Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold characters
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. No characters from this now-canceled series are likely to become notable enough for articles so this category isn't needed just for the list. Merge to the two super-categories.
76.201.152.215 (
talk) 20:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I have never heard of this TV serial, which ran to 3 series (that I would only watch if you paid me to). A look at the article on the serial
Batman: The Brave and the Bold has a list of characters - and they have articles on them. These characters also appear in various children's comics. All that is required is to add this category to the articles, and perhaps add to the articles a reference to this serial (if this has not already been done). So the premise on which this deletion request is made is false. Presumably there is value in Wikipedia having articles that are only of interest to children.--
Toddy1 (
talk) 21:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
That's not a very nice thing to say. None of the characters you mention became notable because they are included in the series and none of the characters created for the show are notable on their own either. DC uses a lot of characters in a lot of shows and having two dozen categories on a character because they made one appearance in each series is a bad use of categories.
76.201.152.215 (
talk) 22:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
My apologies. But I still believe that the category should be kept. (In a way I do agree about "too many categories" though...but
I've seen worse. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 01:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Mike Selinker. This looks like it's been listified anyway: the only contents is a list article.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:WikiProject Computer networking
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:Dry Docks of Kingston upon Hull
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.
Yes, but they are not yet articles. If they do become articles, then I have no objection to the category existing.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't see much point to this, per nom. Things could change if the redirects ever became articles.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield
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.
Ruslik_
Zero 14:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally subcategorize sites in a battle into their own category.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
DISAGREE WITH RATIONALIZATION ALLEGED AS RATIONALE: The claim that "We don't normally subcategorize sites in a battle into their own category" is misleading (which is why the claimant used the irrelevant qualifier "normally" to mislead), as categories for notable locations are acceptable and used for notable events--i.e., their use is normal (e.g. for venue categories as siblings of event categories, and for Civil War battles such as
Category:Richmond National Battlefield Park & the category for Perryville battlefield). That is, when the amount of wikiarticles regarding a place (a battlefield in this case) is significant, they are to be split to allow readers to more easily navigate (the whole purpose of categorization). This is particularly true for the places on the
Gettysburg Battlefield--which are so numerous as to warrant 7 subcategories. The issue of normal/abnormal is irrelevant and an unfounded and false rationale, as the number of notable places on the
Gettysburg Battlefield is high (so having a category is normal for a such a military site--actually a region with numerous sites--having the high magnitude of Civil War and postbellum events that has warranted the large number of articles on notable topics). All those wikiarticles warrant a separate category in the
Category:Battlefield tree.
208.54.38.151 (
talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose The subcategories and their targets each have so many articles that it looks more tidy and makes navigation easier to use subcategories here.
Tatterfly (
talk) 23:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE MERGE to
Category:Battle of Gettysburg: Battle and Battlefield are 2 different things (per
Category:Battles &
Category:Battlefields) with the battle being just 1 three-day event on the battlefield (i.e., subcategory of the battlefield category, which has had events over more than a century with several distinct periods (e.g., memorial association era, commemorative era, etc.). The battle category has all the wikiarticles for events during the battle, while the populated Battlefield category has all the places on the battlefield (some not related to the battle such as the postbellum railroad(s)). Likewise as an example,
Pickett's Charge is a different topic than the
Field of Pickett's Charge, so placing the field article in the battle category is improper categorization as little of the article's information is about the battle (e.g., the
Camp Colt, Pennsylvania and other postbellum places and events on that field). Moreover, many of the
Gettysburg Battlefield places don't have anything to do with the
Battle of Gettysburg, so merging those articles into
Category:Battle of Gettysburg would be unreasonably clutter the battle category with irrelevant articles (which "we don't normally" do). This is particularly true of the numerous articles in the sub
Category:Defunct places of the Gettysburg Battlefield, few of which have anything to do with the battle and would be ridiculous additions to
Category:Battle of Gettysburg (and is evident to anyone who has even a simple knowledge--e.g., from the the titles--of the defunct place articles). Hopefully there won't be a rationalization for those articles to instead be in a Battle of Gettysburg subcategory called Category:Battle of Gettysburg sites which are on the Gettysburg Battlefield but which don't actually have anything to do with the Battle of Gettysburg?
