[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 24

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< May 23 May 25 >

May 24

edit

Category:Dinosaurs by continent

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Dinosaurs by continental landmass. The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains an article and subcats that are not continents, and there is no need to have another category that is a "misc" dump. I think location is the best word. "Region" has specific connotations that would be confusing to readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do we do with New Zealand? It is not a continent? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well my first inclination was to re-name the Australia one to "Australia and New Zealand" (Which I have read it referred to in scientific works). (Or even Australasia.) But due to continental drift sometimes they include Antarctica. So maybe use another term for that continent: Oceania. Which should then solve it.
All that said, maybe "by landmass" may also perhaps be an option. (Or perhaps better: by continental landmass? - since in much of this we're talking about continental plates. - jc37 08:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with landmass. There are a few other random ones such as South Polar dinosaurs and List of Australian and Antarctic dinosaurs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with the proposed renaming. Abyssal (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2012 (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:Vehicles introduced by year

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 23. Dana boomer (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The existing names seem to be the only ones in Category:Introductions by year to use "introduced by year," which I find a bit awkward. I considered "Vehicle introductions by year" as well as "Vehicles by year of introduction," but I believe the latter is smoother for compound constructions as we will see further down in the tree, or which we find even at the same level: Category:Fictional characters by year of introduction‎ over Category:Fictional character introductions by year, which pushes us into crash blossom territory. Note that the nom is for the named categories only; I have no quarrel with the subcats as they stand. - choster (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The related Category:Automobiles by decade and its contents are ambiguous, as they contain cars by dates of production rather than introduction. I intend to bring forward a proposal to rename these as "Automobiles by decade of production" and "Automobiles produced in the 19X0s". Please comment on this suggestion here as well. – Fayenatic London (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would wonder if we need that type of category at all. While the beginning and end dates might be notable, I don't see how it is notable for the decades. This is strongly pointed out by a model that existed for two years and happens to span two decades, in fact a single model produced for one year could span two decades. Why is that logically grouped in a decade category with a model that had a twenty year life? And for that later case, a model could be in 3 decades if the first year moved forward or backward a single year. I think that the manufacture templates that that show the model histories do a much better job for navigation in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the above, it is clear that this is a mess and so are the associated categories. We should however allow recreation under a new name that removes the ambiguity associated with the current name. If the result here is delete, then I guess we need a discussion on other subcategories of Category:Introductions by year. However in looking at those, I think this could be the only one with issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2012 (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:Industrialists

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related categories:

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I propose the merger as one possible solution; however, my main reason for this nomination is to have wider discussion to find the best solution for this category and its subcategories. The main issue for this category is that there is no clear guidelines which articles should be categorized by it and by its subcategories. By my understanding, the main article of this category should be Industrialist. However, there is no such kind of article and it redirects to Business magnate which is also synonym for tycoon or oligarh. As it was earlier said in different CfD discussions, irt can't be populated objectively. and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE applies here. It could be that the article Industralization gives some hint, but by my understanding it does not. As I said, I agree with keeping this category (and its subcategories) if there will be clear critearia for inclusion. Otherwise, it would be better to merge. Same applies also its subcategories, which if to be kept, need extensive cleanup. Beagel (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now. The fact of the matter is that the activities of businesspeople are not very effected by the activities of their companies. Whether their company makes widgets or runs grocery stores, they are going to focus on management, budgets, planning and growth strategizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep for now. JPL's description reflects a contemporary American view of business management. That model has not applied at all points in American history, and it is less applicable in other cultures. For example, the Irish industrialists John Boyd Dunlop and Harry Ferguson were heavily involved in the design and engineering of their pioneering industrial products, and established huge businesses on the basis of their own inventiveness. The same goes for Sir David Brown, Henry Ford, Guglielmo Marconi, the Gougeon Brothers, Thomas Edison, Werner von Siemens and many others.
    I have doubts about whether a sufficiently clear line can be drawn to make an objective category, but JPL's recentist rationale is fundamentally flawed, and I want to see some discussion on whether a distinction can be drawn between the contemporary business-manager model of industrial leadership, and the pioneering inventor-engineers who created so many large companies in the 19th century and early 20th-century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can it be defined non-pejoratively? No? Then upmerge and delete. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly can be defined be defined non-pejoratively, as here or here.
    It seems to me that the crucial question is whether it can be defined in such a way as to objectively and clearly distinguish it from the broader group of businesspeople, and in particular from other business leaders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, (or to be specific strongly oppose upmerge) the use and meaning of the term "industrialists" is pretty clear, (though often is used to refer to persons active during the industrial revolution), is remains in use, - for example Lakshmi Mittal in an industrialist of the modern age. eg google search. A definition would be "a business magnate active in industrial business activities". Clearly there are reliable sources for the definition as noted above. I see no need for any clarification when clear dictionary defintitions exist, and if in doubt WP:VERIFY can be used for individual cases.Oranjblud (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Possibly you need to read a clear definition of what is meant by an "industrial enterprise" eg[reply]
Comment. "a business magnate active in industrial business activities" is clearly definition which opens the door for WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, starting with term "magnate" being pejorative. I agree that if keep it may be linked with industrial revolution (industrial revolution in the Western world and in some Asian or African countries are centuries apart). That is true that different definitions are exist but are they usable as non-subjective inclusion criteria? The issue is not about self-education but rather having clear inclusion criteria. Beagel (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be suggesting I might infer from that line of reasoning that the label Template:Subjective category applies here. Or that labeling someone as an "industrialist" is likely to be problematic. I don't accept that either issue exists. Ignore the definition I gave and rely on reliable sources the problem goes away
In terms of issues relating to the term "business magnate" (which I accept may be problematic)- what I can point out is that that is not the categories name, nor is the term used in any of the four verifiable definitions given above. If there was a category "business magnates" then such an issue might exist. The page industrialist redirects to a poorly referenced article with probably factual problems - that, in my opinion is where the problem originates, not the category itself.Oranjblud (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that our coverage of economic & business affairs is so poor that we don't have a proper main article should not be an argument for deletion. We should certainly distinguish between these people & bankers or retailers etc. The nominator asked for clear criteria & has been given them by Oranjblud. That many contemporary industrialists also own other types of business (less common in the past) should not be an issue. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2012 (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:Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland

