Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 9

< December 8	December 10 >

December 9[edit]

Category:People from the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename Category:People from the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia to Category:Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It refers to the political subject created by the occupation with very short live (nobody categorizes e.g. People from Vichy France, People from occupied Poland etc.). It cannot be used for anyone who just was born there (People from Czech Republic, Slovakia or Czechoslovakia are preferred categories). This category cannot be properly filled with entries - there is nobody who can be called as people from the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and use to classify articles relating to that entity, similar to how Category:Vichy regime is used. A category for the entity should exist, but perhaps its putting the cart before the horse to have a category for its people before having one for it as an entity. Alternatively, delete and create institutional category from scratch. Snocrates 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually pushing is more effective then pulling, that's for that horse and cart. This rename may be the answer, the main difference is that People from Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia can (and usually is) be used also for people who simply were born there. As correct for the still existing state it cannot be used for the state created by the occupation and that ceased to exist in 1945. Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia on the other hand can be used only for the political representatives. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename see reasons in my comment above. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Snocrates and cleanup, i.e. remove from that category people who were only born during this period. Category "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" would be useful if it would contain only really significant political persons of that entity. It can also contain future articles about many organizations and puppet political bodies from that entity. - Darwinek (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Darwinek and Tulkolahten.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above arguments.--Molobo (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to having a category for people in the protectorate's government. This is way too broad. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Surface features of celestial bodies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep all as is, matching article naming, considered these nominations as a group nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Rename all from Category:X on Y to Category:X of Y, as described below.

Rationale (paraphrasing Prove It): For consistency with other categories, landforms are of everywhere else.
- (Note: Since all of these CFDs are requesting the same change, with the same rationale, I thought it would make sense to group them all together for one consolidated discussion. Obviously, everybody is still free to post comments under individual headings if they are so inclined.) Cgingold (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming - While I agree that consistency is desirable whenever possible, consistency purely for the sake of consistency can be outweighed by other factors, as it is here.

First, a general point: it really doesn't make sense to equate features on Earth with features on other celestial bodies. Surface features in Earth-categories are intrinsically different, because they're identified as being located within geographic entities, such as countries or continents; whereas surface features in categories for extraterrestrial bodies are they're identified as being located on those bodies. That is a fundamental semantic distinction.

Secondly, this proposal flies in the face of an entirely different naming convention using the "on" formulation, which is illustrated by the following examples:

All 8 of the sub-cats in Category:Surface features of Mars use "on", not just the 3 sub-cats included in this proposal.
There are dozens of list-articles in Category:Surface feature nomenclature of solar system bodies, all of which use the "on" formulation
With particular reference to the categories specified in this proposal, the following selection of main articles all use the "on" formulation, which directly conflicts with the proposals to rename those categories:

There's more, but I think that's enough to make the point.

And finally, the following items:

The phrase "Mountains of the Moon" is notably a reference to Mountains of the Moon (Africa), and could be misconstrued.
The phrase "Craters of the Moon" is notably a reference to Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve, and could also be misconstrued.
The phrase "Valleys of the Moon" happens to be the name of a porn flick -- probably not well enough known to pose a problem, but I figured I may as well mention it, since it turned up in a Google search. :)

All in all, I see no compelling reason to make the proposed changes, and plenty of reason not to. Cgingold (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the naming conventions on Landforms. By country it's always OF and we've already generalized that to continents, cities, states, and territories. See for example Mountains of.... I'm proposing that we treat extraterrestrial landforms the same as we do here on Earth, since we already have enough rules to remember. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all per above as planets and moons are not parts of Earth. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stick with "on". As per my comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories), on the Earth, the choice is between "of" and "in", while on non-terrestrial bodies, the choice is between "of" and "on". Just because we favour "of" in the former context doesn't imply that we should favour "of" in the latter Bluap (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Renames I agree with above distinction between parts of Earth and elsewhere. WilliamKF (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Valleys on the Moon[edit]

Rename to Category:Valleys of the Moon, for consistency with all the other valley categories, landforms are OF. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hills on Mars[edit]

Rename to Category:Hills of Mars, for consistency, hills are of everywhere else. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountains on Mars[edit]

Rename to Category:Mountains of Mars, and Category:Mountains of the Moon, for consistency, mountains are of everywhere else. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craters[edit]

