Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 7 November 9 >

November 8[edit]

Buildings and Structures in South Dublin County[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. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose re-naming Category:Buildings and Structures in South Dublin County to Category:Buildings and structures in South Dublin County
Nominator's rationale For consistency. The parent cat is Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland. All articles in this cat have a lower case "s" for structures. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:27, 8 November 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 New Democrat Coalition[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 all. — ξxplicit 01:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of the New Democrat Coalition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Members of the Blue Dog Coalition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I agree with categorizing U.S. politicians by party, but I don't agree with categorizing them by intra-party congressional caucuses. One, I don't think it's particularly defining for most members. Two, membership in these groups is fluid and the caucuses are much more likely to change, be created, and be abolished than political parties. The congressional caucuses for the Republican Party were recently deleted. All the contents are otherwise appropriately categorized in a subcategory of Category:Democratic Party (United States) politicians, so there is no need to upmerge anything. As they stand now, these categories are woefully underpopulated as compared to the topics' true sizes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lists would be fine, if desired, but categories run afoul of WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 14 November 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.

Dublin[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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Public houses in Dublin City to Category:Public houses in Dublin
Propose renaming Category:Museums in Dublin City to Category:Museums in Dublin
Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Dublin City to Category:Bridges in Dublin
Propose renaming Category:Hotels in Dublin City to Category:Hotels in Dublin
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming these to match main article Dublin and parent categories Category:Dublin and Category:Buildings and structures in Dublin. Was nominated at speedy under criterion C2C but opposed by creator of the categories. I think that unless all of the subcategories of Category:Dublin are going to change, there is no reason for these only to be different. Creator has tried to get consensus for this usage in the past, but has not succeeded. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
  • Oppose the re-naming. It would be sacrilgious of me to describe myself as the Creator. I'll leave that honour to One greater than I. I think that it was very naughty of the proposer to have quoted discussions from other sections that are still live. In good TV court room dramas, the Judge would direct the jury to disregard those remarks and would censure the lawyer for introducing them out of order. It is presumptious even, to assume that the outcome will go in a certain direction. Having said all that, the proposer is correct in one thing - it could be illogical of the above categories to remain as named if the parent was not renamed. If the proposer intends to formulate a new proposal to rename Category Dublin to "Category Dublin City" or "Category Dublin city", I will be happy to second the proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a courtroom procedure and no one is on trial. My only presumption is that category names should be consistent, which these are not. It would be extraordinary for there to be consensus to keep 4 categories differently named from their parent and sister categories. If you want the parent category to be renamed, a nomination is your responsibility, not mine. Until then, we can have uniformity of names in Category:Dublin. I'm glad you acknowledge the need for consistency. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The cats as currently named are a model of consitency and logic. It is their sisters and parents that are inconsistent and illogical. It would be foolish indeed to rename the correct cats to a known incorrect cat so that all could then be renamed to the original pattern at some future date. This folly must not be allowed to propogate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then nominate Category:Dublin and all its subcategories for renaming to see if others agree with you. I can't make it any more clear. But don't create new categories based on a new naming scheme that you feel is superior before your preferred scheme has been adopted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We had a related discussion a few days ago. The old County Dublin has been split into several counties. They make up "Dublin region", but its categories ought to be parent-only ones to its new constituent counties (including the city). The city thus does not need "City" to disambiguate it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The argument for rename appears solid, until such time, if any, as there should be a change of name of parent category. JackJud (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Re-names (duplicate !vote struck) due to new evidence. There is precedent for the current naming convention. In Belgium, there is the city of Liège which lies in the province of Liège . Each has its own category. The category for the city is: Category:Buildings and structures in Liège (city) while the category for the province is Category:Buildings and structures in Liège (province). This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that if this proposal goes ahead, you must next proceed to the re-naming of Belgian cites. Who wants to open that can of worms? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be a good reason to propose a rename for the entire Category:Dublin tree, but it's not a good reason to have these categories different than the rest of the tree in the meantime. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the argument is strong enough for the parent, then by definition, it's strong enough for the children. A temporary re-naming, pending a parental re-naming, in the knowledge that the latter was likely to be imminent, would be pedantic, time-wasting and an exercise in futility. I urge good sense on editors: be led by your good sense; don't be led by the nose (good ol' or otherwise). Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the argument is strong enough—we would need a discussion on it to determine that. It's possible users would agree to it, but it also wouldn't be unusual for there to be a consensus against disambiguating it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in that case the offending iteme need to be re categorised or move to a Dublin Region category. County Dublin exists as a historical entity only and any categories for it should be merged into those for Dublin Region. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 14 November 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 secular humanists[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/2010 November 20#Category:American secular humanists. — ξxplicit 01:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American secular humanists to Category:American humanists
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Moved from a Speedy nomination. While I'm not the original nominator, I will say that while this is not completely redundant, it's not a level of thin-slicing I'm inclined to support.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:02, 8 November 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 killed in the Gaza flotilla raid[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 and upmerge to Category:Gaza flotilla June 2010 (as well as Category:Deaths by firearm in international waters and Category:People killed by the Israel Defense Forces, the other parent categories). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People killed in the Gaza flotilla raid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There were nine fatalities during the raid, all of whom are listed in a specific section of List of participants of the Gaza flotilla, and only four of whom have dedicated articles. The category has no potention for growth beyond these numbers and should be deleted pursuant to the guidelines contained in WP:SMALLCAT. Davshul (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is too specific. A more general category such as "Gaza flotilla raid" could be more suitable. Marokwitz (talk)
  • Delete -- Only a sick person would see this cat expand. recat articles to the main cat. --Shuki (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category mentioned by Davshul is quite enough. I doubt that many of those killed are in fact notable for anything else, which would suggest that they be merged back into the list article. The whole event was merely a political stunt to embarrass Israel. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Consider Rename to Category:People killed in the Gaza flotilla June 2010 The category accurately groups articles with a common defining characteristic. The rename would better correspond to the parent category. Alansohn (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please clarifyUpmerge. Alansohn, you do not appear to have addressed the basic issue. It is not whether the category could be better named, but whether a category of this size with little or no potention for growth, should be deleted pursuant to WP guidelines, and, if not, why not. JackJud (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Deaths by firearm in international waters and Category:People killed by the Israel Defense Forces. I agree with the nominator's rationale for doing away with the category, but deleting without merging would remove some of the articles from one or both of the mentioned category trees. Also, shouldn't the parent category be renamed to Category:Gaza flotilla raid? -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:06, 9 November 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-free audio samples[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, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 30. Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Non-free audio samples to Category:Wikipedia non-free audio files or Category:Wikipedia non-free audio samples
