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. Users may contact me for a list of the former contents of this category for future listification purposes. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I found this uncategorised category of actors of the Le Splendid café-théâtre company, and categorised it crudely under Category:French actors. However, I can find no other categories of actors-by-company, even for theatres well known as training grounds, such as the RSC and the UK's National Theatre. Even though this seems to me to be a somewhat wider and more significant category can those deprecated by WP:OC#Performers_by_performance_venue, it does not seem to me to be sufficiently more significant to justify categorising in this way. In the course of their careers, many actors will spend a significant time with a number of notable companies, and categorising in this way will just cause category clutter. It might a good idea to listify this category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A list in Le Splendid would be perfectly valid content; a category is basically "performers by performance venue" WP:OCAT. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 3 January 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:Council for Scientific and Industrial Research[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.
Delete the nav template works much better than this cat. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:02, 10 January 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.
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: Another category which I found in the list of uncategorized categories. I am not clear at this stage whether the "Follow That Dream" label is an RCA subsidiary as claimed here, or a joint venture between various labels as claimed here ... but either way this seems to me to be a way of categorising albums by re-release, which we deprecated at a recent CFD on Warner Archive releases. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 2 January 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.
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. These articles are mainly about the buildings themselves. We have historic and listed buildings in this tree so making it clear that it is about the building would seem be be a reasonable rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that version. I did consider it, but felt the singular was better. So I'll support either version based on consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this defining? Why not delete? Debresser (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BHG- the plural version is normally used for "headquarters", even when only one is meant. (You say, "I'm going back to headquarters", not "back to headquarter".) I do think it's defining for these structures, though more for some than others. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (changing my !vote after Debresser's question prompted me to look again). Checking the 6 articles in this the category (as opposed to its sub-category), it seems to me that being an airline HQ is a defining characteristic of only two of the buildings listed: Mexicana de Aviación Tower and Waterside (building). The Beehive (Gatwick Airport) is notable only as an airport terminal, not for its subsequent uses; Shiodome City Center is a multi-use office building, not particularly defined any of its tenants; Donington Hall is much more notable for many things other than being an airline HQ; and the major tenant of the Place Ville-Marie is a bank, not an airline. I have not yet checked the sub-category Category:Airline company headquarters in the United States, but on the basis of what I have seen here I think that this category is a very bad idea. Buildings usually have many uses in the course of the lives, and it seems foolish enough to start categorising them on the basis of whether they were used as a company HQ rather some other form of office, but then subdividing that by the industry in which they were a HQ seems like a recipe for horrendous category clutter. If we go down this path, how many such categories do we end up with on the Shiodome City Center or Canary Wharf? The same problems seem to me to apply to the other sub-cats of Category:Headquarters, which should be deleted as well. Rename it as above if kept, but it would be much better deleted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl; all of the commercial categories under Category:Headquarters are suspect for the same reasons.- choster (talk) 15:56, 8 January 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:Members of the Society for Biblical Studies in India[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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for members of the Society for Biblical Studies in India. According to the Membership section of the head article, "Membership of the Society is open to persons holding an M.Th. or a Licenciate in Scripture or Biblical theology from a recognised College or University". Other CFD discussions seem to have formed a consensus that we do not categorise by membership of learned societies where membership is open. My understanding is that we reserve such categories for people who have been selected by the society for making a notable contribution to the academic field, e.g. by appointment as a "fellow" of the society. A peek at Category:Members of learned societies does not suggest that there are many other exceptions to this principle, so unless someone has evidence that there is a good reason to treat this category differently, it should be deleted. No objection to listifying it, if other editors think that a list would be appropriate. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fellowships are sometimes a recognition of notability, and thus worth a category, e.g FRS and FSA, but not mere membership, open to any graduate. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:41, 4 January 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.
