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. I propose renaming these date range categories to the ####–## form that is recommended by the
Manual of Style guideline for AD/CE date ranges when the date range is entirely within one century numerically (an exception being
birth year–death year life ranges for people). Most categories have already been renamed to this format, but these politician term categories have not yet been. Some things to note:
(1)
Category redirects should be kept on the longer form to resolve issues with Wikipedia searches and users adding categories to articles using the ####–#### format; I am willing to create the redirects after renaming;
(2) there are some templates and other category text that will need to be updated; I am willing to update these after renaming;
(3) there are some existing category redirects to these categories that use a hyphen rather than the en-dash; these too will need to be updated and I am willing to update these after renaming;
(4) this nomination is essentially a housekeeping nomination and is not about—and takes no position—on any of the following legitimate issues:
(a) deletion/retention, ie, whether these categories should exist;
(b) whether the dates should be in parentheses or be preceded by a comma;
Neutral. Congrats to the nominator for making such a huge nomination, for explaining it so clearly, and for trying to keep it focused on the narrow issue of date format. Personally, I find the the ####–#### format clearer, and it offers the advantage of consistency (no change in format when the range spans more than one century). However, I do believe in following the MOS, so I won't oppose this change. But can anyone clarify whether this is a recent change to the MOS? Is the guidance in this area stable? If these changes are made, a lot of redirects and templates will need to be updated, and tens of thousands of articles recategorised. Is the disruption worthwhile? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
As far as the disruption goes, it can all be over well within 24 hours, and most of the changes will be done by bot. AFAIK, it is not a recent change to the MOS, but its implementation has been slower in some topical areas of the encyclopedia as opposed to others. From what I have seen, it is now relatively stable. The Australia WikiProject has not yet implemented it, but most others seem to me to be on board with it. Category-wise, these are some of the last ones that I know of that have not been changed, though there may be others out there. I hear you on the consistency issue; on the flip side, one benefit of this format is that it is slightly shorter, which may be beneficial on some of the UK politician articles where there can be half a dozen of these or more.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, the brevity is a bonus. The UK MPs categories are intentionally terse, and this will make them even terser, which helps with long-serving MPs. I still think I'd prefer consistency :) --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems like an awful lot of trouble to shorten a category by two characters and I'm not sure what is gained here. But far be it from me to go against the WP MOS.
LizRead!Talk!01:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose What a waste of effort for no gain; they are as they are, have been so for an extended period. No one will come along and type them out, so there is nothing saved. The guideline is that, and it gives guidance for setting things up, and yes it would have been fantastic if they had been set up that way initially. That is no reason to run around and look to achieve some pointless perfectionism now. —
billinghurstsDrewth11:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
From my perspective, this is not about "perfectionism" (given the inherent nature of the project, I don't believe anything on WP will ever be able to claim "perfection"), it's just about following the Manual of Style, the content of which has been agreed to by consensus. If we adopted your approach to the MOS, then it wouldn't really operate as a MOS, because we would just leave everything as it was originally set up by the original creators. And there is indeed a "gain" to be had--users who create new categories will hopefully follow the pattern of the pre-existing categories, and the new categories will thus follow the MOS by imitating these. If we don't change them, we essentially institute a pattern that deviates from the MOS, which defeats the entire purpose of having one in the first place. BTW, we have changed these before (from hyphens to endashes), so it's not like this is a proposal to disturb the original status of the creations.
Good Ol’factory(talk)14:39, 19 September 2013 (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:Perris Block
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: We don't normally categorize articles about geographic features by their underlying geology - especially when all/most of the articles don't mention the geology. For info: Many/most of the articles in the category are in the lists in the
Perris Block article.
DexDor (
talk)
04:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I do not see why we should not categorise them like this. This is not in the nature of a performance by performer category, since this is a geological region. If we were categorising "granite mountain ranges", I would object that the granite was effectively a performer.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Its not a matter of perf-by-perf - it's about consistency of categorization. Most/all articles about geographical features specify what they are (hill, lake etc) and which state/county(s) they're in - hence those are good characteristics to use for categorization. Very few articles (and that includes the articles in this category) specify which
lump of bedrock the feature is above. An article (e.g. about a region or a country) might mention which
tectonic plate it's on, but AFAIK we don't categorize by that characteristic.
DexDor (
talk)
19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - The reason I categorized the Perris Block was that it is an ancient intact undivided actor in Southern California's geology that is little recognized. It has stayed relatively stable while all around it tilted, rose up or sank down. Its surfaces features that are more location identifying rather than active features. There are other blocks on either side of it that are major actors in Southern California's geology also that I was thinking of adding articles about.
Asiaticus (
talk)
20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)reply
That the block is little recognized supports the view that it's not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. Articles about geology are fine, but I don't think we want to extend categorization to have by-geology categories for articles about places where (for non-geologists) the geology isn't that important (when compared with things like which state the place is in and whether it's a hill/lake/river etc).
