Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 13

< July 12 July 14 >

July 13

Category:Syrian cycling biography stubs

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. A good illustration of why it's usually best to just let the process play out rather than trying to rush things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Syrian cycling biography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Four articles in the permanent category. This is no reason for a stub category yet. Delete category and upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! The fabric of WP is crumbling before our eyes. Next. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a huge prob, Lugnuts. But still, don't break things, even small things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound as if I did that on purpose. Maybe you should ping the stub-sorting clique to attack someone for making the category out of process in the first place, ffs. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Lugnuts, I am not at all suggesting that you did that on purpose. I'm just trying to point out that when you break something accidentally and somebody else fixes it for you, the collegial response is "thanks", rather than i-dont-care sarcasm. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stick with the sarcasm over your pettifoggery. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning up, BrownHairedGirl. Ibadibam (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When it hits 60, let me know. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to an Asian or Middle Eastern category and a Syrian Sportspeople category. Plain deletion would mean that they ceased to be in any stub category, which is plainly wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2016 (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:Wikipedia articles with Culture.si counterparts

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia articles with Culture.si counterparts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing pages by whether they have a counterpart in another encyclopedia etc could lead to a lot of categories on some pages - especially if, as is currently the case here, Culture.si is a redlink. Note: This category has no proper parent categories. DexDor (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2016 (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:Wikipedia Integration (Reviewed)

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) 04:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia Integration (Reviewed) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has been marked "The Integration Project is no longer active. This category is not active." since 2010. DexDor (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2016 (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:Singing competition television shows

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) 04:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Per brevity, consistence with Category:Talent shows, consistence between shows and contestant/winners categories, and disambiguation from televised Category:Song contests. --PanchoS (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. I think "singing talent show" sounds better than "reality singing competition". The "reality" aspect is generally that the public get to vote, but not always, however, they are still considered part of the reality TV genre, but would still be subcategories of Category:Reality television somewhere along the line, so that wouldn't be lost. The loss of the word "television" does not matter as all talent show articles are eventually categorised as reality television shows. The current categories that the above categories are in would still all apply following the proposed rename. So I think the proposed names work and I've thought these categories needed renaming for a while. anemoneprojectors 15:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. More generic and general. Redirects might be wise for those who type in "Reality" as the first word in a category search. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2016 (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:953 sculptures

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:953 sculptures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Move single item to Category:10th-century sculptures. It's the only subcategory of 10th-century sculptures and the other categories from 9th-14th don't have subcategories. It's also the only category of Category:953 works which would likely be C1 deleted soon enough but this would appear through the 10th-century in Category:10th-century works. Sculptures doesn't seem to use a decades subcategory structure. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to all parents. We are never going to get much population for this. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2016 (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:Zaire stubs

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 to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo stubs. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Zaire stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I tried to populate this with all the stubs I could for this former country. Came up with only a dozen. Propose deleting category, and upmerging template to Category:African history stubs. Dawynn (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2016 (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:Uzbekistani football forward, 1960s births stubs

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 template and merge category per revised propsal below. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very premature category. Currently, Category:Uzbekistani football biography stubs is a very modestly-sized category with no need for subdivisions. That being said, if we insist on subdivisions, we need to take it one step at a time. Rename this category to cover all Uzbekistani football forwards. The template may be kept as an upmerged template, but also build a new {{Uzbekistan-footy-forward-stub}} for the renamed category. Dawynn (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Possibly -- 60 items is the normal minimum for stub categories, I think. Better, Merge to Category:Uzbekistani football biography stubs, which is not so big as to need splitting. I would be inclined also to merge the backs category back there too. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revision -- I can support that for the forwards. Because of the small-ish size of the parent, and likely inability to fill a forward category at this time, revise my proposal to deleting Category:Uzbekistani football forward, 1960s births stubs, renaming the template {{Uzbekistan-footy-forward-1960s-stub}} to {{Uzbekistan-footy-forward-stub}}, and upmerging the template to Category:Uzbekistani football biography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2016 (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:Terrorism by year

