Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 2 August 4 >

August 3[edit]

Stevenage F.C.[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. Courcelles 02:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Stevenage Borough F.C. players to Category:Stevenage F.C. players
Propose renaming Category:Stevenage Borough F.C. matches to Category:Stevenage F.C. matches
Propose renaming Category:Stevenage Borough F.C. managers to Category:Stevenage F.C. managers
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to match the parent category. Although at first a clear-cut move, I didn't go for a speedy as these categories incorporate Stevenage players/matches/managers past and present, so I can see the scope for arguing against. In either case, wherever the categories end up, I believe that the alternatives should probably be created as category redirects, given that "Borough" was only dropped a couple of months ago. --WFC-- 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - per main article and parent category. – PeeJay 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to link with main article, and yes old pages should be redirects. Eldumpo (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Road to... episodes[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. Courcelles 02:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Road to... episodes to Category:Family Guy episodes
Nominator's rationale: Merge - artificial and arbitrary subset of Family Guy episodes based on shared name characteristic. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're actually structurally similar, in that they all focus on Brian and Stewie road trips in the [skewed] spirit of the Bob Hope/Bing Crosby flicks. But the fact that they all start with "Road to..." means that they will alphabetically sort together anyway, so this is a completely useless category. So merge per me. postdlf (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Skid Row[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. Courcelles 02:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Skid Row video albums to Category:Skid Row (American band) video albums
Propose renaming Category:Skid Row songs to Category:Skid Row (American band) songs
Propose renaming Category:Skid Row members to Category:Skid Row (American band) members
Propose renaming Category:Skid Row albums to Category:Skid Row (American band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Per Skid Row (American band) and Skid Row (Irish band) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Open source games[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 to 11 August's log. Courcelles 03:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Open source games to Category:Open source tabletop games
Nominator's rationale: This category should rename to disambiguate from video games. Also video game sub-category should be re-parentised. Miami33139 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Countrywide Classic[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. Courcelles 02:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Countrywide Classic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has been empty since its pages were recategorized under Category:Los Angeles Open (tennis). Cmcnicoll (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:M.o.v.e. albums[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. Courcelles 02:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:M.o.v.e. albums to Category:Move (Japanese band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Per m.o.v.e. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from category creator. Katharineamy (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Avex albums[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. Courcelles 02:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Avex albums to Category:Avex Group albums
Nominator's rationale: Per Avex Group —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per main article/sub-categories. jonkerz♠ 04:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:King Records albums[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. Courcelles 03:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:King Records albums to Category:King Records (Japan) albums
Nominator's rationale: per King Records. I created the subcategories and would like them renamed as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. If I remember correctly, I only created this because it was already sitting on a number of articles as a redlink anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:RCA Victor Records artists[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. Courcelles 02:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:RCA Victor Records artists to Category:RCA_Victor_artists
Nominator's rationale: Per RCA_Victor_Records. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Assuming the RCA_Victor article is correct, there is not and has never been an entity named "RCA Victor Records". The was "RCA Victor" (which was a record company but did not have "Records" in its name), and that was later renamed to "RCA Records". Herostratus (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Herostratus minus the underscores. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although is there a way to do an automatic redirect on categories? The current category name seems to be the common template. Settlet (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cocktails with coffee liqueur[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. Courcelles 02:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cocktails with coffee liqueur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. Purplebackpack89 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now it has five. The entire cocktail tree could use with some heavy application of subcategorization.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 06:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – part of general scheme, recently revamped. Occuli (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:GOD albums[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. Courcelles 02:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:GOD albums to Category:GOD (British band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Per GOD (band), GOD (UK band), and the fact that "British" rather than "UK" is the proper adjectival form for things from the United Kingdom. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BAO albums[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. Courcelles 02:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:BAO albums to Category:Benny Anderssons Orkester albums
Nominator's rationale: Per Benny Anderssons Orkester. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Gossip songs[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. Courcelles 02:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The Gossip songs to Category:Gossip (band) songs
Nominator's rationale: Per Gossip (band), Category:Gossip (band) albums, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_2#Category:The_Gossip_albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wine cocktails[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: already taken care of.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wine cocktails to Category:Cocktails with wine
Nominator's rationale: New page created by user not yet authenticated Briarhale (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC

Speedily do per the transcluded discussion from last week: (TRANSCLUDED DISCUSSION)