DexDor (
talk)
18:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete categorizing locations by geologic feature, soil type, climate type, susceptibility to various phenomena, is a really bad idea. Virtually every geographic article would have multiple additional category which makes navigation harder not easier.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
07:00, 20 September 2013 (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:Candan Erçetin
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. That one category should be enough to satisfy the categorization scheme per
WP:OC#Eponymous. The 14 members are all in a albums category and sufficiently categorized per
WP:NALBUMS and there doesn't need to be an eponymous category as well. It creates needless layers for minimal content. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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:Theaters in Ponce, Puerto Rico
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.
Duplicate Discussion. Request Removal from this list. This matter is currently under "full discussion" at
THIS Categories for discussion forum. Why is it listed here also when several participants are already discussing it there as follows?
Copy of speedy nomination
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OpposeCategory:Theaters in Ponce, Puerto Rico being renamed. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States, with strong U.S ties (and no British ties) and U.S. American English and its spelling is the only English known there. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of readers looking for theaters in Ponce, Puerto Rico, would -- for obvious reasons -- be American. As such the inclination would be to look for them using their U.S. American spelling. My objection is supported by the statement above (C2C): "This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage". My name is
Mercy11 (
talk) 01:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I think consistency has always been valued a little more than ENGVAR in these cases. For example a while ago we moved several U.S.-centric "armor" categories to the British spelling.
Marcus Qwertyus (
talk) 09:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment The spelling of "Theatre/Theater" in the US is something of a contentious issue with both versions in use. The US category tree uses "Theatre" throught - see
Category:Theatre in the United States - so all ties arguments actually support renaming.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 11:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
So I am not sure why this is showing up here now as if no discussion was actively taking place. In particular I puzzled as to the labeling here of "NEW NOMINATION" when this is not new as it was nominated on 21:48, 5 September 2013, according to
THIS record. Am I missing something?
Yeah, you're missing two things. (1) A discussion at
CFDS isn't considered full discussion. A full discussion have to take place on date subpage of
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, such as this. Nominations on CFDS can only processed if they are unopposed or the opposition is withdrawn. (2) The "NEW NOMINATION" header is just there to make Twinkle nominations possible, and it will be removed once the current day is over. Also this section is not a subsection of it.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus15:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks Armbrust. And while my preference is still for theater for the reasons I presented, I guess they may have to be renamed for the greater good of globalized consistency within Wikipedia.
Mercy11 (
talk)
11:46, 21 September 2013 (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:HeroQuest Adventues Series
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:Wonders of India
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:Songs covered by Willie Nelson
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.
My opinion (I'm the creator of this category) is already on the
WikiProject's talk page, and I'll be fine with whatever decision you will make. Anyway, I would appreciate some opinions [on that talk page] about what to do with songs that have been covered by other artists, in terms of adding/removing categories on the songs' pages. — Mayast (
talk)
13:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Willie Nelson songs per Oculi. I think it's OK to categorize a song as a "FOO song" if FOO covered the song but did not create the original version of it. In many cases, the cover version will be more well known than the original version, so I don't see a problem in principle. Special considerations may apply to articles about songs that have been covered by dozens and dozens of artists.
Good Ol’factory(talk)17:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete If the cover version is notable enough, than we should create a separate article for that cover version. Otherwise we will have songs tagged with having had cover versions done by people when the covers are not really worth noting.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:45, 21 September 2013 (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:21st-century Indian television actresses
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 The biggest reason for this is we generally will only create these categories when there is a potential to create more them 2. We will not find any pre-1900 Indian film actresses, and even more so with television. Plus, it is useful to group all the actors of a given nationality by time period. The much larger
Category:21st-century American actresses is not split by medium for example.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Please explain "upmerge" and the effects of it on stage actresses, on the
Category:Indian television actresses,
Category:Indian film actresses,
Category:Indian actresses and
Category:21st-century actresses - I find the CfD language to be arcane much of the time and this is an example of it: it has the effect of discouraging people from becoming involved, as does the peculiar notification system that requires people to watchlist category pages or this page just on the off-chance that something of relevance to them might happen - that would easily quintuple my 1800-article watchlist. This place is a playground for aficionados and a complete mess for everyone else. -
Sitush (
talk)
12:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I just placed notifications on your Talk Page,
Sitush, as you are the creator of these categories. You're right, this should have happened when the categories were nominated.
