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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. PRC is the successor state of ROC (1911-1949), except some defunct company before 1949, all Chinese company refer to PRC company.
Matthew_hktc22:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- "China" is ambiguous as it could also refer to Taiwan. I know that the independence of Taiwan is not recognised, but it de facto exists. Categorisation of a Taiwanese Company in one of these categories with be mis-categorisation.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "Companies of China" presumably means companies registered under Chinese law, i.e. the law of the People's republic, therefore it is appropriate to use the name of the legal state where ambiguity may exist. If we were discussing Flora of China, Climate of China, etc, I would agree with removing the state name.
Sussexonian (
talk)
21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose That the PRC is the "successor state" to the Republic is laden with POV. (Don't believe me? Try making that argument to people that live in Taipei. I've seen someone try it, and it wasn't pretty.) The Republic of China still very much exists, and the PRC is more attached to that name than many people may realise. (I read a paper that a formal declaration by the ROC to change the name of the country to the "Republic of Taiwan" could be seen as a casus belli by Beijing for destroying the One China policy.)
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
07:16, 29 March 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:Albums produced by Supa Dave West
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.
Delete it. He had an article, it got deleted in 2008. The first step in this was to establish the notability of the producer, and then consider a category. I can't see any benefit to categorising things by relation to a redlink- what are our readers supposed to learn from this category? Likely the same thing I did- nothing.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
07:27, 29 March 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:Warped Tour Compilations
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.
While music is my weakest field, I do wonder about this one, due to the fact that, ex. [Warped Tour 2004 Tour Compilation]], "Compilation" appears to be part of the full name of everything categorised here.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
07:29, 29 March 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:Files, rasps, and similar tools
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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcat. There are only 5 articles, with not much room for expansion. The current parent cats can be applied to the individual articles.
Wizard191 (
talk)
21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
You really think that 5 articles need a cat? Only the file is a metalworking tool, the rest are woodworking or others, so the parent cats of this category are not a fit to begin with.
Wizard191 (
talk)
21:19, 24 March 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:Landmarks in County Kilkenny
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.
Maybe, though this editor created a lot of new Kilkenny categories. Personally, I'd delete both the "landmarks" and "visitor attractions" tree as a vague and subjective mess, but that's another day's work. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:06, 23 March 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:Hip hop compilations
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.
Oppose. The change is unnecessary as Hip Hop compilations are always albums and there is no ambiguity with the current title.
Cjc13 (
talk)
12:26, 29 March 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:Ambient 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.
Oppose. This does not make everything consistent. It is normal in subcategories like this not to include music in the title, as all ambient albums consist of music. If you rename this category than you should also rename all the other categories in
Category:Electronic albums by genre as well as many other similar categories.
Cjc13 (
talk)
11:59, 25 March 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:Ojibwa
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 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:CFA Charterholders
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.
Merge. If a D.Phil or Ph.D. isn't defining, I doubt even a level 3 CFA would be. That's not to trivialize the accomplishment, but most people advanced enough in a profession to have a WP article probably have some sort of certificate in that profession. If anything, what would be interesting is a list of people who lack such credentials in high-profile positions.-
choster (
talk)
17:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep, expanding ititials I can't see any reason to delete this, given we have various medical & legal etc "by qualification" categories. Nor would I see any objection to splitting the accountants in this sort of way.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
A glance at
Category:Professional certification indicates that it is not the norm to classify individual people by professional qualification, although qualification/certification/licensure often overlaps with occupation and we do categorize by occupation. The achievement of a qualification may or may not be defining depending on the era and location, and indeed the criteria for becoming a
Professional Engineer vary from state to state within the U.S.-
choster (
talk)
22:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Which should be renamed to match
Barristers in England and Wales, a name which reflects a natural overlap between licensure and occupation. If someone has not been admitted to the bar in this jurisdiction, presumably s/he could not be called a barrister.-
choster (
talk)
14:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It is a "qualified in" category, capturing people admitted to the E&W bar, many of whom, like Ghandi, then go or return elsewhere. Apparently the CFA operates in the same way, with many foreign students. There is also
Category:English barristers.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Profession almost always is defining, but this accomplishment may or may not be. In any case, the existence of categories for professions renders unnecessary this category: people for whom having a CFA certification is not defining should not be placed into a category for CFAs; people for whom having a CFA certification is defining (because of the nature of their work) can be placed in an appropriate category for financial services professionials. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:28, 5 April 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:War crimes of the Second Chechen War
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:no consensus. I think it's indisputable that the category has potential problems, as do many of the subcategories of
Category:War crimes. It would indeed be ideal if users would stop creating categories with names that contribute to a battleground atmosphere. But I don't see a consensus here to delete or rename in this case. From some of the comments by participants, a broader nomination might be appropriate, which could be started at any time.Good Ol’factory(talk)09:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is a very subjective one, in which mainly articles relating to Russian actions in Chechnya are added based purely on editorial POV; Chechen atrocities are not added. None of the articles in the category have sources which fit a wide POV that the actions were
war crimes. Yes, some of these incidents have resulted in cases which have gone to the European Courts - but who has made the European Courts the determiner on what does or doesn't constitute a war crime - which is completely different to violation of human rights, or even so called international crimes. Of course there are some interest groups which call some of the incidents war crimes, but then so too are there many groups which call the
Bombing of Dresden a war crime - yet that category is not present on that article. Take for example,
Novye Aldi massacre which is present in this category - it led to two cases in the European Court of Human Rights -
Estamirov and Others v. Russia and
Musayev, Labazanova and Magomadov v. Russia, yet neither judgement mentions that these were war crimes. But rather humans right abuse cases.