208.54.38.151 (
talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Despite being wildly overdramatic and a bit insulting, your argument is quite convincing. I'm okay with making these into
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield instead. But tone down the invective, okay?--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 04:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment -- there is some overcategorisation here. I doubt we need the "defunct places" category, but perhaps both the nom place categories might be renamed to
Category:Places associated with Battle of Gettysburg. I am not an American or a hisotrian of that period and thus have no strong view.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Western Australia people
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:Bathrooms
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. A significant number of articles were added to this category during the discussion, which complicates matters.
Category:Restrooms was renamed in the previous discussion to
Category:Public toilets, so what I'd suggest is a re-evaluation of this category in light of that rename and the additions to this category. The category can be immediately re-nominated if desired.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Keeping my mind in the toilet (please previous CfD on November 18), there are just three articles here. Two can be added to the public toilets category, now under consideration in the previous CfD, and the third,
Duravit is for a bathroom fixture supply company. However, even such a venerable brand as
Grohe is under
Category:Plumbing and we could move it there; or create some sort of category for fixture makers, though there's no parent article for that industry, yet, that I can see.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 00:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nominator. I don't remember creating this category; I don't know much about categories; and I have no particular attachment to this category other than it's really helpful when the urge to upchuck comes on suddenly. Okay to flush it.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk) 00:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete fully agree with Shawn's analysis.
Pichpich (
talk) 03:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Wipe up through merging with the public-toilets and plumbing categories, then flush via deletion. And don't forget to wash your hands before returning to work with the admin tools. OK, I'm done here. ;) -
The BushrangerOne ping only 11:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Don't know, but two of the items in this category do not belong in this category (
Aircraft lavatory and
Changing room). If a decision is made to keep
Category:Bathrooms, these two articles should be removed from the category. It is possible that one day there will be articles on bathrooms and bathroom fittings manufacturers, so if a decision is made to delete this category, it should be without prejudice to its future recreation.--
Toddy1 (
talk) 17:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, absolutely. We do have a category
Category:Kitchen that includes domestic kitchen related articles and I don't see why personal bathrooms wouldn't work.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Not only is there the potential to populate this category with more articles, but it also has the potential to be a parent category in itself and hold other categories. It can hold articles about types of bathrooms (which there are plenty of) and categories pertaining to various forms of equipment found in bathrooms. This is a matter of organization. I am not up to doing that this very moment, but this can be worked on.
Tatterfly (
talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
If that's the case, then we'd need to make Restooms a subcat of Bathrooms, rather than the other way around, as it is now.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 00:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Do American public toilets have baths then? European ones do not.--
Toddy1 (
talk) 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Populate properly -- The problem with this category is that it is being used to deal with the euphemism for a toilet. Some bathrooms contain toilet pans. My parents had a room with a bath and a sink and no toilet. Restroom is similarly a eupohemism. I am letting a shop to a bus company as a restroom where their drivers can take a break during their working day; it does contain a toilet, but that is not its primary purpose. The present category ought to contain articles on "bath" "shower", "wash basin", "bidet" (yes) and "toilet pan". It might also contain articles on personal hygene (i.e. washing). Get rid of the euphemisms!
Peterkingiron (
talk) 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I have made an effort to implement your suggestion.--
Toddy1 (
talk) 20:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Category:Restrooms; while bathroom connotes more than the toilet (bathing perhaps), when someone says they have to go to the bathroom it's rarely for bathing purposes....
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 23:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I see the opposite as being more plausible. A restroom is a type of bathroom, not the other way around. Though the word "bathroom" contains "bath," in the English language, it implies a room that has a toilet. Another option is for the category "restrooms" to contain articles pertaining to public restrooms, and the category "bathrooms" for private ones, both in a common parent category. I can't see deleting either over a low number of articles because there really are plenty of articles having to do with both.
Tatterfly (
talk) 23:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The proper meaning of the word bathroom is a room where you can wash your whole body - in modern times this means a room with a bath or a shower. Though the word is sometimes used as a euphemism for toilet/lavatory, that is not its encyclopedic meaning. The English language has many euphemisms and colloquialisms for private and public toilets/lavatories, including bog, little room, bathroom, loo, WC... There are also euphemisms and colloquialisms that are only used for public toilets/lavatories: ladies, gents, men's room, washroom, rest room... For categories in an encyclopedia we should avoid euphemisms and colloquialisms.--
Toddy1 (
talk) 10:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold characters
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. No characters from this now-canceled series are likely to become notable enough for articles so this category isn't needed just for the list. Merge to the two super-categories.