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:Delete. Categorizes biographies by non-defining characteristic. The biographies are already in their university's category, which is their notability.--TM 17:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The parent category is Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States, to which these categories should be merged if deleted. However, Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States is heavily sub-categorised, so I don't see any particular reason to single out these sub-cats. Declaration of interest. I am an expatriate myself, part of the Irish diaspora, and whilst my own notability has not so far been prompted anyone to write a wikipedia article on me (no comment on whether I should make the grade or not), I regard my status as an Irish expatriate to be very much a defining characteristic of who I am and why I achieved what I did. So on those grounds I support the logic of categorising by expatriate status, but I do have some reservations. These expatriate categories create a lot of category clutter, and they are essentially an intersection between (in this case) Category:people from Canada and Category:American people by occupation. If the long-discussed Category intersection is ever implemented, then expatriate categories may be one of the many forms of intersection categories which we can dispose of, but I don't know whether that software feature will arrive before Godot. When it does we can look again at these categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. In theory, you are right that a Canadian expatriate in America should not be in a category of American people, but since "Foo American college boo sport players" is ultimately a subcategory of Category:American people by occupation, the team category puts her there. It's a useful reminder of how wikipedia's category system is structured to facilitate navigation rather than provide a perfectly-accurate taxonomy. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've never seen the notability of this entire category tree. Resolute 14:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how are citizenship and location not defining aspects of one's biography? There are fundamental. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 January 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:Railway stations managed by Southern[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.
Comment. Managed and served are two different aspects. Managed refers to the station buildings. Served refers to the train services using that station. Not necessarily the same, but in this instance they probably are. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. But we don't usually categorise by both. MRSC (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Are the franchises long-enduring enough to warrant the existence of this category tree? Peterkingiron (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep and rename to Category:Railway stations managed by Southern (train operating company). The category is valid and therefore entitled to exist. However, since stations can only be managed by one company (is that always true?) it can only have limited utility i.e. it would also not be a great loss to merge/delete. Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:42, 4 January 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match standard used in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 04:08, 4 January 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And? Only three of those have enough articles to warrant such subcatting. The rest should all be upmerged. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a well-established structure.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it fits with other similar categories and there's no reason to disturb it.LanternLight (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Category:Films set in the late 21st century (to be defined in a headnote as 2050-2099). The present target will include films set on 2009 (just ended) as well as those (sci-fi) set in the near and more distant future. This make the suggested target a highly unsatisfactory category. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there are more than enough entries there to justify it, especially as it's part of the larger films set in the 21st century category subdivision. Kuralyov (talk) 22:32, 5 January 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.
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. Per this recent discussion, these categories for U.S. college sports programs are being renamed to the team name. Here's another one. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the teams more commonly go by "BYU Cougars" than "Brigham Young Cougars". The g-hits are 1.3 million to 450,000. That said, some might prefer to avoid the abbreviation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way's fine with me, but let's standardize the rest of the categories to whatever this discussion ends up endorsing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'll take care of that after this nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 18:25, 7 January 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:People executed by the Spanish Republic[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.
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:08, 3 January 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Being a signatory to a manifesto or a petition or other document should not be the basis of categorization except for perhaps the very most significant of documents, like the other in Category:Signatories by document. I don't think Charter 08 rises to that level. If the signatories category is deleted, the eponymous category contains nothing other than the main article, so it could be deleted too. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When one lives under an authoritarian regime, the act of signing an oppositional manifesto such as this or Charter 77 can all too often be a defining characteristic of one's subsequent life, in a way that signing something like Charter88 in the UK or even the Manifesto of the 121 in France wasn't. AllyD (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? They are signatories; it is a document. Seems to fit perfectly. The reason there may be a feeling it doesn't quite "fit" is precisely because of what I said before—this is not as significant a document as the others by which we categorize people by being signatories. It's kind of irrelevant that it was signed to oppose an authoritarian regime—the manifesto just hasn't risen to the level of fame or importance that a person is defined by having signed it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic of the document and its signatories. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you refer to the articles before you made that statement? It's so "defining" for Woeser that it's not even mentioned in her article, apart from the category tag. ... Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn says "defining characteristic" in relation to so many categories that I have long since assumed that his definition must be highly inclusive. Maybe some day he could explain it, so that we are all clear about what he means? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one of his personal bugaboos is that there is no positive definition for "defining" that is agreed upon. He's been pressed for a suggestion on that before, but if I remember correctly basically he came up with a slightly reworded version of WP:V, which no one else really agreed with. If "verifiable = defining" to him, that would explain why it's constantly invoked. (Of course, I am open to be corrected on any of this by Alansohn, who usually doesn't pass up a legitimate opportunity to correct me.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 18:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons well expressed above. Afterward another category probably should be created that groups it with similar categories and articles such as Category:Charter 77 signatories. LanternLight (talk) 05:10, 4 January 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.