Talk:Bombing of Katyr-Yurt will also demonstrate how the addition of this category to articles is problematic, for they are not internationally recognised as war crimes. There are other categories available into which such articles can belong, but as the category as it stands is one which content is determined purely by editorial POV, it should be deleted.
RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm only voting on the merits of the category being nominated. If
Category:War crimes is nominated (which I believe it should be), I'll consider it separately. Hope this clarifies my vote above.—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); March 29, 2010; 14:51 (UTC)
Keep, and do not rename. This category is blatantly POV, but so is most of the
Category:War crimes, particularly
Category:War crimes committed by country. I would support deletion of the whole, but I oppose cherry-picking one part of this category tree while keeping the others. Similarly, I would support renaming all these categories to a descriptive term (e.g. attacks on civilians), but renaming just one of them ... and I would not support renaming any of them to an emotive POV term such as "massacre". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree that an emotive POV term such as "massacre" is actually worse. But we need some category here. Unless something better can be suggested for the entire
Category:War crimes, this should be kept.
Biophys (
talk)
21:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
This is a
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument essentially. What you have failed to cover is the mere fact that not a single one of the articles in the category have a single reference (let alone those from a scholarly source) which would demonstrate that they are widely regarded as war crimes. In essence, you are arguing to retain a category for which there are no references for any of those articles belonging in it. It would be advisable to take some time to review the articles in question before arguing to keep or delete the category. --
RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak12:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
If the articles are incorrectly categorised, then deal with that on the articles. But while war crimes categories exist in relation to other countries and other conflicts, the only grounds for deletion of this one would be underpopulation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
If I were to do as you suggest, then I would remove them all from the category as there are no references for it, and then I would be accused of emptying, and then deleting, categories out of process. So I throw back the original argument - no sources, no category. It's as simple as that really. --
RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak16:30, 1 April 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 by country and city
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:no consensus; doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for this move, though participation was light and the opposition was not too fierce. Thus, I've closed this as a "no consensus" rather than a "do not rename" so that the nomination could be made again in the future.Good Ol’factory(talk)09:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I only picked Afghan because it was the first. Please change the example to 'Category:People by city in Canada', and side-step an Afghan impasse. ('People in England' and 'English people' are not the same thing.)
Occuli (
talk)
02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
'People by country' does not presume that the people are citizens of that country (as 'People by nationality' does), only of that country in some manner, anyway. The matter of improving upon 'Cat:Fooian people' for people of Fooian citizenship is a matter that needs to be addressed, I agree too, but is hardly one that should hold up this nomination.
Mayumashu (
talk)
15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep This is parent only category, a parent for "people by city" categories for many countries. I do not think the precise form matters unduly.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:21, 25 March 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 from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
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.
Oppose Content of the encyclopedia needs to be
verifiable. As an editor who's added many of the entries to
Category:Musicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and other of these categories, I have seen almost no sources using "from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area". The "metropolitan area" is almost always assumed by sources when using the term "Pittsburgh" as the technical geographical city is quite small. I further oppose a move to the "from Pennsylvania" category as they've already
been diffused into subcategories, because the main categories were becoming large enough not to be useful.
dissolvetalk16:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
If/since the sources aren t clear, we need to, by default, cat to the metro area (as, obviously, the city is within the metro area and not the other way round), which is what this nomination suggests.
