articles. However, I do not think we need need to keep separate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 26 November 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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Harlequins Rugby League -> Category:London Broncos
• Category:Harlequins Rugby League seasons -> Category:London Broncos seasons
• Category:Harlequins Rugby League templates -> Category:London Broncos templates

The club has been renamed so I am proposing the renaming of the subsequent categories. Mattlore (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and I wish these arseclowns would stop changing the name of the club. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - uncontroversial I would have thought. I hadn't realised that 'Harlequin' translates to 'arseclown!' pablo 15:02, 16 November 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: rename to Category:Ancient Greek government.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Government in Greek Antiquity to Category:Government of Ancient Greece

Nominator's rationale: Per main article/category. If accept, subcat.s can be speedy renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Ancient Greek government in parallel with Category:Ancient Roman government. The "of" form generally refers to discrete political entities, which ancient Greece never was, whereas the Fooish institution form is more common in reference to a civilization or culture as opposed to a polity: Anglo-Saxon warfare, Category:Ancient Indian law, Category:Carolingian counties.- choster (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but I would support Category:Government in Ancient Greece, like Category:Education in ancient Greece. Neutrality^talk 07:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet its parent is Category:Ancient Greek society and its child is Category:Ancient Greek educators.- choster (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral as to renaming, but if used it should be Category:Foo of ancient Greece not Category:Foo of Ancient Greece for consistency with similar categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ancient Greek government per Choster. The meaning is clear and the proposed name is consistent with other related categories. Jafeluv (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jafeluv. Greek civilisation existed in many areas, where the Greeks established colonies including in the Pentapolis of eastern Libya, Sicily, southern Italy and around the Black Sea. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 26 November 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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Collections of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery to Category:Collections of Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The museum's formal name, and our article, use the ampersand: Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - was just about to agree with this but then noticed that with their website redesign, they seem to be spelling themselves with a full "and" now (http://www.bmag.org.uk/). Should we change everything back? JimmyGuano (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So they have. sigh. I withdraw the proposal. And yes, we should switch everything back. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:17, 9 November 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Chennai district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not needed. Chennai is a city district with Chennai city being its only constituent. Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 06:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there can only be one entry in this category - Chennai--Sodabottle (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. Most of the big towns in Chennai are located outside the district. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:16, 9 November 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. There is general agreement that the present structure of categorisation is wrong or undesirable, so the result must be delete. Multiple proposals were presented for alternative categorisation structures, all of which seem to have merit but also attracted opposition. In any case, this discussion would be the wrong place to work out a new structure. Accordingly, I have deleted the categories, but have recorded their former contents here in the event that some of the participants in this discussion want to develop a new, better category name, or even a List article:

AGK [•] 17:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Short-lived states of World War I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Short-lived states of World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The parent Category:Short-lived states was deleted here. These categories face similar problems. If they were limited to states of one type, the categories might be salvageable under a more precise name, but I am finding four different types of states in the categories: (1) states that only existed during the war (puppet governments and the like); (2) states that were created shortly after the war ended and lasted for a "short" time; and (3) states that were created during the war and lasted for a "short" time but were dissolved after the war; and (4) states that were created before the war and were dissolved a "short" time later during the war. Unless someone can suggest an adequate name for these, I'm afraid that they should probably be deleted because "short-lived" is subjective and/or arbitrary and the category is categorizing states of different types under the general generic header of "short-lived". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Per precedent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to something better All these have the defining feature that they existed during the two world wars. This category aids navigation between them and the facility shouldn't be lost. Maybe something along the lines of Category:States that existed between World War I. Lugnuts (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not all existed during one of the two world wars. Some were created after the war ended. See my #2 above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then they are mis-categorised and should be removed. Lugnuts (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, well—that kind of proves the point that the categories should be deleted. Says who that they are miscategorized? The categories seem to be categorizing all four types. Which of the four types is it meant to categorize? That seems like something that is not clear and hence arbitrarily decided by an observer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea, but there is part of the problem. Which of the 4 types of states would remain? The amount of cleanup with the poorly named existing categories would be difficult at best. If the the listify suggestion below has issues, then maybe a template for these states could be created with 4 sections to cover the various classes identified above. The current problem is that the categories have too many problems to be kept. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the previous identified reasons for the parent category. Also per the issues laid out in the nomination. However recreation, with better names, should be allowed if some type of clear and unambiguous name and inclusion criteria can be created. If the current information is needed, then Listify with a field to identify start and end dates as well as an explanation of why the state was created and why it was ended. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subcategories of Category:Former countries by period. I would suggest renaming to Category:Former countries of World War I and Category:Former countries of World War II, but the parent category suggests polities could be used. Cjc13 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a country created before WWI a country of WWI? That's part of the issue here. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The basis would perhaps be that it became a former country during or as a direct result of the relevant war. Cjc13 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me to be too much of a stretch to say that since some were created before the war and then dissolved either during the war or shortly thereafter they are therefore a "former country of the war". Maybe if that type were in the category alone, but there are three other types which are not very similar. So I think there are too many types all mixed up together here to make these viable in their current state. It would not be at all clear from the proposed category names what exactly goes in the category vs. what is not included. It's too much of a subjective or arbitrary call. It probably makes more sense for someone to organize these into a list and sort out if there are any decent categories with clear criteria that could result. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The 1919 Treaty of Versailles officially ended the war" and defined many national borders, so could be used as a cut-off point for World War I. Cjc13 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's relatively unproblematic finding cut-off dates for the beginning and end of the two wars. But what is problematic is figuring out exactly what the requirements are for a state to exist in this category. Does it have to have existed during the war, i.e., in between the two cut-off dates? I don't think so, since there are some that were created after the wars had ended. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • please relist **
• Keep in some form -- These categories seem to be serving a useful purpose. The question is what they should be called and how they should be parented. I support Cjc13. Since the true independence of some is questionable, "polities" might be more acceptable. The issue of dates is probably best dealt with in a headnote defining the category more precisely. In WWI, we seem to have states that were extinguished by the establishment of USSR or were reconquered by a re-emergent Turkey. Some arose from the chaos of the end of the war and the Russian Revolution. This was all due to WWI, though some may have continued a little beyond the peace treaties ending it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 26 November 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:100 Greatest... (Channel 4 list shows) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a TV show which only has one overview article, and no related subpages to co-categorize here. Delete as WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sub-articles that used to be categorised here were all deleted following this AfD, so the category no longer serves any useful purpose. SuperMarioMan 12:16, 9 November 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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Joseph Stalin family to Category:Stalin family

Nominator's rationale: No need to disambiguate from other Stalin families, as per subcategories of Category:Families. We only do so when there's a family with Wikipedia entries that this family could be confused with.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:41, 9 November 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Davenport, Iowa National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions in Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After the October 30 and 31 deletions, this is the only remaining subcategory. So delete as not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parent category added but recreation should be allowed if articles about the MPSs are created. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:01, 9 November 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: rename to Category:Sci-fi film series navigational boxes. There's no consensus to change "sci-fi", but the change from "templates" to "navigational boxes" in these cases was settled here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sci-fi film series templates to Category:Science fiction film series templates

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we want to use "Sci-fi", as its not very professional (slang term), in addition to being derogatory, with its only formal use being when referring to low quality/hollywoodized sf filmsMercurywoodrose (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Sci-fi" is shorter, and this is a maintenance category in any case. I don't see the problem, since the shorter title would be better. Further the contents of the category has "Hollywoodized" SF films. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 9 November 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: rename to Category:Sci-fi film navigational boxes. There's no consensus to change "sci-fi", but the change from "templates" to "navigational boxes" in these cases was settled here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sci-fi film templates to Category:Science fiction film templates

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we want to use "Sci-fi", as its not very professional (slang term), in addition to being derogatory, with its only formal use being when referring to low quality/hollywoodized sf films Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Sci-fi" is shorter, and this is a maintenance category in any case. I don't see the problem, since the shorter title would be better. Further the contents of the category has "Hollywoodized" SF films. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 9 November 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: Keep. Many of the comments here aren't very communicative, but the consensus is clearly to retain the existing category structure so that is the result. Jafeluv makes a good point about discussing this at greater length on the article talk page. AGK [•] 17:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Water ice to Category:Ice