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:administrative close. Author created suggested category. — ξxplicit 19:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To more accurately describe the category's contents and shorten name, as the main article of the director is Clarence Fok. — ξxplicit 03:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's rationale: It's not a problem at all, and I see no need for anyone to have a dicussion/debate concerning the renaming. I would be more than happy to do it myself, but I appreciate tha nomination. (LonerXL (talk) 06:26, 2 January 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:18, 9 January 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.
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:Delete. OC for the single entry. If you look in Category:Hotel chains, the main parent, attempts to this point to split out the contents have centered on the type of hotel chain rather then where the chain operates or is based. Starting to split out these companies by where they are based would not be an aid to navigation. Consider this a test case for the two other related categories. If kept, it should probably be renamed to Category:Hotel chains based in Syria. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are some large multinational hotel chains which are suitably divided by type, but it seems to me that there are also a lot of smaller hotel chains which operate only in one country. It seems to me to make sense to have by-country categories for these (e.g. Whites Hotels), as sub-categories of Category:Companies of name-of-country. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 9 January 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other subcategories in Category:Wikipedia essays. The first category only contains two pages that don't seem to stray far from the ones in the second category. — ξxplicit 03:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:06, 3 January 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category falls short of WP:USERCAT as it does not support collaboration nor does it group users with shared characteristics. — ξxplicit 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If images were categorised according to who had uploaded them, we'd end up with squillions of these categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Debresser (talk) 15:06, 3 January 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.
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 category seems to be used only to list the tracks of Abbey Road and the name of the Beatles, however they are already all listed in the album's article. Laurent (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:The Beatles songs is useful because all the songs are in one place and you don't have to know which album a particular song was on. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories for songs on an album seems like overkill to me. The songs are listed in the album's article. Why would someone go to a category that is named after the album when he or she can go to the album article, a page that is easier to get to than a category page? — John Cardinal (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorizing songs by an album-named category is indeed overkill. We went through this with the U2 album categories recently, and they were deleted. Twice. Also delete Category:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Category:Rubber Soul, which I have tagged. There should just be templates created to link together the songs on an album, if such a thing is desired. Every song lists what album it is from with a wikilink to the album, so I don't think anything further is absolutely necessary. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see it as overkill when it's the greatest band in history. TheWalrusWasPaul
It doesn't matter at all whether these were the works of the greatest person in the history of all known and possible universes, or some talentless dork who faded into obscurity after releasing one flop album. This is about categorisation, and we assume at CFD that all articles are on notable subjects ... so the only issue here is whether the category helps readers to navigate between related articles. We assess that by the principles set out at WP:CAT (plus a few associated guidelines such as WP:OC), regardless of what anyone thinks about the merits of the articles themselves, let alone the merits of the subjects of those articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the songs on any album will be nicely listed in detail on the album article. Occuli (talk) 21:21, 2 January 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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - that follows; suggest just go direct to speedy - as per MRSC ... Kbthompson (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it follows, but I wasn't quite sure that it met WP:CFD/S#Speedy_criteria C2.6. If an uninvolved admin thinks it does, then it can of course be speedied. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was an admin that was against the original rename; does that make me uninvolved enough in this context? I think consistency is enough to trump other concerns. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. I didn't agree with the original move, but do agree with common sense. It is uncontroversial that the category should follow the article automatically. MRSC (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match new title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 4 January 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.
Relisted at 2010 JAN 19 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)