Mayumashu (
talk)
17:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
That sounds like complete justification for the proposal. Since the media uses one term to describe two areas, one that overlaps the other, we should use the broader area since that would always be accurate. We have been down this road before and found that it can be the correct way to categorize.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
17:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
'Comment -- I assume that the "metopolitan area" extends beyond the legal boundary of the city. If so, those from beyond the "legal" city shoudlbe categorised in the place they are actually from. If the metropolitan area can be precisley defined (without POV-issues), it might be a parent category. No vote - as I do not know the area.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Lack of uniformity in definitions of metropolitan areas (both throughout space and time) and hence likely source of arguments, fussiness, and POV traps.
gidonb (
talk)
01:21, 12 April 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:Langemark-Poelkapelle
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 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:Places of worship in Antwerp
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Small with no potential for growth. Entries were easily relocated in corresponding 'xxxx in Belgium' categories.
195.177.83.221 (
talk)
13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and repopulate. The nominator depopulated the category before making this CFD nomination: see e.g.
[1].
[2]. There are plenty of notable places of worship in Antwerp with which to populate this category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and repopulate -- A city the size of Antwerp will have many places of worship, some of which will be notable. Upmerging to the whole country (as the nom appears to intend) ought not to be an option. At worst, it should be by province, but for a great city better not at all.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:25, 25 March 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:Churches in Antwerp
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.
Keep - the corresponding cat on nl-Wiki contains 12 articles, so there is potential for growth here, and this cat forms part of the already existing
Category:Churches in Belgium by place, which is populated and will also grow further, so is part of an existing tree. Also, the nominator, doubtless in good faith, has just emptied the cat (admittedly containing so far only one article, which pro tem I've replaced).
HeartofaDog (
talk)
14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and repopulate. The nominator depopulated the category before making this CFD nomination: see e.g.
[3].
[4]. There are plenty of notable churches in Antwerp with which to populate this category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and repopulate -- A city the size of Antwerp will have many churches, some of which will be notable. Upmerging to the whole country (as the nom appears to intend) ought not to be an option. At worst, it should be by province, but for a great city better not at all.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Why place in the same category the churches of Antwerp with churches of Brugge? Churches in Antwerp can be a subcategory of churches in Belgium.
User:Lucifero4
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:Plays by Weberty Moreira
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 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:BMS-affiliated unions
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.
Nominator's rationale: expand abbreviations per main and consistent to the other subcategories of
Category:Trade unions in India (
see this CfD). I understand that these names don't say "union" for an English-speaking user, so I'm certainly open to alternative proposals. The acronym, however, is cryptic.
PanchoS (
talk)
01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Expand abbreviations per above suggestion of Peterkingiron. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's probably better than what currently exists, and it would be in line with our standard practice to avoid all but the most well-known acronyms and abbreviations in category names.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:59, 12 April 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.
WikiProject Google assessment categories
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:renamed all. All categories have been switched to the new titles, which was mostly done automatically by
Mono, old ones deleted per G6. JamieS93❤13:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I assume most, if not all, of these are populated by a template. Isn't it easier to fix the template and then delete the old categories as G6 housekeeping / G8 populated by a retargeted template? Still, no harm done if approval given here for a non-controversial change, so rename all.
BencherliteTalk14:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all to match changed name of the project. In practice, this change can only be implemented by changing the project's banner template, but if Black Falcon is willing and able to do that, then the resulting empty categories can be deleted per this CFD. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename automatically or not at all using AWB or something. It took a while to create those categories and it doesn't really matter.--
mono04:51, 3 April 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:NRC Records artists
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 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:In popular culture
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. It seems to be that the current name is a bit incomplete. One is left wondering what "in popular culture"? There is no subject in this category name, just a dangling prepositional phrase. We need a noun as a subject in the phrase—it could be "topics", "subjects", or something else.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename "Topics in popular culture As the nominator pointed out, this is ungrammatical and confusing. I'm basically indifferent to "topics" versus "subjects", so I will happily go along with a majority if they favor "subjects." —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
07:02, 23 March 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:Live at Fillmore, San Francisco 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 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:Yngwie J. Malmsteen 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 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:Die Ärzte videos
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 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.
Pixies (band)
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.
Keep as is to avoid the obvious confusion of not using a dab word e.g.
category:Images of Pixies. This is one of those cases where following the main article name is not the best solution, as was agreed (despite Justin's objection at the time) in 2008.