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. The suggestion of User:Ricky81682 may be worth discussing in a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too fine-grained, these categories don't contain much more than the actual incidents, and this is unlikely to change. However, there is use for per-year categories in both violence and crime that may hold articles about all kinds of violence (considered a crime or not), resp. about more general aspects than the individual crimes by year categories should contain. --PanchoS (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dimadick: The scopes of particular WikiProjects don't dictate our categorization decisions. It works the other way around: WikiProjects may or may not track whatever they consider falling into their scope. But we're the ones who are defining categories' scopes based on both policies and common sense. Policy is that these are WP:SMALLCATs. Common sense is that terrorism is a crime, that it is by definition violent, and that it is part of political, ethnic and/or religious conflicts. Regarding your objection to the ":in crime" categories, this is explained in my rationale. Sometimes, reading rationales helps understanding the nominator's intent. --PanchoS (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose terrorism is a subset of violence, as Dimadick explains. Calling all violence terrorism is academically unsound as some "violence" is legally justified by international norms (not just by the violent actor's norms), including such things as self-defense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: Please take another look at the proposal. Of course I'm not suggesting that all violence was terrorism. I'm proposing to expand the scope of a WP:NARROWCAT based on the fact that – the other way around – all terrorism is violence. --PanchoS (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - terrorism has its own wikiproject, it is recognised as a phenomenon as such, to subsume into other categories seems to be removing an identified phenomenon which is recognisable, into a nebulous area. The mixing up with violence and crime is confusing. It is sufficient as it stands and is comprehendable, the change would create significant loss of an identifiable subject. JarrahTree 00:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JarrahTree: Did you even bother to look into the categories? Apart from the subcategories Category:Terrorist incidents by year which are not renamed, these 17 categories contain a total of exactly four articles, and have been existing for just half a year, so the "loss" is not so significant. --PanchoS (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tagged them for the project, I am less interested in volume and smallcat point - regardless of what the arguments might be I do think that even 1 event populated items can be of use over time, to reduce/change to conflict and violence I do not agree JarrahTree 01:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think a better proposal would be to ask why even have a terrorist incidents category and just upmerge straight from that to the terrorism category. Is there a reason to distinguish "non-incidents" within terrorism? I guess it could be "terrorism legislation" or "prevent terrorism campaigns" or something that belongs there I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Modern terrorism is an aspect of war by unconventional means, often by insurgent groups. They may not be easy to define, but most of us know a terrorist incident when we see one. WE should not mix this with burglary, other murders, etc where there is no political motive. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2016 (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:Golfers from Sydney

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 to Category:Sportspeople from Sydney and to Category:Australian golfers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also upmerge to Australian golfers

Per multiple CFDs, here[3], here[4], here[5], here[6] here[7], here[8], and here[9] just being six examples, we don't subcategorize sportspeople from Foo town/city by the type of athletes they are. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Over-categorisation. Category:Golfers from Leeds can go too. Nigej (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2016 (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:Disaster preparedness by country

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 reflect the main article name "Emergency management". -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
30 similar per-country categories
  • Propose manually splitting:
Nominator's rationale: Disaster preparedness is just one aspect of emergency management that happens not even to have its own main article, see the hatnote in Category:Disaster preparedness.
Now while the main Category:Disaster preparedness, as well as the US category and to a lesser degree the UK category hold quite some specific content, most other per-country categories hold content that refers to emergency management in a broader sense (including smaller-scale emergencies and emergency/disaster response.
If there's enough specific content on disaster preparedness, these subcategories may of course be re-created, but until then, we should rather have a robust set of categories that properly covers all aspects of Category:Emergency management. --PanchoS (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Emergency planning", which is a term that is used in UK. However, some of the categories have no legitimate content: the fire services in Indonesia and coastguard in Belize are organisations that would be involved in the response to emergencies (with others), but are (probably) not the main organisation responsible for disaster planning. These cases should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emergency planning is not an WP:ENGVAR synonym, but a subtopic of Emergency management. --PanchoS (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the use of "emergency management" term in general, per main article. I don't know whether or not "emergency planning" is a case of ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2016 (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:Expatriates in Egypt by nationality