Rename all, although on makes sense here, landforms are always of. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Tajik composers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename Category:Tajik composers to Category:Tajikistani composers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Tajikistani composers, convention of Category:Tajikistani musicians. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename seems to be the best title. Dincher (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Tajik musicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename Category:Tajik musicians to Category:Tajikistani musicians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Tajikistani musicians, convention of Category:Tajikistani people by occupation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Other schools in the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge Category:Other schools in the United States to Category:Schools in the United States. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Schools in the United States, makes no sense out of context. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this category from two articles that were already in other subcats of the proposed merge target; the upmerge would result in duplicate categorization otherwise. The remainder aren't subcategorized anywhere, so merge per nom: category name is too vague and, if anything, should be replaced by far more specific and definable categories (e.g. "Christian schools in the United States", "Trade schools in the United States", etc.) Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom; category is the epitome of non-defining. Maralia (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Other schools in California[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge Category:Other schools in California to Category:Schools in California. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Schools in California, current name doesn't make any sense without context. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with the US parent, I've removed articles that were already, or could easily have been, filed in other subcategories of the merge target. As with the US parent, the category name is too vague and, if anything, should be replaced by far more specific and definable categories. Upmerge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge.Stepheng3 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Pergamum[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename Category:Pergamum to Category:Pergamon, etc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pergamum to Category:Pergamon

Category:People from Pergamum to Category:People from Pergamon

Category:Wars involving Pergamum to Category:Wars involving Pergamon

Category:Battles involving Pergamum‎ to Category:Battles involving Pergamon

Nominator's rationale: to match the article title which is Pergamon rather than Pergamum. Tim! (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Dincher (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Non-graduate alumni by university or college[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Non-graduate alumni to Category:Non-graduate alumni by university or college

Category:Non-graduate alumni of Harvard to Category:Non-graduate alumni of Harvard University

Category:Non-graduate alumni of Waseda to Category:Non-graduate alumni of Waseda University

Category:Non-graduate alumni of West Point to Category:Non-graduate alumni of United States Military Academy