edit
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: speedy delete by request of category creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Disruptive, WP:POINTy new creation of a category which is the rename target for another category under discussion at CfD May 21. The creator has mischievously taken my criticism of a his stupidly verbose proposal for a new category as evidence of support for the creation of such a categ under a less verbose name. This a) wilfully misrepresents my views, and b) pre-empts the formation of a consensus at CfD May 21. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now. a useful sub-category, that groups together nobility from irish and british kingdoms. depending on the outcome of the other CfD, if this one is found to be no longer necessary, it can be re-proposed for deletion. --KarlB (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Karl, you created the categories under discussion at CfD May 21. There are are several possible outcomes to that discussion, deletion of the categories, merger, or renaming to one of several possible targets.
    What you have done, however, is to pre-empt the outcome of that CfD by unilaterally creating a category which reflects one possible outcome of the CfD. This is blatantly disruptive, because it either creates a fait accompli or it splits the discussion into two, by having 2 separate discussions on related categories. If you do not agree to its prompt deletion pending the outcome of the other discussion, then I will take this up elsewhere to seek admin intervention against this disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you find creation of a useful category, which the nominator himself had proposed, as disruptive. I would point you to the recent creation of Category:British Islands, which was also a proposal that came out in the middle of a hot debate on Category:Politics of the British Isles (and I *opposed* the creation of this category, but there it sits), but I don't see you taking RA to task for that? My experience has been that in CfD discussions, people regularly add things to categories, and even create sub-categories, during the discussion. The one thing that seems to be verboten is to empty a category under discussion, but that's not what is at stake here. You yourself created Category:Teaching hospitals in Northern Ireland smack dab in the middle of the debate on Category:Hospitals in Ireland. In any case, what's done is done, I'd suggest we just close out this particular discussion, and move the discussion back to the original place. I'm sure if a merge or rename is required, it can be handled quite well from other there.--KarlB (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, this is not complicated. At CfD, nominators propose, other editors discuss it with them, and action is not taken until there is a consensus.
Related changes may happen along the way, as with Category:British Islands or Category:Teaching hospitals in Northern Ireland, but neither of those creations had any impact either way on the proposal under discussion.
In this case, you have directly pre-empted the outcome of the May 21 CfD. I have explained to you why that is procedurally wrong, and since you don't have he courtesy to revert your unilateral action pending the achievement of a consensus, I'll seek an uninvolved admin to intervene. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 24 May 2012 (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:The Simpsons promo cards and promotional artwork

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Including the words "promo cards" is redundant, as this category contains more than just promo cards. Any Simpsons images that are not specifically promotional, can be included in Category:The Simpsons images. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2012 (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.

Irish Republican Movement

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename/Add. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_16#Category:Republicanism_in_Ireland, to fix capitalisation and to make in line with similar cats (for example Category:Unionism in Ireland). --RA (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, this solves any issue over potential confusion over whether the category is for a single movement or a collection of separate movements. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2012 (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:D-Class articles

edit
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: Speedy delete. The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete No WikiProject recognizes D-class articles. The category is populated only with user-space articles in the category creator's user space. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:05, 24 May 2012 (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.