The result of the discussion was: rename and delete, as per Occuli. Courcelles (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wine cocktails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port. Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port follows the apparant naming conventions for cocktail lists, this doesn't Purplebackpack89 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if we created the category. As of right now, I BOLDly moved all the items in Category:Wine cocktails to Category:Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port. You can just CfR that to Category:Cocktails with wine to complete the cycle Purplebackpack89 18:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK (modified nom) Delete Category:Wine cocktails; rename Category:Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port to the simpler Category:Cocktails with wine (as sparkling wine is wine and port is fortified wine). Occuli (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(TRANSCLUDED DISCUSSION) This change has already been agreed on; the only reason it wasn't done is because a bot messed it upPurplebackpack89 06:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-Christian saints[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: upmerge. Courcelles 02:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-Christian saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete/Upmerge to Category:Saints by religion. This is really just unnecessary. While "saint" does have a meaning particular to Christians, it's not necessary to divide all persons designated as saints in this manner. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge as POV; saints of religions other than Christianity are not defined by being not Christian, nor are Christian saints more special than Hindu or Sikh saints. postdlf (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no real objections to deletion/upmerging. The reason I think the category was created was because of the comparative lack of stress/attention given the word in other religions. And in Hindu "saints" are generally more accurately "sants", with the mistranslation being the result of Western bias of a sort. I do think that people going to the Category:Saints are much much more likely to be looking for Christian saints, and, on that basis, some sort of naming guideline might apply. It's a reason, even if not a particularly good one. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as nom. This is an unnecessary step in the category tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American beauty pageant winners[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. Courcelles 02:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American beauty pageant winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to pre-existing categories, don't see the need for the umbrella here, especially for the individual biographies. See also previous CFDs here and here PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Category is part of a larger scheme, grouped by nationality and no different than nationality-based categorization for actors, musicians, artists, etc. Previous CfD results (such as here and here) have supported such categorization. Getting rid of this cat would leave American beauty pageant titleholder articles scattered under what are essentially performers-by-performance categories (winners or participants of specific pageants) with no common umbrella based on nationality when nationality is pivotal for defining contestants/winners. Removing all nationality categorization (which I think would then have to happen) would basically erase the only pageantry category structure that a great number of articles fall under, as many - or maybe even most - countries don't have categorization based on their specific pageants like the U.S. does.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per very thorough explanation by Mbinebri. (I don't think you left anything for me to say... ) Cgingold (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment fair enough, but why do the individuals need this category as well as the encomapssing cats? Isn't that doubling up? I can see why it would be useful to have the subcats under this but I strongly disagree that the biographies themselves need this. They have the more specific categories which can then themselves be placed into other cats. For example, you wouldn't put someone in (to quote a recent example) Category:People from Iowa and Category:People from Scott County, Iowa so why would you do it here? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean that Donna Axum (say) does not need to be categorised both as American and 'Miss America winner'. The usual procedure would be to remove the larger category from her article. (There will be others who are American but have won 'Miss SomewhereElse', presumably through residence or descent.) Occuli (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're replying to me, I'm scompletely agree with you... I think you read my comment the wrong way! My whole objection to the category is that someone like Donna Axum has been put in both categories, she should be under "Miss America winners" NOT both categories. The larger "American beauty pageant winners" is completely redundant in all the biographies. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So remove Donna Axum etc from Category:American beauty pageant winners. Deleting the category has more profound effects than just removing it from the articles, as it removes it from all its child categories as well (where it is certainly not redundant). Occuli (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK so what's the process in reaching a decision that that is the best course... what should I change my nomination to? Because it's not a merge or a rename. I'm of the view that consensus should be reached as to that course before I attempt to remove from the articles (especially since it's been years since I tried to use AWB) so that they aren't re-added. Sorry, it's a bit above my head! PageantUpdater talk • contribs 11:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no process - remove the category, it's merely an article edit. You are incorrect however: Ezina LeBlanc is in no other subcat and there are many like this. Occuli (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see my comment below before removing it even where the article is in a subcat. postdlf (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
postdlf's comment below is actually querying the validity of the subcat condition, which is not really a matter for cfd either. Is Miss USA always American? Is a delegate to Miss USA always a 'an American beauty pageant winner' (have all delegates won a state or other competition?) Certainly if A is valid subcat of B, then an article is usually put in A and not B as well. Occuli (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was the basis for the deletion nom, and now that it's been raised here it might as well be discussed here. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Mbinebri. [See below] Occuli (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is the winner of an American beauty pageant, such as Category:Miss USA, necessarily an American who has won a beauty pageant? If not, then this isn't redundant to any pageant-specific categories. postdlf (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The current Miss USA Rima Fakih is from Lebanon.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to her article, she's a naturalized citizen of the U.S., so her example can't help us. postdlf (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Don't have time to read all of this, must head out the door, however the quick answer to your question is yes! It is part of the Miss USA rules that contestants must be a citizen. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is user:Mbinebri who is causing this problem by adding redundant categories contrary to WP:CAT (eg this diff) and then reverting their removal. Occuli (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't clear that they're redundant. Is the winner of an American beauty pageant necessarily an American? postdlf (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I readily admit to being responsible for virtually all nationality-based categorization for pageant titleholders, not just American - it's been my effort to apply a very common category system to a largely disorganized or completely uncategorized collection of articles. I see no "problem" in doing so. I'll also add that the nationality cats should be kept in bios because pageant winners are often notable for pageant wins beyond the one pageant they're being categorized in. For example, Occuli removed the cat here pre-consensus; he/she will claim it's redundant, but to me it's not, as the subject has won other pageants and is thus defined by being an American beauty pageant winner overall, not just by a single pageant win.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • His argument is that it should be viewed as a non-diffusing subcategory because winning a particular pageant does not fully encapsulate their career as American beauty pageant winners; they may have won other pageants that may not merit categories, for example. My point has been more that the broader pageant winner category seems the equivalent of a career by nationality category, while the ones for winners of specific pageants are more akin to awards categories, so I doubt they are even appropriate subcategories. One is for Americans who won things, the other is for winners of American things. Maybe all of these pageants have U.S. citizenship requirements; I don't know, and no one has established that. If so, then they are proper subcategories, and we then turn to Mbinebri's argument as I have summarized to determine whether they should be treated as non-diffuse subcategories. But if the winners are not restricted to American citizenship (regardless of how many in practice have been Americans), then categories such as Category:Miss America winners should be removed from Category:American beauty pageant winners and moved to something like Category:Winners of beauty pageants in the United States, and articles should be placed in the nationality category and the award category. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about him; he doesn't own the categories, and they stand or fall on their own merit regardless of his intent for them. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This accusatory tone is unfortunately starting to make things look bad faith on Occuli's part.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Price Is Right pricing games[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. Courcelles 02:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:The Price Is Right pricing games to Category:The Price Is Right
Nominator's rationale: Since only two games have proven notable enough for their own pages, there's really no need for them to be in their own subcategory. They can easily be categorized in the main TPIR category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Though I am amused that I knew, even before clicking on the category, that one of the two games in question would be Plinko. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_3&oldid=1136103103"