LizRead!Talk!12:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) But this is a part of the flawed CfD process, isn't it? Get a change of some sort at one category and then use that as precedent for many others - I wonder how many people really see the ramifications when things are nibbled at in this way. I wasn't aware of the recent discussion regarding the
Category:20th-century Indian film actresses and will certainly go take a look at it. Hopefully, you were not the nominator of that although, of course, it would still be possible for you not to have been aware of the parallel cat at that time. I'll also see if
WP:OSE applies as much to CfD as AfD. However,your argument about this being the only cinema genre to be categorised in this manner seems somewhat perverse: there is nothing to prevent categorising others in the same manner.
Category:21st-century Indian actresses and its recently-deleted counterpart are huge and some breakdown makes perfect sense - better to start now than to wait until 2020 and then have another umpteen thousand new actor/actress articles that will require manual categorisation because they fall only in one century or the other. I'm still pretty sure that by far the majority of these people act only in one medium. -
Sitush (
talk)
15:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I was not the person who nominated the other category. In fact I did not even participate in that CfD. There was a CfD where it was directly proposed to split the 21st-century actors cat, that closed with no consensus, but that is partly because CfDs are not good forums for porposing to split things. Which leads to the oddity that people usually do so unilaterally and wait for others to react. For what it is worth, this proposal would leave intact
Category:21st-century Indian actresses. Also, oddly enough, no actor cats are effected by this nomination.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I've read the other discussion now, thanks. What a travesty that was. Splitting is probably a function of the "be bold" mantra but I swear that if I can get my head round all these problems then I'm going to be proposing a massive overhaul of how CfD works: it is a disgrace. As for actor cats not being affected, that is entirely because the outcome of another recent CfD was not completely enacted at the time, leaving all the "actress" variants out of kilter, causing me to begin a process of manual fixing and then to spot that we had all sorts of other issues in the categorised articles. I never got round to the actor ones because the decision was carried out correctly by a bot; however, absence of something in one place is not a reason per se to absent it elsewhere. -
Sitush (
talk)
20:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, even if you had created the actors categories we would have had an imbalance. The history is this. Starting last August people pushed to create actress cats. In November it got to the point where some essentially objected because we would have actresses and generic actors, so I started by creating
Category:American male actors and a few others. These categories were then taken to CfD with a many people arguing to keep, a few arguing to just have actors and actresses categories. Oddly enough at one point
Category:American actresses was deleted, but
Category:American male actors was kept. Then there was a decision to split by gender. Initially I and a few others implemented this primarily through actress categories. Then in April we had the Wikipedia gender wars, attacks on
Category:American women novelists in the NYT and elsewhere, and the most participated CfD of the year. During which I was dubbed the "president of the woman haters club" or something like that, even though I was not the creator of the category nor was I the first person to implement it, I was just the first person to implement it on articles on women novelists who were not household names. Then in August we had a discussion of
Category:American child actresses, as a result of that I created
Category:American male child actors, which then went to CfD where it survived. The male actors category structure has not been much implemented, and
Category:21st-century male actors is pretty small.
Category:19th-century male actors might not even yet exist. The question before us is, how finely do we want to divide by century categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge both to
Category:Indian actresses. Unless the structure4 of the acting profession is very different from other places, actresses will at some stages of the career appear in TV and at others in films. We do not allow a 20th/21st century distinction, unless there is a reasonable prospect of populating 19th and perhaps 18th century categories. This was the subject of a long series of discussions a while back, as an attempt to create a current/former distinction by the backdoor.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I am unaware of those earlier discussions but in any event common sense should prevail: this situation is not "an attempt to create a current/former distinction by the backdoor". There is no need to slavishly follow something that simply does not apply. You made an almost-certainly flawed observation in the prior CfD concerning the 20th-century category ("most Indian drama is film-based") - please don't make another. -
Sitush (
talk)
20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I was not one of the four people who participated in the discussion of
Category:20th-century Indian film actresses. Another interesting note is that up until today
Category:21st-century Indian actors as a parent and the sibling category
Category:21st-century Indian male actors did not exist. With categories the whole point is to organize articles in a logical way. I guess we could 1-decide that Indian productions are unique from elsewhere and allow the split there, but not for other countries, however I have seen enough Indian actresses who are in stage, film and television categories, that I am not sure that is wise. 2-allow split by nationality and medium, so we will have a whole lot more categories. The things is, that will in the case of people who are stage, film and televsions actors across 2 centuries make them go from 5 categories to 6. Also, categories like
Category:19th-century American actresses is probably over 75% full of people who were silent film actresses who were previously on stage. Do we want to make them go in even more categories?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
The number of Indian actors/actresses who appear in even any two of those three mediums is pretty low. I'd hazard a guess that the same applies to their UK counterparts. -
Sitush (
talk)
20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
A look through the actual a section of
Category:British male television actors and
