Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 27

< July 26 July 28 >

July 27

Category:Renewable power stations in the United States

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. — ξxplicit 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Renewable power stations in the United States to Category:Renewable energy power stations in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Did not know that we had renewable power stations! This name would match that used in two parents Category:Renewable energy power stations and Category:Renewable energy in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom but it would be cool to have power stations which fix themselves... --Lenticel (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2010 (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:Renewable energy in the United States by state

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. — ξxplicit 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Renewable energy in the United States by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An extra level of navigation. Both included categories are already included directly in the one parent that makes sense, Category:Renewable energy in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – very odd contents: one subcat has nothing state-related at all. [Mac again, which explains it ...] Occuli (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It could be recreated if there is more by state content to add. Beagel (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2010 (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:Ecological economics

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: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Ecological economics to Category:Environmental economics
Nominator's rationale: An anon proposed the reverse merge in inappropriate locations (as usual). No reasons given for either merge. Perhaps the anon will comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The anon in question has been invited; as it's a stable one, he/she may actually see the notice, but will probably not respond in the right place, anyway.
  • Comment. Per main article this category definitely needs a cleanup if kept. By my understanding this category suits as a subcategory of Category:Environmental economics but this parent category was removed by user:Eastlaw when recreated Category:Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and ecological economics. Beagel (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Parent (JEL) category nominated for deletion, or for rename to hidden tracking category Category:JEL Q. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Made subcategory of target a day or so ago, per descriptions, in spite of JEL making them separate categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2010 (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:Creationism-related court cases

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 as modified. — ξxplicit 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Creationism-related court cases to Category:Creationism and evolution case law
Nominator's rationale: Rename - current name is one-sided and not NPOV. Rename neutralizes the POV, removes unnecessary "-related" qualifier and brings the name in line with other existing "Foo case law" categories. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (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:Album types

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 11. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Album types (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is an arbitrary mish-mash of ways of categorizing albums: some of them by content (Category:Remix albums, Category:Concept albums, or Category:Cast recordings), format (Category:Triple albums, Category:Video albums), or relationship to other media (Category:Soundtracks). These should be upmerged to Category:Albums. Also, the intro claims that "This category includes album types as used by the Type= parameter of the {{Infobox album}} template," but several of these "types" (Category:Double albums or Category:Concept albums, for instance) are not types for that field. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can rename to Category:Albums by type to more appropriately fit into the scheme of Category:Categories by type; redefine the category then upmerge only those that still shouldn't belong in the category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2010 (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:Fundamental

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:Fundamental categories. The "Wikipedia" seemed overkill.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fundamental to Category:Fundamental topics
Nominator's rationale: Fundamental what? Just having a category name as an adjective--especially one that is "fundamental"--is simply confusing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No particular objection. There are a fair number of inbound links that should be updated if this is approved. -- Beland (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Note: User:Beland was the creator of this category.[reply]
Justin (koavf), The 'what' is category, as in:
  • a fundamental category. See the latest edit of Category:Fundamental.
Another example of this type of usage is Human, rather than human being.
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps you are right about having a plain adjective title just floating out there. However I am not sure that "fundamental topics" is the right way to go. The point of this category is that these are the fundamental categories. Perhaps we should consider: Category:Fundametal categories, Category:Fundametal Wikipedia categories, Category:Fundametal ontology, or Category:Fundametal Wikpedia ontology. Just a thought.Greg Bard (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I am fine with any of these ideas if consensus favors them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gregbard, we ought not create either neologism. Neither Fundametal nor Wikpedia . However, this does suggest the category fundamental typos, which could retrospectively stand for 'fundamental ontological types', while we are talking neologisms. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something. I like Category:Fundamental Wikipedia categories. Though I can't help but think there's something better than using "fundamental". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2010 (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:Urban electric cars