BencherliteTalk11:56, 23 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. PRC is the successor state of ROC (1911-1949), except some defunct company before 1949, all Chinese company refer to PRC company.
Matthew_hktc22:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- "China" is ambiguous as it could also refer to Taiwan. I know that the independence of Taiwan is not recognised, but it de facto exists. Categorisation of a Taiwanese Company in one of these categories with be mis-categorisation.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "Companies of China" presumably means companies registered under Chinese law, i.e. the law of the People's republic, therefore it is appropriate to use the name of the legal state where ambiguity may exist. If we were discussing Flora of China, Climate of China, etc, I would agree with removing the state name.
Sussexonian (
talk)
21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose That the PRC is the "successor state" to the Republic is laden with POV. (Don't believe me? Try making that argument to people that live in Taipei. I've seen someone try it, and it wasn't pretty.) The Republic of China still very much exists, and the PRC is more attached to that name than many people may realise. (I read a paper that a formal declaration by the ROC to change the name of the country to the "Republic of Taiwan" could be seen as a casus belli by Beijing for destroying the One China policy.)
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
07:16, 29 March 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:Albums produced by Supa Dave West
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.
Delete it. He had an article, it got deleted in 2008. The first step in this was to establish the notability of the producer, and then consider a category. I can't see any benefit to categorising things by relation to a redlink- what are our readers supposed to learn from this category? Likely the same thing I did- nothing.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
07:27, 29 March 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:Warped Tour Compilations
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.
While music is my weakest field, I do wonder about this one, due to the fact that, ex. [Warped Tour 2004 Tour Compilation]], "Compilation" appears to be part of the full name of everything categorised here.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
07:29, 29 March 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:Files, rasps, and similar tools
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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcat. There are only 5 articles, with not much room for expansion. The current parent cats can be applied to the individual articles.
Wizard191 (
talk)
21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
You really think that 5 articles need a cat? Only the file is a metalworking tool, the rest are woodworking or others, so the parent cats of this category are not a fit to begin with.
Wizard191 (
talk)
21:19, 24 March 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:Landmarks in County Kilkenny
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.
Maybe, though this editor created a lot of new Kilkenny categories. Personally, I'd delete both the "landmarks" and "visitor attractions" tree as a vague and subjective mess, but that's another day's work. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:06, 23 March 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:Hip hop compilations
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.
Oppose. The change is unnecessary as Hip Hop compilations are always albums and there is no ambiguity with the current title.
Cjc13 (
talk)
12:26, 29 March 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:Ambient 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.
Oppose. This does not make everything consistent. It is normal in subcategories like this not to include music in the title, as all ambient albums consist of music. If you rename this category than you should also rename all the other categories in
Category:Electronic albums by genre as well as many other similar categories.
Cjc13 (
talk)
11:59, 25 March 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:Ojibwa
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 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:CFA Charterholders
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.
Merge. If a D.Phil or Ph.D. isn't defining, I doubt even a level 3 CFA would be. That's not to trivialize the accomplishment, but most people advanced enough in a profession to have a WP article probably have some sort of certificate in that profession. If anything, what would be interesting is a list of people who lack such credentials in high-profile positions.-
choster (
talk)
17:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep, expanding ititials I can't see any reason to delete this, given we have various medical & legal etc "by qualification" categories. Nor would I see any objection to splitting the accountants in this sort of way.
Johnbod (
talk)
20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
A glance at
Category:Professional certification indicates that it is not the norm to classify individual people by professional qualification, although qualification/certification/licensure often overlaps with occupation and we do categorize by occupation. The achievement of a qualification may or may not be defining depending on the era and location, and indeed the criteria for becoming a
Professional Engineer vary from state to state within the U.S.-
choster (
talk)
22:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Which should be renamed to match
Barristers in England and Wales, a name which reflects a natural overlap between licensure and occupation. If someone has not been admitted to the bar in this jurisdiction, presumably s/he could not be called a barrister.-
choster (
talk)
14:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It is a "qualified in" category, capturing people admitted to the E&W bar, many of whom, like Ghandi, then go or return elsewhere. Apparently the CFA operates in the same way, with many foreign students. There is also
Category:English barristers.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Profession almost always is defining, but this accomplishment may or may not be. In any case, the existence of categories for professions renders unnecessary this category: people for whom having a CFA certification is not defining should not be placed into a category for CFAs; people for whom having a CFA certification is defining (because of the nature of their work) can be placed in an appropriate category for financial services professionials. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:28, 5 April 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:War crimes of the Second Chechen War
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:no consensus. I think it's indisputable that the category has potential problems, as do many of the subcategories of
Category:War crimes. It would indeed be ideal if users would stop creating categories with names that contribute to a battleground atmosphere. But I don't see a consensus here to delete or rename in this case. From some of the comments by participants, a broader nomination might be appropriate, which could be started at any time.Good Ol’factory(talk)09:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is a very subjective one, in which mainly articles relating to Russian actions in Chechnya are added based purely on editorial POV; Chechen atrocities are not added. None of the articles in the category have sources which fit a wide POV that the actions were
war crimes. Yes, some of these incidents have resulted in cases which have gone to the European Courts - but who has made the European Courts the determiner on what does or doesn't constitute a war crime - which is completely different to violation of human rights, or even so called international crimes. Of course there are some interest groups which call some of the incidents war crimes, but then so too are there many groups which call the
Bombing of Dresden a war crime - yet that category is not present on that article. Take for example,
Novye Aldi massacre which is present in this category - it led to two cases in the European Court of Human Rights -
Estamirov and Others v. Russia and
Musayev, Labazanova and Magomadov v. Russia, yet neither judgement mentions that these were war crimes. But rather humans right abuse cases.