Category:English male television actors reveals 59 in just that category out of film, stage and television actors (1 of whom is also in the Musical Theatre actors category, some others in radio actors categories, and don't even get my started on what we should do with soap opera actors), 69 in television plus either film or stage, and 31 in television, stage and film categories. This appears to indicate that the majority of television actors, at least in Britain, have appeared in other mediums.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Doing the same study on the first 25 articles in the B section of
Category:American television actresses I came up with 7 in 1 of the three categories, 14 in two categories, and 4 in three categories. This would suggest that the overlap is even higher either in the US or among actresses. It might be a fluke of that section of the alphabet but I doubt it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
This is getting off-topic for his discussion, but I have almost finished diffusing
Category:British actors and its subcats, and after scrutinising thousands of articles I see a massive overlap of mediums in that set. Beyond the mid 20th-century, British actors who have worked in only one medium are a rarity. This needs proper examination, so I will prepare some numbers and start an RFC. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment The argument about needing 3 centuries could really be interpreted in a way to get rid of
Category:20th-century Indian actresses since we currently have no one in
Category:19th-century Indian actresses. Were there really absolutely no notable actresses in 19th-century India? I don't know. However I think with the actress categories how we should look at it is 1-we clearly have enough actresses to split by multiple centuries. 2-some of these categories are large enough to be divided by country, we should divide out by country whenever the category grows too large to group all together and the country itself has a reasonable number of articles. However the futher division by mediums would seem to not really be helpful. Yes, this means we will end up with over 3,000 articles in
Category:20th-century American actresses, but I am not sure it would really be worth what we would do to the number of articles
Terri Hatcher is in, if we divided further.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Neutralizing view. The more I think about this, the more I am conflicted. In India we seem to have a huge number of film actresses who have only ever appeared in films. In the US, there is a lot more overlap, although there are lots of actresses who were in 1970s B-movies who never appeared in TV. I could see us doing this division, but it will lead to even longer names for categories. If there is widespread support for splitting by century and by medium, I would be OK with it, but I really think we should get a clear consensus to do this split.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I hope some folks come over from different WikiProjects weigh in because right now, we just have two voices. I think we need to hear from more Editors to come to any consensus.
LizRead!Talk!01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment From the perspective of easily building categories this seems a good idea. It makes it easy to see that people have been subdivide into the appropriate by century categories, because only those who are not would be in the parent categories. However, is this going to be the most useful for people searching? For some people this would also reduce their number of categories. Although, unless we create ones for all possible types of actors we will have an odd situation. Right now, with just these two, what happens if someone is both a stage and television actress in the 21st century. Do we just put them in
Category:21st-century Indian stage television actresses and
Category:Indian stage actresses? Or do they also get put in
Category:21st-century Indian actresses, because they are not just a television actress?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge both per nominator. I have grave doubts about the merits of any intersection category of occupation and 20th/21st-century people, because in most fields most of our articles related to those two centuries. A category which divides them into two overlapping halves makes no sense. In early 2010, a long set of CFDs (mostly or all nominated by me) deleted 20th- and 21st- century categories for sportspeople (see the discussions n
cyclists,
speed skaters,
triathletes,
canoeists,
cricketers,
ice hockey players,
rugby players, and
a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... so we now have no 20th- or 21st-century subcats of
Category:Sportspeople by century. As I noted with
cyclists by century, it makes no sense to divide a 120-year period into blocs of 100 years. Film-making has existed for about the same time as cycling, so the same argument applies equally to film actors. Splitting film actors on the year 2000 makes no sense.
Of course they are "useful for navigation". Books are written about 20th cinema and about 21st century cinema, for example. People have such interests and navigating a huge, sprawling category containing thousands of names is not exactly an aid to navigation. That
Category:Indian film actresses currently contains ca. 800 names is partly because some have been moved out and because many others are incorrectly categorised. Does anyone here have any idea how big the Indian cinema industry is? Cinema is still deeply embedded in a culture that often lacks access to television etc and actors/actresses often make many more movies in a year than do, say, their Hollywood counterparts. -
Sitush (
talk)
11:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Sitush:, the problem is not with the notion of looking for a way of dividing a big category. The problem is that this particular division doesn't help. At this early point in the century, there is huge overlap between 20th- an 21st- century actors, whose careers often span several decades. That's bad news per
WP:OC#OVERLAPPING, because it causes clutter on articles and creates a pair of categories with duplicated content. How many of our articles on film actors are about those who performed in the 21st century but not the 20th? Probably less than 10%, so even after the split the 20th-century category will be just as sprawling; and the 21st-century category will be dominated by people whose careers began long before. By-century categorisation works well for topics which fit in a single year, so there is no problem with
Category:20th-century films. But it doesn't work for these actors. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment In the case of Indian film actresses, many only have careers that last a decade at most. There is a huge number of Indian actresses who have only started acting since 2001. The overlap between this category and the previous one is not as bad as some suggest.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:57, 19 September 2013 (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:Radka Toneff Memorial Award Winners
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.