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 as proposed. Ruslik_Zero 11:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Urban electric cars to Category:Electric city cars
Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent categories and sibling Category:Electric sports cars. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First a clarification, NEVs and urban electric cars might have an overlap in some models, but they are different as NEVs are built to have a top speed of 30 miles per hour. Most NEVs are golf-cart like, see the GEM, which is the most sold NEV. Urban electric cars are small electric vehicles and include some existing highway capable vehicles but now is emerging a new breed of vehicles design specifically for the urban environment and cities (with limited range, lightweight, abandoning the traditional body set up, etc.), such as the MIT CityCar, the General Motors EN-V, and the BMW Mega City Vehicle (check the details in these articles & note that the latter two are also designated as Ultra-small vehicles, a new category used by MIT and GM engineers - see this book for a full explanation: Mitchell, William J.; Borroni-Bird, Christopher; Burns, Lawrence D. (2010). "4". Reinventing the Automobile: Personal Urban Mobility for the 21st Century (1st. ed.). The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01382-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)) Therefore, I strongly believe these two categories should not be merged.
  • Now, regarding the correct name, English is a second language to me so you guys will know better than me if grammatically "electric city cars" is the right name, but the NYT called it urban electric car (see here), not electric city cars. Also, if I am not mistaken is a commercial brand (see here) and if you google (with the known limitations but as a proxy), you will find both terms, urban electric car with 2.4 million hits and electric urban car with 1.58 million hits. So it is your call, but please, do not merge this category with NEVs. Please let me know in my talk page if you want further clarifications (I have too many pages in my watchlist).-Mariordo (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking at the top speed specs for both it doesn't seem as if they're the same thing: NEVs have much lower speeds. So I wouldn't think a straight merge would work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But NEVs are classified by speed so those subcategories would work, right? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Take into consideration that some city cars are clasified as NEVs (i.e. REVA) but only in the U.S., in most countries they are accepted as highway capable, and the categories should reflect a worldwide view.-Mariordo (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2010 (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:Wrexham A.F.C. managers

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. — ξxplicit 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wrexham A.F.C. managers to Category:Wrexham F.C. managers
Nominator's rationale: Rename - The football club in question changed its name from Wrexham A.F.C. to Wrexham F.C. several years ago. Other categories relating to the club, such as Category:Wrexham F.C. and Category:Wrexham F.C. players, already use F.C.. Kosack (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2010 (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:St. John's College, U.S. alumni

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: merge. — ξxplicit 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:St. John's College, U.S. alumni to Category:St. John's College (United States) alumni
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. The target category was recently created. I propose merging to it, since its name matches the article St. John's College (United States). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename I created the proposed merge target when I was unable to find a category to an alumnus. There seems to be no reason not to have the category titles in general for all alumni to include the full name of the school article with the word "alumni" attached. The title of the merge candidate appears to meet no standard and to be an unlikely guess for anyone looking at the parent article as a starting point, which was the situation I found myself in when I created a new article today. Alansohn (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – seems an obvious one. Occuli (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I think the "(United States)" article-name is new: the page history shows that the old "U.S." page was moved there in 2009, and I know many older articles/templates/etc. still use the "U.S." name when linking to the school. If the current article name uses (United States), then it makes sense for the category to match it. I wonder if other categories related to SJC still use the old "U.S." name. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked but I don't think there are any other categories that use the name of the school, apart from the newly created Category:St. John's College (United States) faculty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2010 (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:Celebrities

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. — ξxplicit 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Celebrities to Category:Celebrity
Nominator's rationale: Rename - the category is not for people who are or are perceived to be celebrities. It is for articles and categories relating to the phenomenon of celebrity. Renaming clarifies that point and reduces the likelihood that random famous people will be added to it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – the nom is right. There are subcats for people. Occuli (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom. Makes sense.--Lenticel (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2010 (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:Plug-in hybrid promoters

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: merge all to Category:Hybrid electric vehicle advocates. There's a case to made for merging that category to Category:Sustainability advocates, and probably a fair amount of purging is needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Plug-in hybrid promoters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Plug-in hybrid advocates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Adding similar category:

Category:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle organizations Beagel (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The question here is do we simply upmerge into one category or delete this. I'll note that we do not have Category:Hybrid promoters. I will add that we may want to consider upmerging Category:Plug-in hybrid advocates to Category:Hybrid electric vehicle advocates. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my vote: merge all to Category:Sustainability advocates. Upon review, at least two of the three people in :Category:Plug-in hybrid advocates do not seem to be uniquely advocating on behalf of plug-in hybrids or hybrids at all: they are advocates for less reliance on oil, smart grids, etc., as well. This is just more Mac/Nopetro's soapboxing on behalf of his pet causes, I suspect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, the three people in Category:Hybrid electric vehicle advocates are or were employed in the automotive industry working on such vehicles. I don't believe they meet our criteria as advocates or activists, anymore than anyone else employed in a given industry. They should be de-categorized, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both all to Category:Hybrid electric vehicle advocates. If merged to Category:Sustainability advocates, also Category:Hybrid electric vehicle advocates should be merged to the same category. Beagel (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does any one really think that the article text for the articles in Category:Plug-in hybrid advocates justifies their inclusion in the vehicle or advocacy trees? Only one entry there seems to have a case, and that is more about power plant related issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2010 (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:Scott family