76.201.152.215 (
talk) 20:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I have never heard of this TV serial, which ran to 3 series (that I would only watch if you paid me to). A look at the article on the serial
Batman: The Brave and the Bold has a list of characters - and they have articles on them. These characters also appear in various children's comics. All that is required is to add this category to the articles, and perhaps add to the articles a reference to this serial (if this has not already been done). So the premise on which this deletion request is made is false. Presumably there is value in Wikipedia having articles that are only of interest to children.--
Toddy1 (
talk) 21:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
That's not a very nice thing to say. None of the characters you mention became notable because they are included in the series and none of the characters created for the show are notable on their own either. DC uses a lot of characters in a lot of shows and having two dozen categories on a character because they made one appearance in each series is a bad use of categories.
76.201.152.215 (
talk) 22:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
My apologies. But I still believe that the category should be kept. (In a way I do agree about "too many categories" though...but
I've seen worse. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 01:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per Mike Selinker. This looks like it's been listified anyway: the only contents is a list article.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:WikiProject Computer networking
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:Dry Docks of Kingston upon Hull
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.
Yes, but they are not yet articles. If they do become articles, then I have no objection to the category existing.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 21:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't see much point to this, per nom. Things could change if the redirects ever became articles.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield
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.
Ruslik_
Zero 14:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally subcategorize sites in a battle into their own category.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
DISAGREE WITH RATIONALIZATION ALLEGED AS RATIONALE: The claim that "We don't normally subcategorize sites in a battle into their own category" is misleading (which is why the claimant used the irrelevant qualifier "normally" to mislead), as categories for notable locations are acceptable and used for notable events--i.e., their use is normal (e.g. for venue categories as siblings of event categories, and for Civil War battles such as
Category:Richmond National Battlefield Park & the category for Perryville battlefield). That is, when the amount of wikiarticles regarding a place (a battlefield in this case) is significant, they are to be split to allow readers to more easily navigate (the whole purpose of categorization). This is particularly true for the places on the
Gettysburg Battlefield--which are so numerous as to warrant 7 subcategories. The issue of normal/abnormal is irrelevant and an unfounded and false rationale, as the number of notable places on the
Gettysburg Battlefield is high (so having a category is normal for a such a military site--actually a region with numerous sites--having the high magnitude of Civil War and postbellum events that has warranted the large number of articles on notable topics). All those wikiarticles warrant a separate category in the
Category:Battlefield tree.
208.54.38.151 (
talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose The subcategories and their targets each have so many articles that it looks more tidy and makes navigation easier to use subcategories here.
Tatterfly (
talk) 23:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE MERGE to
Category:Battle of Gettysburg: Battle and Battlefield are 2 different things (per
Category:Battles &
Category:Battlefields) with the battle being just 1 three-day event on the battlefield (i.e., subcategory of the battlefield category, which has had events over more than a century with several distinct periods (e.g., memorial association era, commemorative era, etc.). The battle category has all the wikiarticles for events during the battle, while the populated Battlefield category has all the places on the battlefield (some not related to the battle such as the postbellum railroad(s)). Likewise as an example,
Pickett's Charge is a different topic than the
Field of Pickett's Charge, so placing the field article in the battle category is improper categorization as little of the article's information is about the battle (e.g., the
Camp Colt, Pennsylvania and other postbellum places and events on that field). Moreover, many of the
Gettysburg Battlefield places don't have anything to do with the
Battle of Gettysburg, so merging those articles into
Category:Battle of Gettysburg would be unreasonably clutter the battle category with irrelevant articles (which "we don't normally" do). This is particularly true of the numerous articles in the sub
Category:Defunct places of the Gettysburg Battlefield, few of which have anything to do with the battle and would be ridiculous additions to
Category:Battle of Gettysburg (and is evident to anyone who has even a simple knowledge--e.g., from the the titles--of the defunct place articles). Hopefully there won't be a rationalization for those articles to instead be in a Battle of Gettysburg subcategory called Category:Battle of Gettysburg sites which are on the Gettysburg Battlefield but which don't actually have anything to do with the Battle of Gettysburg?