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. I propose renaming these date range categories to the ####–## form that is recommended by the
Manual of Style guideline for AD/CE date ranges when the date range is entirely within one century numerically (an exception being
birth year–death year life ranges for people). Most categories have already been renamed to this format, but these politician term categories have not yet been. Some things to note:
(1)
Category redirects should be kept on the longer form to resolve issues with Wikipedia searches and users adding categories to articles using the ####–#### format; I am willing to create the redirects after renaming;
(2) there are some templates and other category text that will need to be updated; I am willing to update these after renaming;
(3) there are some existing category redirects to these categories that use a hyphen rather than the en-dash; these too will need to be updated and I am willing to update these after renaming;
(4) this nomination is essentially a housekeeping nomination and is not about—and takes no position—on any of the following legitimate issues:
(a) deletion/retention, ie, whether these categories should exist;
(b) whether the dates should be in parentheses or be preceded by a comma;
Neutral. Congrats to the nominator for making such a huge nomination, for explaining it so clearly, and for trying to keep it focused on the narrow issue of date format. Personally, I find the the ####–#### format clearer, and it offers the advantage of consistency (no change in format when the range spans more than one century). However, I do believe in following the MOS, so I won't oppose this change. But can anyone clarify whether this is a recent change to the MOS? Is the guidance in this area stable? If these changes are made, a lot of redirects and templates will need to be updated, and tens of thousands of articles recategorised. Is the disruption worthwhile? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
As far as the disruption goes, it can all be over well within 24 hours, and most of the changes will be done by bot. AFAIK, it is not a recent change to the MOS, but its implementation has been slower in some topical areas of the encyclopedia as opposed to others. From what I have seen, it is now relatively stable. The Australia WikiProject has not yet implemented it, but most others seem to me to be on board with it. Category-wise, these are some of the last ones that I know of that have not been changed, though there may be others out there. I hear you on the consistency issue; on the flip side, one benefit of this format is that it is slightly shorter, which may be beneficial on some of the UK politician articles where there can be half a dozen of these or more.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, the brevity is a bonus. The UK MPs categories are intentionally terse, and this will make them even terser, which helps with long-serving MPs. I still think I'd prefer consistency :) --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems like an awful lot of trouble to shorten a category by two characters and I'm not sure what is gained here. But far be it from me to go against the WP MOS.
LizRead!Talk!01:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose What a waste of effort for no gain; they are as they are, have been so for an extended period. No one will come along and type them out, so there is nothing saved. The guideline is that, and it gives guidance for setting things up, and yes it would have been fantastic if they had been set up that way initially. That is no reason to run around and look to achieve some pointless perfectionism now. —
billinghurstsDrewth11:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
From my perspective, this is not about "perfectionism" (given the inherent nature of the project, I don't believe anything on WP will ever be able to claim "perfection"), it's just about following the Manual of Style, the content of which has been agreed to by consensus. If we adopted your approach to the MOS, then it wouldn't really operate as a MOS, because we would just leave everything as it was originally set up by the original creators. And there is indeed a "gain" to be had--users who create new categories will hopefully follow the pattern of the pre-existing categories, and the new categories will thus follow the MOS by imitating these. If we don't change them, we essentially institute a pattern that deviates from the MOS, which defeats the entire purpose of having one in the first place. BTW, we have changed these before (from hyphens to endashes), so it's not like this is a proposal to disturb the original status of the creations.
Good Ol’factory(talk)14:39, 19 September 2013 (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:Perris Block
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: We don't normally categorize articles about geographic features by their underlying geology - especially when all/most of the articles don't mention the geology. For info: Many/most of the articles in the category are in the lists in the
Perris Block article.
DexDor (
talk)
04:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I do not see why we should not categorise them like this. This is not in the nature of a performance by performer category, since this is a geological region. If we were categorising "granite mountain ranges", I would object that the granite was effectively a performer.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Its not a matter of perf-by-perf - it's about consistency of categorization. Most/all articles about geographical features specify what they are (hill, lake etc) and which state/county(s) they're in - hence those are good characteristics to use for categorization. Very few articles (and that includes the articles in this category) specify which
lump of bedrock the feature is above. An article (e.g. about a region or a country) might mention which
tectonic plate it's on, but AFAIK we don't categorize by that characteristic.
DexDor (
talk)
19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - The reason I categorized the Perris Block was that it is an ancient intact undivided actor in Southern California's geology that is little recognized. It has stayed relatively stable while all around it tilted, rose up or sank down. Its surfaces features that are more location identifying rather than active features. There are other blocks on either side of it that are major actors in Southern California's geology also that I was thinking of adding articles about.
Asiaticus (
talk)
20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)reply
That the block is little recognized supports the view that it's not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. Articles about geology are fine, but I don't think we want to extend categorization to have by-geology categories for articles about places where (for non-geologists) the geology isn't that important (when compared with things like which state the place is in and whether it's a hill/lake/river etc).