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:Scott family (English aristocracy).--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Scott family to Category:to be determined
Nominator's rationale: Rename - more than one family in the world called Scott so the name is ambiguous. Commons has material under "House of Scott" so maybe Category:House of Scott? Or if there's a naming convention, follow that. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I take the point about the ambiguity opportunity in the current naming, the same can be said of most of the other entries under Category:Noble families of the United Kingdom. Maybe they need a group nomination to seek a consensus rename approach to address the issue (for example something like "Bloggs family (nobility)")? AllyD (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated this one because I happened to find it on an article I was reviewing. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – it is at present a very UK-nobility-centric name. (There are other UK Scotts who come to mind before this lot, at least to a mere commoner, eg Walter Scott, Peter Scott, Scott of the Antarctic.) I would suggest "Bloggs family (UK nobility)" (or "Bloggs family (United Kingdom nobility)" but I expect these coves will appear in multiple such categories. Indeed it's not clear to me why Sarah, Duchess of York is not there ... what are the inclusion criteria? Occuli (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, per Category:Howard family (English aristocracy) and several others, "Bloggs family (British aristocracy)"; or "Bloggs family (British nobility)" (many of these are not exclusively English or Scottish). Occuli (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Scott family (English aristocracy). I think all members have the surname Scott (often with a handle) and are related to the Dukes of Buccleuch. Others with the surname would be best dealt with in a list such as Scott (surname). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2010 (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:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws

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:  Relisted at 2010 AUG 19 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. This category is problematic. The bulk of its contents appear to be people sent to concentration camps under Germany's Paragraph 175. Clearly they belong in a category akin to this one but would perhaps be better served by Category:People convicted under Germany's Paragraph 175 instead of this vaguer category. There is also the issue of this being an "accused of" or "alleged" category, something which may not be a concern for these people (since I think they're all dead) (Edward Douglas-Scott-Montagu, 3rd Baron Montagu of Beaulieu is still alive but was actually convicted of something) but raises WP:BLP concerns should it be applied to a living person (one or another of the right-wingers who've been caught with their pants down in recent years, for example). The bigger problem is the assumption that the laws under which some of these people were convicted were "anti-homosexual". Some people in this category were prosecuted centuries before the concept of a homosexual identity existed. Others were convicted under general anti-obscenity laws that did not necessarily pertain specifically to homosexuality. At least one woman was convicted for cross-dressing, which is not in and of itself a homosexual trait nor is a law forbidding it necessarily anti-homosexual. I propose that we rename the category and restrict it to those people who were actually convicted of something (but I have no idea what the best name or scope would be) and then review the articles to see what belongs. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prosecuted" is far more narrow than "accused of or alleged"; it means that there was necessarily government action taken against an individual. It doesn't require or imply that the individual was necessarily punished or convicted, or that they were a homosexual, just that there was an official process initiated on that basis. No comment beyond that for now. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of innocent people are prosecuted. Not saying that that in and of itself mandates action but the stigma of prosecution when innocent does IMHO raise serious questions. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not following your point here, at least as a reply to my comment. My point was only that your characterization of this as a mere allegation or accusation category was inapt, because the category focuses on some government as the accuser (rather than just anyone, as you'd have in an unqualified Category:People accused of FOO category), and requires that government have taken some action to try to punish based on the allegation under some law. Which isn't to say this category shouldn't be deleted or kept, but I just wanted us to be clear on what we were talking about. postdlf (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying that there's a bias inherent in saying that a person's been prosecuted for a crime and that this bias argues against the category. Regardless, it appears that everyone in this category was convicted of one thing or another and given that there's really no need for a prosecuted category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I went ahead and created and populated the category. Regardless of the outcome here I thought that the Para 175 category was valid and viable. The persecution category already existed (note that Para 175 both pre- and post-dates Nazi Germany so the two categories are not synonymous). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (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:Air Gear

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. — ξxplicit 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Air Gear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category only has 3 pages linked to it, The template Air gear is up for deletion as well for similar reasons. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I do not see that any of these articles are up for deletion, the category is a WP:OC#SMALL one and can be deleted as its contents are interlinked. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as small cat. All members are already sufficiently categorized.--Lenticel (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_27&oldid=1078927412"