Nominator's rationale: Of all the attempts I've seen to disambiguate a category, this is one of the oddest. The article for "water ice" is at Ice—it does not attempt to disambiguate from the slang term for diamonds, or the DC superheroine of that name, or anything else. On the internet, the term "water ice" seems to refer almost solely to a dessert in Philadelphia. Yes, I'm aware that ice can come from other volatiles, but do we need to segregate articles about dry ice and spin ice from this? I think we should just assume people know what ice is.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment 'Water ice' distinguishes this kind of ice from other ice as described in Volatiles. This from the hatnote of Water ice Hmains (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose water ice specifies this as the category for water ice, and not just a place to dump ices of any old volatile. 70.49.126.190 (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't any old volatile. It's water. I've found only two articles about ices that are not water, dry ice and spin ice. Why can't those be categorized under Category:Ice with the water ice articles?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• do not rename This is not scientifically correct, that's why not and WP based on science, not editor convenience. Category:Water ice needs to be made into a subcat of Category:Ice to be correct. Parent cats also need to be fixed to make this correct. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. I don't see any advantage for segregating "water ice" from ice in general. There is no "scientific" reason that water ice can't be legitimately grouped with other types of ice, as is suggested above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All water ice is ice, but not all ice is water ice. Could be confusing to have it categorised as such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge we follow the articles, and the article is under ice, and assumes that this is meant to mean ice formed from water.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Please look at the two categories Category:Water ice and Category:Ice again. Ice is the more general; water ice is one instance of ice. Hmains (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think those suggesting a merge realise that; we just don't see the point of having a specific subcategory for water ice that is separate from the general one because there are so few "non–water ice" articles about ice. In other words, the current setup makes logical sense, but it's just unnecessarily subdivided. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup. It's not that we think you're wrong; it's that we think you're needlessly specific.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The parent of Category:Water ice is, correctly, Category:Forms of water. Putting non-water ice and water ice into the same category with this 'forms of water' parent is simply wrong and misleading--something WP should not be. Hmains (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh? The proposal is to merge Category:Water ice to Category:Ice. If that is done, the category Category:Water ice is deleted and all that is left is Category:Ice. Therefore, the parent categories of Category:Water ice are irrelevant to the proposed final state of the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Huh? It is directly relevant The proper subcategory of Category:Forms of water is Category:Water ice, however named: the ice made from water is a form of water. Your proposal destroys all category order here and is uunhelpful to WP. Hmains (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you've misunderstood: you're mixing issues here. We know you oppose the change, but your opinion that it is unhelpful is a subjective one. But to ground opposition to the change on the grounds that the resulting merge would cause an improper parent–subcategory relationship as you stated it above is simply not true. Yes—you would like the subcategory to exist as a subcategory of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Forms of water, but the essence of the proposal is that such a set-up is unnecessary—we don't need a category that is exclusively dedicated to water ice. So we are thrown back to the fact that you subjectively find the proposed set-up less helpful. But others disagree on this subjective point. I realise it's often tempting to throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks, but sometimes it also helps to step back and objectively assess would in fact happen if a proposal you disagree with were accepted. (BTW, it's not "my" proposal—usually best to just talk about "the" proposal rather than assigning it to an editor.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Science fact is not subjective. Ice made from water is a form of water. Ice made from other substances is not a form of water. Nothing could be more simple. Hmains (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • ? I didn't say anything about that being subjective. It sounds to me like you are not reading what I'm writing, or not understanding what I'm writing, or purposefully choosing to mischaracterize it. Oh well, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If the argument is that it is incorrect to call water ice just ice, I believe the discussion belongs on the talk page of Ice, which currently is exclusively about water ice. Categories tend to follow article naming as much as possible. A setting where an article is about a specific term and the similarly named category about a more general term is just confusing to readers. Either move Ice to Water ice or rename this category to match the naming of the main article. It's interesting that we don't even seem to have an article for the general term "ice". Jafeluv (talk) 09:43, 22 November 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.