DexDor (
talk)
18:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete categorizing locations by geologic feature, soil type, climate type, susceptibility to various phenomena, is a really bad idea. Virtually every geographic article would have multiple additional category which makes navigation harder not easier.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
07:00, 20 September 2013 (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:Candan Erçetin
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. That one category should be enough to satisfy the categorization scheme per
WP:OC#Eponymous. The 14 members are all in a albums category and sufficiently categorized per
WP:NALBUMS and there doesn't need to be an eponymous category as well. It creates needless layers for minimal content. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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:Theaters in Ponce, Puerto Rico
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.
Duplicate Discussion. Request Removal from this list. This matter is currently under "full discussion" at
THIS Categories for discussion forum. Why is it listed here also when several participants are already discussing it there as follows?
Copy of speedy nomination
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OpposeCategory:Theaters in Ponce, Puerto Rico being renamed. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States, with strong U.S ties (and no British ties) and U.S. American English and its spelling is the only English known there. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of readers looking for theaters in Ponce, Puerto Rico, would -- for obvious reasons -- be American. As such the inclination would be to look for them using their U.S. American spelling. My objection is supported by the statement above (C2C): "This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage". My name is
Mercy11 (
talk) 01:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.
I think consistency has always been valued a little more than ENGVAR in these cases. For example a while ago we moved several U.S.-centric "armor" categories to the British spelling.
Marcus Qwertyus (
talk) 09:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment The spelling of "Theatre/Theater" in the US is something of a contentious issue with both versions in use. The US category tree uses "Theatre" throught - see
Category:Theatre in the United States - so all ties arguments actually support renaming.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 11:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
So I am not sure why this is showing up here now as if no discussion was actively taking place. In particular I puzzled as to the labeling here of "NEW NOMINATION" when this is not new as it was nominated on 21:48, 5 September 2013, according to
THIS record. Am I missing something?
Yeah, you're missing two things. (1) A discussion at
CFDS isn't considered full discussion. A full discussion have to take place on date subpage of
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, such as this. Nominations on CFDS can only processed if they are unopposed or the opposition is withdrawn. (2) The "NEW NOMINATION" header is just there to make Twinkle nominations possible, and it will be removed once the current day is over. Also this section is not a subsection of it.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus15:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks Armbrust. And while my preference is still for theater for the reasons I presented, I guess they may have to be renamed for the greater good of globalized consistency within Wikipedia.
Mercy11 (
talk)
11:46, 21 September 2013 (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:HeroQuest Adventues Series
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:Wonders of India
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:Songs covered by Willie Nelson
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.
My opinion (I'm the creator of this category) is already on the
WikiProject's talk page, and I'll be fine with whatever decision you will make. Anyway, I would appreciate some opinions [on that talk page] about what to do with songs that have been covered by other artists, in terms of adding/removing categories on the songs' pages. — Mayast (
talk)
13:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Willie Nelson songs per Oculi. I think it's OK to categorize a song as a "FOO song" if FOO covered the song but did not create the original version of it. In many cases, the cover version will be more well known than the original version, so I don't see a problem in principle. Special considerations may apply to articles about songs that have been covered by dozens and dozens of artists.
Good Ol’factory(talk)17:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete If the cover version is notable enough, than we should create a separate article for that cover version. Otherwise we will have songs tagged with having had cover versions done by people when the covers are not really worth noting.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:45, 21 September 2013 (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:21st-century Indian television actresses
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 The biggest reason for this is we generally will only create these categories when there is a potential to create more them 2. We will not find any pre-1900 Indian film actresses, and even more so with television. Plus, it is useful to group all the actors of a given nationality by time period. The much larger
Category:21st-century American actresses is not split by medium for example.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Please explain "upmerge" and the effects of it on stage actresses, on the
Category:Indian television actresses,
Category:Indian film actresses,
Category:Indian actresses and
Category:21st-century actresses - I find the CfD language to be arcane much of the time and this is an example of it: it has the effect of discouraging people from becoming involved, as does the peculiar notification system that requires people to watchlist category pages or this page just on the off-chance that something of relevance to them might happen - that would easily quintuple my 1800-article watchlist. This place is a playground for aficionados and a complete mess for everyone else. -
Sitush (
talk)
12:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I just placed notifications on your Talk Page,
Sitush, as you are the creator of these categories. You're right, this should have happened when the categories were nominated.