Decades of the 20th century

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This seems to be the only category which has separated its decades out into a "decades by century" subcategory, and has only done so for the 20th century. This does not seem to be useful. Category:Decades of the 20th century in Europe contains only the Serbia subcategory and can be deleted. Tim! (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2012 (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:Circassians living in the Russian Federation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Circassian people in Russia, following the tree, with leave for immediate renomination of the tree for discussion of the Circassian/Adyghe question. The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this would be a more standard way of naming this category and it would make it conform better with other category names. (1) "Circassian people", not "Circassians"; (2) eliminate the word "living", since some are dead; (3) use "Russia" instead of "Russian Federation". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2012 (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.

Thai royalty by father

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all to Category:Chulalongkorn family.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Merge. In categories we tend to avoid categorizing people by who their parents (or other ancestors) are. I believe templates are sometimes used for this purpose, and they work well from what I have seen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2012 (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:Living Thai royalty

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We generally do not divide categories for people into living/dead subdivisions, nor do we tend to subcategorize Category:Living people. Is there any good reason to make an exception here? (Technically this could be seen as a nomination to merge to Category:Thai royalty, but I believe all of the contents are adequately subcategoried in Category:Thai princesses, Category:Thai princes, etc., so no actual merge is necessary.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2012 (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:Monmouth, Wales

edit
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: do not rename. The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Article is simply at Monmouth, contested C2D nomination. I think the category should follow the article, but I'm not too fussed – if the consensus is that it needs disambiguating then the subcategories should be renamed to have ", Wales" appended. Jenks24 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albums conducted by Sy Dale

edit
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: speedy delete (criterion G7: creator consents to deletion). -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The conducter of a rock album is not a defining aspect of the album itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:20, 24 May 2012 (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:Nuclear accidents

edit
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: split to Category:Radiation accidents and incidents and Category:Nuclear accidents and incidents. The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Quite simply, the category's title does not accurately reflect its current scope. It should be changed to Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents (reflecting the title of the main article) or to the more inclusive Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents (reflecting the fact that we seem to differentiate between accidents and incidents, as shown by the existence of separate lists for civilian nuclear accidents and civilian nuclear incidents). The parent categories are little help, since this category is a member of both Category:Industrial accidents and incidents and Category:Accidents. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents as the IAEA has a scale that includes "incidents" and "accidents". Further other industrial categories also are named in this manner. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to include both "accidents and incidents". And all the other such cats should too as appropriate. - jc37 08:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents. It has occurred to me on occasion that it would probably be a good idea to rename this category to explicitly include radiation accidents - so that would be a welcome change. But let's not get carried away with things here: Category:Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents would be needlessly complicated and unwieldy -- as well as being grammatically confusing. It reads as though someone forgot the comma between two disjunctive pairs of nouns. (When my wife saw it she just gasped!) There's really no compelling reason to tack on "and incidents", as the latter are already covered under "accidents" -- they're basically just a lesser variety, a distinction which doesn't need to be captured in the category name. Cgingold (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. While an accident may also be an incident, an incident is not necessarily an accident. Besides that, The IP makes some fair points above. And real world nomenclature should probably trump our stylistic preferences I would think. - jc37 09:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One issue is the conflating of "nuclear" with "radiation". A second issue is the conflating of incidents and accidents, leading to the current situation where Category:Military nuclear incidents is incorrectly a sub-cat of "nuclear accidents".
One option would be to make "Nuclear accidents" a sub-category of a new category:Nuclear incidents, and to make these sub-cats respectively of "Radiation accidents" and "Radiation incidents". This would solve the a current problem in that the nominated category is within "Environmental disasters", even though it includes articles on relatively small-scale over-exposures during radiotherapy, stretching the rule at WP:SUBCAT (although I do support being flexible with that rule).
However, I suspect that readers might often be more interested to look at the combined picture of accidents and incidents, including "near misses" for that matter if any of these have become notable. There are quite a lot of categories for "accidents and incidents", e.g. Category:Aviation accidents and incidents, which has one sub-cat in common with the nominated category.
If accidents are also incidents, then the category could use the short name "Nuclear incidents" and include accidents among its members, but this smacks of WP:WEASEL. I am therefore inclined to follow the pattern of other categories and use the long name Category:Nuclear accidents and incidents.
This leaves the question of conflating nuclear and radiation. Despite the lead article Nuclear and radiation accidents, I am inclined to split these, creating a head category Category:Radiation accidents and incidents for articles such as orphan source and the radiotherapy incidents. – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with splitting radiation a&i from nuclear a&i. The articlespace pages can be dealt with editorially. - jc37 13:08, 29 May 2012 (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:Flag designers

edit
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: reverse merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is the same thing Cambalachero (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_24&oldid=1127488323"