Talk:Bombing of Katyr-Yurt will also demonstrate how the addition of this category to articles is problematic, for they are not internationally recognised as war crimes. There are other categories available into which such articles can belong, but as the category as it stands is one which content is determined purely by editorial POV, it should be deleted.
RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm only voting on the merits of the category being nominated. If
Category:War crimes is nominated (which I believe it should be), I'll consider it separately. Hope this clarifies my vote above.—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); March 29, 2010; 14:51 (UTC)
Keep, and do not rename. This category is blatantly POV, but so is most of the
Category:War crimes, particularly
Category:War crimes committed by country. I would support deletion of the whole, but I oppose cherry-picking one part of this category tree while keeping the others. Similarly, I would support renaming all these categories to a descriptive term (e.g. attacks on civilians), but renaming just one of them ... and I would not support renaming any of them to an emotive POV term such as "massacre". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree that an emotive POV term such as "massacre" is actually worse. But we need some category here. Unless something better can be suggested for the entire
Category:War crimes, this should be kept.
Biophys (
talk)
21:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
This is a
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument essentially. What you have failed to cover is the mere fact that not a single one of the articles in the category have a single reference (let alone those from a scholarly source) which would demonstrate that they are widely regarded as war crimes. In essence, you are arguing to retain a category for which there are no references for any of those articles belonging in it. It would be advisable to take some time to review the articles in question before arguing to keep or delete the category. --
RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak12:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
If the articles are incorrectly categorised, then deal with that on the articles. But while war crimes categories exist in relation to other countries and other conflicts, the only grounds for deletion of this one would be underpopulation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
If I were to do as you suggest, then I would remove them all from the category as there are no references for it, and then I would be accused of emptying, and then deleting, categories out of process. So I throw back the original argument - no sources, no category. It's as simple as that really. --
RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak16:30, 1 April 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 by country and city
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:no consensus; doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for this move, though participation was light and the opposition was not too fierce. Thus, I've closed this as a "no consensus" rather than a "do not rename" so that the nomination could be made again in the future.Good Ol’factory(talk)09:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I only picked Afghan because it was the first. Please change the example to 'Category:People by city in Canada', and side-step an Afghan impasse. ('People in England' and 'English people' are not the same thing.)
Occuli (
talk)
02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
'People by country' does not presume that the people are citizens of that country (as 'People by nationality' does), only of that country in some manner, anyway. The matter of improving upon 'Cat:Fooian people' for people of Fooian citizenship is a matter that needs to be addressed, I agree too, but is hardly one that should hold up this nomination.
Mayumashu (
talk)
15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep This is parent only category, a parent for "people by city" categories for many countries. I do not think the precise form matters unduly.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:21, 25 March 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 from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
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.
Oppose Content of the encyclopedia needs to be
verifiable. As an editor who's added many of the entries to
Category:Musicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and other of these categories, I have seen almost no sources using "from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area". The "metropolitan area" is almost always assumed by sources when using the term "Pittsburgh" as the technical geographical city is quite small. I further oppose a move to the "from Pennsylvania" category as they've already
been diffused into subcategories, because the main categories were becoming large enough not to be useful.
dissolvetalk16:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
If/since the sources aren t clear, we need to, by default, cat to the metro area (as, obviously, the city is within the metro area and not the other way round), which is what this nomination suggests.