LizRead!Talk!12:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) But this is a part of the flawed CfD process, isn't it? Get a change of some sort at one category and then use that as precedent for many others - I wonder how many people really see the ramifications when things are nibbled at in this way. I wasn't aware of the recent discussion regarding the
Category:20th-century Indian film actresses and will certainly go take a look at it. Hopefully, you were not the nominator of that although, of course, it would still be possible for you not to have been aware of the parallel cat at that time. I'll also see if
WP:OSE applies as much to CfD as AfD. However,your argument about this being the only cinema genre to be categorised in this manner seems somewhat perverse: there is nothing to prevent categorising others in the same manner.
Category:21st-century Indian actresses and its recently-deleted counterpart are huge and some breakdown makes perfect sense - better to start now than to wait until 2020 and then have another umpteen thousand new actor/actress articles that will require manual categorisation because they fall only in one century or the other. I'm still pretty sure that by far the majority of these people act only in one medium. -
Sitush (
talk)
15:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I was not the person who nominated the other category. In fact I did not even participate in that CfD. There was a CfD where it was directly proposed to split the 21st-century actors cat, that closed with no consensus, but that is partly because CfDs are not good forums for porposing to split things. Which leads to the oddity that people usually do so unilaterally and wait for others to react. For what it is worth, this proposal would leave intact
Category:21st-century Indian actresses. Also, oddly enough, no actor cats are effected by this nomination.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I've read the other discussion now, thanks. What a travesty that was. Splitting is probably a function of the "be bold" mantra but I swear that if I can get my head round all these problems then I'm going to be proposing a massive overhaul of how CfD works: it is a disgrace. As for actor cats not being affected, that is entirely because the outcome of another recent CfD was not completely enacted at the time, leaving all the "actress" variants out of kilter, causing me to begin a process of manual fixing and then to spot that we had all sorts of other issues in the categorised articles. I never got round to the actor ones because the decision was carried out correctly by a bot; however, absence of something in one place is not a reason per se to absent it elsewhere. -
Sitush (
talk)
20:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, even if you had created the actors categories we would have had an imbalance. The history is this. Starting last August people pushed to create actress cats. In November it got to the point where some essentially objected because we would have actresses and generic actors, so I started by creating
Category:American male actors and a few others. These categories were then taken to CfD with a many people arguing to keep, a few arguing to just have actors and actresses categories. Oddly enough at one point
Category:American actresses was deleted, but
Category:American male actors was kept. Then there was a decision to split by gender. Initially I and a few others implemented this primarily through actress categories. Then in April we had the Wikipedia gender wars, attacks on
Category:American women novelists in the NYT and elsewhere, and the most participated CfD of the year. During which I was dubbed the "president of the woman haters club" or something like that, even though I was not the creator of the category nor was I the first person to implement it, I was just the first person to implement it on articles on women novelists who were not household names. Then in August we had a discussion of
Category:American child actresses, as a result of that I created
Category:American male child actors, which then went to CfD where it survived. The male actors category structure has not been much implemented, and
Category:21st-century male actors is pretty small.
Category:19th-century male actors might not even yet exist. The question before us is, how finely do we want to divide by century categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge both to
Category:Indian actresses. Unless the structure4 of the acting profession is very different from other places, actresses will at some stages of the career appear in TV and at others in films. We do not allow a 20th/21st century distinction, unless there is a reasonable prospect of populating 19th and perhaps 18th century categories. This was the subject of a long series of discussions a while back, as an attempt to create a current/former distinction by the backdoor.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I am unaware of those earlier discussions but in any event common sense should prevail: this situation is not "an attempt to create a current/former distinction by the backdoor". There is no need to slavishly follow something that simply does not apply. You made an almost-certainly flawed observation in the prior CfD concerning the 20th-century category ("most Indian drama is film-based") - please don't make another. -
Sitush (
talk)
20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I was not one of the four people who participated in the discussion of
Category:20th-century Indian film actresses. Another interesting note is that up until today
Category:21st-century Indian actors as a parent and the sibling category
Category:21st-century Indian male actors did not exist. With categories the whole point is to organize articles in a logical way. I guess we could 1-decide that Indian productions are unique from elsewhere and allow the split there, but not for other countries, however I have seen enough Indian actresses who are in stage, film and television categories, that I am not sure that is wise. 2-allow split by nationality and medium, so we will have a whole lot more categories. The things is, that will in the case of people who are stage, film and televsions actors across 2 centuries make them go from 5 categories to 6. Also, categories like
Category:19th-century American actresses is probably over 75% full of people who were silent film actresses who were previously on stage. Do we want to make them go in even more categories?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
The number of Indian actors/actresses who appear in even any two of those three mediums is pretty low. I'd hazard a guess that the same applies to their UK counterparts. -
Sitush (
talk)
20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
A look through the actual a section of
Category:British male television actors and