Nominator's rationale: The "Wikipedia" is needed to clearly identify this as a high-level project category which should not contain any mainspace content pages. The top-level parent category for sounds is Category:Wikipedia audio files, so "audio samples" should be changed to "audio files" for consistency unless there is some copyright-related reason to use "samples". -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Seems a trivial change and consistancy isn't there for Wikipedia quantifier. The use of Wikipedia was questioned way back in titles like this and, IMO a completely flawed logic of naming conventions (the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories) was applied. How is is confusing. Non-free audio can never be a content category. This change is also not consistent with Category:Non-free logos for example. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that consistency isn't there (yet), but it never will be attained if a present lack of consistency is used as a counter-argument to renaming. Also, considering that the parent category of this page is Wikipedia non-free sounds, whose parent category is Wikipedia audio files, whose parent category is Wikipedia media files ... I think a convention exists in this particular case.
    The change itself may be relatively minor but, then again, performing the change is also a minor/trivial matter. In addition, while the logic behind the convention—"categories used for Wikipedia administration are prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon) if this is needed to prevent confusion with content categories"—may or may not be flawed (personally, I do not think that it is), it does currently have consensus. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate meaningless disputes like this but note that Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds was originally at Category:Non-free sounds. Can you point me to a rationale for that move? I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia quantifier just stemmed from "Wikipedia maintenance" which obviously couldn't be named "Maintenance". One of the other reasons I'm objecting is because "Wikipedia non-free audio" sounds possessive like the non-free audio belongs to Wikipedia. Personally I think the current is the best option unless you make a Maintenance namespace. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a small world... :) Category:Non-free sounds was renamed because of a discussion (here) that I initiated almost one year ago. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:10, 18 November 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:Wikipedia non-free sounds[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, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 30. Dana boomer (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds to Category:Wikipedia audio files and Category:Wikipedia non-free content
Nominator's rationale: This category is an unnecessary layer between Category:Non-free audio samples (nominated for renaming above) and Category:Wikipedia audio files and Category:Wikipedia non-free content, and I think its contents (1 subcategory) should be upmerged. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Correct my if I'm wrong, but in theory all of our free sounds should be on commons, so it should be implied that any such content on Wikipedia is non-free without needing to identify it as such, at least in the title. VegaDark (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, all of our free audio files are on the Commons. However, featured sounds (even though the actual files are on the Commons) are still categorized on Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, forgot about that. Any particular reason we do that? In any case, your proposal seems reasonable. VegaDark (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, really, since Portal:Featured sounds contains a comprehensive and much more useful listing. Perhaps it is so that sounds will not be missing from Category:Featured content... -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:55, 13 November 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:Ogg files[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: Renamew. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ogg files to Category:Wikipedia Ogg files
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that this is a project category which is not intended for content about the Ogg format. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, delete as duplicative of Category:Wikipedia audio files, since almost all (maybe all?) audio and video files on Wikipedia are .ogg files. I suppose, though, that this could serve as an 'All files'-type category, but then it is woefully underpopulated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename And there are OGM files, IIRC. 76.66.203.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 8 November 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 Silver Surfer[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. — ξxplicit 01:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:The Silver Surfer to Category:Silver Surfer
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 23:45, 8 November 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:Party list New Zealand MPs[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. — ξxplicit 01:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Party list New Zealand MPs to Category:New Zealand list MPs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. New name is shorter and starts with New Zealand, bringing it into line with other similar categories. Mattlore (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure - these MPs are certaintly elected from a "party list" but they are usually referred to as "list MPs". I'll have a look at the standing orders and see what term they use Mattlore (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Directions by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 2010" uses the term 'list member' and also declares that A list member must describe himself or herself as “List Member” in publicity that associates the list member with an electorate.[1] Not much of the legislation or SR's differentiate between the two types of members so I can't find much more but the wikipedia article is at List MP not party-list MP. Mattlore (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. That surprises me a little bit, but that's fine with me if that's the common way to refer to them in NZ docs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator per above discussion. (I created the category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as list MP is the common terminology in New Zealand. Schwede66 22:10, 8 November 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:Cultural Property of Great Importance[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. Since those involved in the project consider this the umbrella category, this looks to be the correct name for that. However, this does not prejudice against the recreation of this category if the umbrella category is subdivided in the future.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cultural Property of Great Importance to Category:Cultural Heritage of Serbia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination found as an incomplete speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, also all subcats, which should apparently all refer to Serbia. I am not sure of the merits of splitting into "exceptional importance" and "great importance", which would be POV if not based (presumably) on some govenrment classification. Also, the category is full of articles, depsite being tqagged that it should mainly only contain sub-cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nom, which just bundles all these listed things into a totally vague category. Instead they should all be renamed as "of Serbia", and an umbrella category set up, something like Listed cultural properties of Serbia, which can sit in Category:Cultural Heritage of Serbia. Equivalent US classifications are exhaustively categorized; why not Serbia too? Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Register of cultural heritage properties in Serbia along with the article. I think this makes the intent clearer since it says what the article and category are about. Clearly the article is not about the cultural heritage of Serbia but just certain protected sites. We would still need a general article on the Cultural heritage of Serbia. Searching is not a big help since we get the wiki mirrors and most hits are on 'cultural heritage of Serbia' as the general term. Most sources are in Serbian which I don't happen to be able to read, so for now no help there. I can live with Category:Listed cultural properties of Serbia if that is the consensus, but I don't know how that would work for the main article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT[edit]