208.54.38.151 (
talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Despite being wildly overdramatic and a bit insulting, your argument is quite convincing. I'm okay with making these into
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield instead. But tone down the invective, okay?--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 04:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment -- there is some overcategorisation here. I doubt we need the "defunct places" category, but perhaps both the nom place categories might be renamed to
Category:Places associated with Battle of Gettysburg. I am not an American or a hisotrian of that period and thus have no strong view.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Western Australia people
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:Bathrooms
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. A significant number of articles were added to this category during the discussion, which complicates matters.
Category:Restrooms was renamed in the previous discussion to
Category:Public toilets, so what I'd suggest is a re-evaluation of this category in light of that rename and the additions to this category. The category can be immediately re-nominated if desired.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Keeping my mind in the toilet (please previous CfD on November 18), there are just three articles here. Two can be added to the public toilets category, now under consideration in the previous CfD, and the third,
Duravit is for a bathroom fixture supply company. However, even such a venerable brand as
Grohe is under
Category:Plumbing and we could move it there; or create some sort of category for fixture makers, though there's no parent article for that industry, yet, that I can see.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 00:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nominator. I don't remember creating this category; I don't know much about categories; and I have no particular attachment to this category other than it's really helpful when the urge to upchuck comes on suddenly. Okay to flush it.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk) 00:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete fully agree with Shawn's analysis.
Pichpich (
talk) 03:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Wipe up through merging with the public-toilets and plumbing categories, then flush via deletion. And don't forget to wash your hands before returning to work with the admin tools. OK, I'm done here. ;) -
The BushrangerOne ping only 11:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Don't know, but two of the items in this category do not belong in this category (
Aircraft lavatory and
Changing room). If a decision is made to keep
Category:Bathrooms, these two articles should be removed from the category. It is possible that one day there will be articles on bathrooms and bathroom fittings manufacturers, so if a decision is made to delete this category, it should be without prejudice to its future recreation.--
Toddy1 (
talk) 17:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, absolutely. We do have a category
Category:Kitchen that includes domestic kitchen related articles and I don't see why personal bathrooms wouldn't work.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Not only is there the potential to populate this category with more articles, but it also has the potential to be a parent category in itself and hold other categories. It can hold articles about types of bathrooms (which there are plenty of) and categories pertaining to various forms of equipment found in bathrooms. This is a matter of organization. I am not up to doing that this very moment, but this can be worked on.
Tatterfly (
talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
If that's the case, then we'd need to make Restooms a subcat of Bathrooms, rather than the other way around, as it is now.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 00:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Do American public toilets have baths then? European ones do not.--
Toddy1 (
talk) 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Populate properly -- The problem with this category is that it is being used to deal with the euphemism for a toilet. Some bathrooms contain toilet pans. My parents had a room with a bath and a sink and no toilet. Restroom is similarly a eupohemism. I am letting a shop to a bus company as a restroom where their drivers can take a break during their working day; it does contain a toilet, but that is not its primary purpose. The present category ought to contain articles on "bath" "shower", "wash basin", "bidet" (yes) and "toilet pan". It might also contain articles on personal hygene (i.e. washing). Get rid of the euphemisms!
Peterkingiron (
talk) 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I have made an effort to implement your suggestion.--
Toddy1 (
talk) 20:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Category:Restrooms; while bathroom connotes more than the toilet (bathing perhaps), when someone says they have to go to the bathroom it's rarely for bathing purposes....
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 23:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I see the opposite as being more plausible. A restroom is a type of bathroom, not the other way around. Though the word "bathroom" contains "bath," in the English language, it implies a room that has a toilet. Another option is for the category "restrooms" to contain articles pertaining to public restrooms, and the category "bathrooms" for private ones, both in a common parent category. I can't see deleting either over a low number of articles because there really are plenty of articles having to do with both.
Tatterfly (
talk) 23:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The proper meaning of the word bathroom is a room where you can wash your whole body - in modern times this means a room with a bath or a shower. Though the word is sometimes used as a euphemism for toilet/lavatory, that is not its encyclopedic meaning. The English language has many euphemisms and colloquialisms for private and public toilets/lavatories, including bog, little room, bathroom, loo, WC... There are also euphemisms and colloquialisms that are only used for public toilets/lavatories: ladies, gents, men's room, washroom, rest room... For categories in an encyclopedia we should avoid euphemisms and colloquialisms.--
Toddy1 (
talk) 10:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.