Category:English male television actors reveals 59 in just that category out of film, stage and television actors (1 of whom is also in the Musical Theatre actors category, some others in radio actors categories, and don't even get my started on what we should do with soap opera actors), 69 in television plus either film or stage, and 31 in television, stage and film categories. This appears to indicate that the majority of television actors, at least in Britain, have appeared in other mediums.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Doing the same study on the first 25 articles in the B section of
Category:American television actresses I came up with 7 in 1 of the three categories, 14 in two categories, and 4 in three categories. This would suggest that the overlap is even higher either in the US or among actresses. It might be a fluke of that section of the alphabet but I doubt it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
This is getting off-topic for his discussion, but I have almost finished diffusing
Category:British actors and its subcats, and after scrutinising thousands of articles I see a massive overlap of mediums in that set. Beyond the mid 20th-century, British actors who have worked in only one medium are a rarity. This needs proper examination, so I will prepare some numbers and start an RFC. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment The argument about needing 3 centuries could really be interpreted in a way to get rid of
Category:20th-century Indian actresses since we currently have no one in
Category:19th-century Indian actresses. Were there really absolutely no notable actresses in 19th-century India? I don't know. However I think with the actress categories how we should look at it is 1-we clearly have enough actresses to split by multiple centuries. 2-some of these categories are large enough to be divided by country, we should divide out by country whenever the category grows too large to group all together and the country itself has a reasonable number of articles. However the futher division by mediums would seem to not really be helpful. Yes, this means we will end up with over 3,000 articles in
Category:20th-century American actresses, but I am not sure it would really be worth what we would do to the number of articles
Terri Hatcher is in, if we divided further.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Neutralizing view. The more I think about this, the more I am conflicted. In India we seem to have a huge number of film actresses who have only ever appeared in films. In the US, there is a lot more overlap, although there are lots of actresses who were in 1970s B-movies who never appeared in TV. I could see us doing this division, but it will lead to even longer names for categories. If there is widespread support for splitting by century and by medium, I would be OK with it, but I really think we should get a clear consensus to do this split.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I hope some folks come over from different WikiProjects weigh in because right now, we just have two voices. I think we need to hear from more Editors to come to any consensus.
LizRead!Talk!01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment From the perspective of easily building categories this seems a good idea. It makes it easy to see that people have been subdivide into the appropriate by century categories, because only those who are not would be in the parent categories. However, is this going to be the most useful for people searching? For some people this would also reduce their number of categories. Although, unless we create ones for all possible types of actors we will have an odd situation. Right now, with just these two, what happens if someone is both a stage and television actress in the 21st century. Do we just put them in
Category:21st-century Indian stage television actresses and
Category:Indian stage actresses? Or do they also get put in
Category:21st-century Indian actresses, because they are not just a television actress?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge both per nominator. I have grave doubts about the merits of any intersection category of occupation and 20th/21st-century people, because in most fields most of our articles related to those two centuries. A category which divides them into two overlapping halves makes no sense. In early 2010, a long set of CFDs (mostly or all nominated by me) deleted 20th- and 21st- century categories for sportspeople (see the discussions n
cyclists,
speed skaters,
triathletes,
canoeists,
cricketers,
ice hockey players,
rugby players, and
a dose of assorted sportspeople) ... so we now have no 20th- or 21st-century subcats of
Category:Sportspeople by century. As I noted with
cyclists by century, it makes no sense to divide a 120-year period into blocs of 100 years. Film-making has existed for about the same time as cycling, so the same argument applies equally to film actors. Splitting film actors on the year 2000 makes no sense.
Of course they are "useful for navigation". Books are written about 20th cinema and about 21st century cinema, for example. People have such interests and navigating a huge, sprawling category containing thousands of names is not exactly an aid to navigation. That
Category:Indian film actresses currently contains ca. 800 names is partly because some have been moved out and because many others are incorrectly categorised. Does anyone here have any idea how big the Indian cinema industry is? Cinema is still deeply embedded in a culture that often lacks access to television etc and actors/actresses often make many more movies in a year than do, say, their Hollywood counterparts. -
Sitush (
talk)
11:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Sitush:, the problem is not with the notion of looking for a way of dividing a big category. The problem is that this particular division doesn't help. At this early point in the century, there is huge overlap between 20th- an 21st- century actors, whose careers often span several decades. That's bad news per
WP:OC#OVERLAPPING, because it causes clutter on articles and creates a pair of categories with duplicated content. How many of our articles on film actors are about those who performed in the 21st century but not the 20th? Probably less than 10%, so even after the split the 20th-century category will be just as sprawling; and the 21st-century category will be dominated by people whose careers began long before. By-century categorisation works well for topics which fit in a single year, so there is no problem with
Category:20th-century films. But it doesn't work for these actors. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment In the case of Indian film actresses, many only have careers that last a decade at most. There is a huge number of Indian actresses who have only started acting since 2001. The overlap between this category and the previous one is not as bad as some suggest.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:57, 19 September 2013 (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:Radka Toneff Memorial Award Winners
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.