Mayumashu (
talk)
17:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
That sounds like complete justification for the proposal. Since the media uses one term to describe two areas, one that overlaps the other, we should use the broader area since that would always be accurate. We have been down this road before and found that it can be the correct way to categorize.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
17:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
'Comment -- I assume that the "metopolitan area" extends beyond the legal boundary of the city. If so, those from beyond the "legal" city shoudlbe categorised in the place they are actually from. If the metropolitan area can be precisley defined (without POV-issues), it might be a parent category. No vote - as I do not know the area.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Lack of uniformity in definitions of metropolitan areas (both throughout space and time) and hence likely source of arguments, fussiness, and POV traps.
gidonb (
talk)
01:21, 12 April 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:Langemark-Poelkapelle
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 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:Places of worship in Antwerp
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Small with no potential for growth. Entries were easily relocated in corresponding 'xxxx in Belgium' categories.
195.177.83.221 (
talk)
13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and repopulate. The nominator depopulated the category before making this CFD nomination: see e.g.
[1].
[2]. There are plenty of notable places of worship in Antwerp with which to populate this category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and repopulate -- A city the size of Antwerp will have many places of worship, some of which will be notable. Upmerging to the whole country (as the nom appears to intend) ought not to be an option. At worst, it should be by province, but for a great city better not at all.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:25, 25 March 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:Churches in Antwerp
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.
Keep - the corresponding cat on nl-Wiki contains 12 articles, so there is potential for growth here, and this cat forms part of the already existing
Category:Churches in Belgium by place, which is populated and will also grow further, so is part of an existing tree. Also, the nominator, doubtless in good faith, has just emptied the cat (admittedly containing so far only one article, which pro tem I've replaced).
HeartofaDog (
talk)
14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and repopulate. The nominator depopulated the category before making this CFD nomination: see e.g.
[3].
[4]. There are plenty of notable churches in Antwerp with which to populate this category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and repopulate -- A city the size of Antwerp will have many churches, some of which will be notable. Upmerging to the whole country (as the nom appears to intend) ought not to be an option. At worst, it should be by province, but for a great city better not at all.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Why place in the same category the churches of Antwerp with churches of Brugge? Churches in Antwerp can be a subcategory of churches in Belgium.
User:Lucifero4
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:Plays by Weberty Moreira
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 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:BMS-affiliated unions
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.
Nominator's rationale: expand abbreviations per main and consistent to the other subcategories of
Category:Trade unions in India (
see this CfD). I understand that these names don't say "union" for an English-speaking user, so I'm certainly open to alternative proposals. The acronym, however, is cryptic.
PanchoS (
talk)
01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Expand abbreviations per above suggestion of Peterkingiron. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's probably better than what currently exists, and it would be in line with our standard practice to avoid all but the most well-known acronyms and abbreviations in category names.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:59, 12 April 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.
WikiProject Google assessment categories
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:renamed all. All categories have been switched to the new titles, which was mostly done automatically by
Mono, old ones deleted per G6. JamieS93❤13:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I assume most, if not all, of these are populated by a template. Isn't it easier to fix the template and then delete the old categories as G6 housekeeping / G8 populated by a retargeted template? Still, no harm done if approval given here for a non-controversial change, so rename all.
BencherliteTalk14:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename all to match changed name of the project. In practice, this change can only be implemented by changing the project's banner template, but if Black Falcon is willing and able to do that, then the resulting empty categories can be deleted per this CFD. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename automatically or not at all using AWB or something. It took a while to create those categories and it doesn't really matter.--
mono04:51, 3 April 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:NRC Records artists
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 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:In popular culture
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. It seems to be that the current name is a bit incomplete. One is left wondering what "in popular culture"? There is no subject in this category name, just a dangling prepositional phrase. We need a noun as a subject in the phrase—it could be "topics", "subjects", or something else.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename "Topics in popular culture As the nominator pointed out, this is ungrammatical and confusing. I'm basically indifferent to "topics" versus "subjects", so I will happily go along with a majority if they favor "subjects." —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
07:02, 23 March 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:Live at Fillmore, San Francisco 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 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:Yngwie J. Malmsteen 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 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:Die Ärzte videos
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 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.
Pixies (band)
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.
Keep as is to avoid the obvious confusion of not using a dab word e.g.
category:Images of Pixies. This is one of those cases where following the main article name is not the best solution, as was agreed (despite Justin's objection at the time) in 2008.
BencherliteTalk11:56, 23 March 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.