Agree to Rename. I am creator of this pages and related WikiProject. Cultural Heritage of Serbia was proposed name, as agreed on this talk page.

The main thing is that Cultural Property of Serbia is divided by first on two categories. Movable and unmovable. Offical Law about Cultural Heritage (Sl. Glasnik RS 71/94) tells us this:

Immovable Cultural Heritage
Exceptional Importance Great Importance Important (Not yet created)
Archaeological Sites of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) Archaeological Sites of Great Importance (Serbia) Important Archaeological Sites (Serbia)
Monuments of Culture of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) Monuments of Culture of Great Importance (Serbia) Important Monuments of Culture (Serbia)
Historic Landmarks of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) Historic Landmarks of Great Importance (Serbia) Important Historic Landmarks (Serbia)
Spatial Cultural-Historical Units of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) Spatial Cultural-Historical Units of Great Importance (Serbia) Important Spatial Cultural-Historical Units (Serbia)
Movable Cultural Heritage (Entire group not yet created)
Artistic and Historical Piece
Archive material
Film material
Old and Rare Books

Movable Cultural Heritage is also divided in 3 categories, same as unmovable. All of that will be done later, when we create all from the first list. So as you may see, this is Cultural Heritage of Serbia, by source, and by content. As we already started move, i am asking for this also, as this request if firmly based on official government sources and laws, in order to fix wrongly created category in the first place, when all us us didn't know real classifications. Also, just for a record, this category is EXCLUSIVELY populated from one, single template. {{Cultural Heritage of Serbia}} category can be renamed, and all will be moved with one single edit.

Only Category:Cultural Heritage of Serbia will be correct one for this. Thanks! --WhiteWriter speaks 14:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Yes, indeed, this is the umbrella category, and should be renamed to avoid confusion. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:03, 26 November 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:Fictional characters debuts[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: Discussion moved elsewhere. Dana boomer (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 10#Category:Fictional characters debuts
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_November_8&oldid=1089087612"