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 to Category:Expatriates in Egypt.
There is a clear consensus to merge, but the nominator's proposal says "delete". There seems to be a rash of such mislabelled CFD nominations recently, and they mislead editors. Please, Mar4d and other editors, take a few seconds to ensure that the headline of the nomination says what you actually intend. Merger and deletion have very different effects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Expatriates in Egypt by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Expatriates in Egypt which serves the same purpose. I propose merging into the latter. Mar4d (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2016 (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:Indian Buddy films

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, without prejudice to a discussion of the broader Category:Buddy films tree. But rename to Category:Indian buddy films to fix capitalization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure what is the reason for this particular category. The films listed under this category has story related to friends but creating a category would be too much. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove deletion tag what is your User talk:Vivvt problem with Indian buddy films category? are you jealous you couldnt create the category, but I created because credit goes to me? there are categories for Indian war films, Indian romance films, Indian musical films, Indian drama films, Indian road movies etc, whats wrong with Indian buddy films, what is too much in this. I am spending my time, and internet expenditure to create a category, and who are you to challenge my creative freedom. Please explain.Buddyfilms (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid child category of Category:Buddy films. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, it should be at Category:Indian buddy films, as the current title has incorrect caps. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Jealous? Buddyfilms, you may wish to look up that word as it is not applicable here. Anyone can create a category--it doesn't make you a big success to be envious of. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid subcategory of Category:Buddy films.Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "buddy films" is not well defined, the list of films at buddy film has only one sourced entry and seems to be entirely WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant films in the genre of buddy films produced in India, within the Indian context. Western buddy films are culturally different from Indian Buddy films.Buddyfilms (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I find Buddyfilms' comment to be somewhat in bad faith, it's a legitimate category of a legitimate genre (though, the main article needs work). Though, it should be renamed per Lugnuts. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:05, 14 July 2016 (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:Abia State government stubs

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Undersized as per WP:STUB. It appears to have been created out-of-process, and there's not enough stubs in Category:Government of Abia State to populate this enough to make it worthwhile. ~ Rob13Talk 02:43, 13 July 2016 (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:Wikipedia impossible musical instrument audio files

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.
Tho it was already deleted, by User:Hyacinth, the day after it was nominated. Which is out-of-order. Please wait for discussion to be closed, rather than unilaterally deleting a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia impossible musical instrument audio files (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure this category makes any sense. In essence it seems like a category to keep track of requests for audio files for musical instruments for which it would be impossible to create such files. I thought it was a j1oke category for a second. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean that it's simply poor naming of a useful category. Hyacinth (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about something more like "Category:Articles with impossible audio file requests"? Hyacinth (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Or "Category:Musical instrument articles with impossible audio"? Hyacinth (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: how is this category "useful"? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. We don't have maintenance category for things that can't be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Should we put {{Reqinstrument}} on all of these talk pages? Hyacinth (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does Wikipedia not have maintenance categories for things that can't be done as a policy or as a practice? Hyacinth (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't sound useful, does it? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also Template:Noreqinstrument should be deleted to reduce non-useful talk page clutter. DexDor (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - rater than a category, would it be more useful to have a template, e.g., {{noaudioreq}}, to do the same sort of work as {{notstub}} and the hidden comments on "complete" short articles? Grutness...wha? 01:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the category has meanwhile been deleted by User:Hyacinth. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But they've created Category:Nonexistent or unplayable musical instruments. DexDor (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2016 (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:Marcus Orelias Albums

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 (note that this had happened already before closing the discussion). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Marcus Orelias Albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: He's only released one album, so looks like a WP:SMALLCAT for now Le Deluge (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Category:Marcus Orelias albums. "Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." The recording artist is clearly the paramount defining characteristic of an album. Oculi (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has renamed it. Oculi (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories about albums are usually not subject to WP:SMALLCAT and really should not be. I am not certain why "Albums" is capitalized here, but this is another topic. Dimadick (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2016 (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/2016_July_13&oldid=1138409907"