OR

Propose deleting Category:Non-graduate alumni

Category:Non-graduate alumni of Harvard

Category:Non-graduate alumni of Waseda

Category:Non-graduate alumni of West Point

Category:Non-graduate alumni of Brigham Young University

Nominator's rationale: Expand names for clarity and consistency with parent categories. Alternatively, some editors may wish to argue for a delete. (Personally, I find the categories a bit silly, but without them some editors do insist on including non-graduates who attended a school in the category for alumni, since some dictionary definitions of "alumnus" include persons who attended, but did not graduate from, an institution. As a result, these get created. Ones for Harvard and West Point are both in list form already; others in the subcategory are not.) —Snocrates 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and let's restrict "alumni" categories to those people who actually graduated. Otto4711 (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The real alumni categories are barely defining, if they are defining at all. These are absurd. LeSnail (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, including Brigham Young. Pointless overcategorization. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nominator) : I'm going to tag the Brigham Young category for deletion since deletion is getting early votes. I wouldn't mind nominating all the alumni categories for deletion, unless it can be agreed here that they should be restricted to graduates. Such a decision may require a full CFD, though? Snocrates 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; as defining as attendance at a junior college. —Scouter Sig 02:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alumni many not mean a graduate in all versions of English. So if the intent of the category is to limit membership to graduates then the intro needs to make this clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Alumnus" has a clear meaning, which is "a person who has attended a university". It doesn't imply graduation in any version of English. Any "alumni" category will include attendees who did not graduate. We're not here to redefine words, but to use them to convey information. If there's a need for a category restricted to graduates, it should be called "Graduates of X". - Nunh-huh 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that's why all the alumni categories are not defining, but that's not what this CFD specifically is about. However, there are some definitions that define "alumnus" as a graduate. It therefore does not have "a clear meaning". Snocrates 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In which dictionary is this definition you allude to? The word has a clear meaning, and it's "attendee". - Nunh-huh 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are many, but one on-line source you could seek out is WordNet 3.0, "published" by Princeton University since 2006, s.v. "alumnus": "a person who has received a degree from a school (high school or college or university)", with the synonyms "alumna, alum, graduate, grad" given. In print dictionaries, depending on whether you are using an American or English or Canadian or Australian dictionary, often both possible definitions are given, which indicates that it is a word whose meaning is now somewhat ambiguous. Even the OED — which is as resistant to change as any dictionary — says that when pluralized to "alumni", it can mean "a graduate". Snocrates 00:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Online <> dictionary. "Lexical database" <> dictionary. We await the dictionary definition that limits the application of the term to graduates. Of course it can also mean a graduate, as graduates have attended the institution! Putting it simply: If you want a category that means "graduates", the word you want is "graduates". - Nunh-huh 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Yeah, if you can't trust Princeton, who can you trust (personally, I'd take them over one of the umpteen varieties of "Webster's" any day). But conveniently enough, you just proved my entire point, which was that the word is ambiguous and does not have one definitive meaning that is clear to everyone. There are two possible meanings, as has been demonstrated, and one restricts it in a way the other doesn't. That's why it's ambiguous. The very fact that this discussion takes place demonstrates why defining the category would be useful if they are kept. Frankly, I don't want either a category for "graduates" of an institution or a category for "alumni" of an institution, regardless of how widely the net of that word is cast. I'd be glad to see them all go. ("Graduates" too is ambiguous as it could be interpreted as meaning someone in graduate school at the institution. This is why WP definitions are useful — things are not always as black and white as we ourselves may like to believe they are.) Snocrates 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That a word is misused does not give it a new definition. That some people misunderstand what a word means also does not alter its meaning. I take it that a citation to an actual dictionary won't be forthcoming, because the word in fact doesn't mean what you wish it did. In any case, your argument is a little self-defeating, as you are campaigning to use a word you consider ambiguous ("alumnus") in preference to one which isn't ("graduate"). Clearly that would be something to be avoided in naming categories. - Nunh-huh 03:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop telling me what I am "campaigning for". As I have said above, I think both terms are ambiguous, and I would prefer to see the categories deleted, not for that reason, but because they are non-defining for the vast majority of individuals. I can see that you are not going to try to understand my point of view, but the least you can do is speak for yourself and not for me. You can save your own opinions for the future CFD where the alumni categories and nominated for deletion. Snocrates 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that you're being upfront with your ultimate goals. I suspect you will find that the alumni categories are widely supported. - Nunh-huh 03:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it; the strength of the arguments justifying the support is another question entirely. But at least the nomination can lead to a definition being set down, if not deletion, which this discussion demonstrates would be useful. Snocrates 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redefining the word "alumnus" is not an option. - Nunh-huh 03:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defining the categories with the word "alumni" in it is, however, whether you like it or not. Snocrates 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when a word is misused, Nunh-huh, it does give it a new definition. Look at slang. Words and phrases now have new (or simply alternate) meanings; the same goes for spelling (like "thru"). —Scouter Sig 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the word is misused widely enough to warrant a new dictionary definition, it gains one. So far, this word has not. - Nunh-huh 03:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, cowboy. It's not even relevant to this CFD; unless, of course, you want to tie it back in somewhere. I suggest you could cast a "vote" on the proposals at hand rather than just commenting in the abstract on the meaning of words. Snocrates 03:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's relevant, though of course I realize you'd prefer to limit the scope of the discussion. If you want the deletions to occur as part of a project to rename other categories, you really should be forthright about it. - Nunh-huh 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. English language purist and a conspiracy theorist all rolled into one, eh? Sweet. Really, I'm just trying to reel things back in to refocus on the proposal at hand. If you want to continue commenting without relating it back to the nomination for renaming/deletion, by all means, do so. You seem to be taking this kind of hard, and let me assure you that I have been very "forthright" with all my intentions, including my intention to nominate the "alumni" categories at the close of this CFD. You participated in that conversation at Category talk:Alumni by university or college, so I assumed you were aware of it. I also mentioned it above in my second comment on this thread, so it's not hidden to anyone. I wasn't aware that editors were expected to announce their intention beforehand to make a nomination, though. And here I thought I was just being a keener. Note to the careful: "keener" is defined in the OED as "One who keens or laments; a professional mourner at Irish wakes and funerals who utters the keen", but I'm not using it in that sense. Please don't be outraged. :) Snocrates 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people appreciate being made aware of your intentions. By the way, there has to be more than one person in a conspiracy, no matter how impurely you use language. - Nunh-huh 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how wide a net this "campaign" covers in your own mind. And "campaign theorist" just doesn't have the same ring or implication to it. In other words, I was not necessarily using the dictionary definition of the term, but rather was tailoring my language in a way that I thought my meaning would be properly understood by the common person in 2007. Sound familiar? :) Snocrates 04:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you disregard actual meanings a lot. I'm afraid it's really not a successful strategy for being understood. - Nunh-huh 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for what you might wish for, it's extremely successful and probably moreso than slavish devotion to the gods otherwise known as the dictionary editors. Snocrates 04:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. - Nunh-huh 04:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all How is this possibly defining? These persons would be appropriately categorized as alumni of the respective institutions. Maralia (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per comments above. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Elder Scrolls creatures[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Has all of one article in it now, and will likely be deleted soon anyway. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Midcontinent Communcations Service Areas[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Spammy. Categorizes a batch of cities according to the availability of service from a particular cable television company. A bit like categorizing cities according to the presence of a Burger King restaurant. Wikipedia isn't a directory. Delete. Malepheasant (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with above Dincher (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorization. The cable company's article can quite reasonably include a list of the communities it serves, but that doesn't warrant a category. We don't even categorize Comcast, Time Warner or Rogers this way, and those are much larger and more important cable companies. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete.

Delete not needed Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.