Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14 January 16 >

January 15[edit]

Category:List of mosques in Sohag[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 The move to Commons should happen eventually. Courcelles 03:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:List of mosques in Sohag to Category:Images of mosques in Sohag
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The only contents are images of mosques. Tassedethe (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Commons and delete. Note that all of the images are already in Category:Sohag which is already tagged to be moved to commons. So upmerging is also an option as is deleting. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vegaswikian. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (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:Lists of academic journals[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 15:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Lists of scientific journals and Category:Lists of medical journals with Category:Lists of academic journals.
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any real reason to have separate subcategories for "academic" vs "scientific" vs "medical" here. There's a really small numbers of lists (<100 in total, with lists of medicine journals having something like 6 entries in it), and it would just be better to only have one category. I know small size really isn't an argument normally, but I think readers (and editors) would be served better with only one category to browse, rather than having to figure out where something is / should be classified. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The lists are small enough to be manageable and navigable after the merge, and this saves us from having to make editorial decisions about whether e.g. psychotherapy and nursing (now under "academic") should really be under medicine or whether social science or political science (now under "academic") should really be under science. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively support as per David Eppstein. If a librarian professional interjects, I'd follow their opinion. TheGrappler (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The categories can be merged without much problem, I think. Alternatively, the categories for the lists articles should be organized in parallel to the top categories in the category Academic journals by subject area (but that would increase the number of cats and that is not really necessary). --Crusio (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including the arguments used by David Eppstein. -- SchreyP (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's not mentioned in the above is that both these categories refer upwards into specifically scientific and medical categories; that could no longer be achieved from the academic category so something would be lost? AllyD (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query -- The question is perhaps whether some of the medical and scientific journals are in fact non-academic, in the sense that they are intended to provide continuing education to practitioners, at least as much as to promote debate among academics. Many professions have what is popularly referred to as a "trade rag", commonly published by a trade association. These generally have few pretensions to be academic. Perhaps my query is looking for an alternative name for the parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are thinking of Category:Professional and trade magazines (which contains trade/professional magazines). These wouldn't/shouldn't classified as medical journals to start with, since they aren't medical journals (such as Emergency Nurse. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1 There is actually no clear distinction between a professional magazine and an academic journal. Many peer-reviewed journals contain some material that is scientific news, written by the editorial staff,; Nature and Science are particularly known for extensive material of this nature, and the scientific merit of some editorially written journals, such as Journal of Chemical Education, is as great as most peer-reviewed journals in the subject (and, contrastingly, many so called peer-reviewed journals are accept almost anything that gets submitted). The like is true of medicine: considerable material in BMJ is other than peer-reviewed articlesThe actual question is the degree and quality of editorial control, which cannot necessarily be judged from the statements the journal may make about itself. Most indexing services do not differentiate, and consider anything under sufficient stated editorial control the equivalent of a peer-reviewed journal--in my opinion, the sensible practice. (COI--I have been on the board of advisors or a consultant for some such services.) In Wikipedia, there have often been conflicts about the reliability of information in journals as contrasted to professional magazines; our RS specifications are naïve, and there is often no simple answer. In my opinion, the overall category is best called academic and professional periodicals, which can be subdivided between these reporting original research, those publishing reviews (which in the past have rarely been peer-review in the formal sense, but now often are), those publishing conference proceedings (which in turn may be peer-reviewed to varying degrees),those presenting book reviews (which are almost never peer-reviewed, but the sole responsibility of the author of the review) and those offering news and opinion--with some, such as those mentioned, needing to be listed in all 5 of the categories. In applied fields, such as engineering, or law , or medicine, or business, some, or most, or even almost all, of the publications are not academic in the narrow sense, and again, many would need to be considered in both sections. I am not quite satisfied with the term "scientific" as a designation, for it excludes the humanities. which have academic journals & professional magazines also--and some fields, such as history, can variously be considered social science or humanities. (again, the solution may need to be dual listing). DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a clear distinction between academic journals and professional magazines. Academic journals are peer-reviewed (whether the peer-review process is rigourous or not is another debate) and focus on publishing new results, reviews, etc... Professional magazines focus on being a useful resources for professionals, and will not be peer reviewed. They will instead focus on editorials, unreviewed letters to the editor, do some journalism related to the field, cover product releases, publish obituaries, and cover legal and political things relevant to the field. Physical Review Letters (academic journal) vs Physics Today (professional magazine). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is not always as clear as those two (very few journal publishers in any field have quite the rigour of the APS): How do you classify Science and Nature ? they're used equally as both: are they peer-reviewed journals with extensive magazine content, or professional magazines with extensive peer-reviewed content? I recall when Nature proposed to sell libraries an electronic version of the peer-reviewed content only, and make the magazine content available electronically only to individual subscriber--I recall it well, for I was one of the leaders of the library boycott that forced them to make it all available to libraries also. A great many scientific journals, especially those published by societies, have some magazine content, especially unedited lists of meetings presentations--which are in turn only sometimes-- not usually-- peer-reviewed. Some material in some professional magazines is the equivalent of peer-reviewed by the editors who are at least equal in expertise to normal peer reviewers. some peer-reviewed journals use only the board of editor to do the reviewing. What is the difference between the two approaches? Additionally, a good many medical journals such as JAMA and NEJM now send much of their magazine content for outside peer-review: see the author instructions on their websites.(I was going to use those two as examples of mixed content, but it is not actually clear how they treat all the possible material they include.) BMJ, however, clearly has extensive non-peer-reviewed magazine content: see the instructions for one particular type of article The status of any given article in any publication has to be looked at carefully, and will not always be clear even so. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 18 January 2011 (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 theatre[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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Fictional theatre to Category:Theatres and Category:Fictional buildings and structures
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge single article List of fictional theatres to the parent cats. Tassedethe (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Support until such time as the cat can be populated. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2011 (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.

Brest[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Brest to Category:Brest, France
Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Brest to Category:Buildings and structures in Brest, France
Propose renaming Category:Education in Brest to Category:Education in Brest, France
Propose renaming Category:Geography of Brest to Category:Geography of Brest, France
Propose renaming Category:History of Brest to Category:History of Brest, France
Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Brest to Category:Mayors of Brest, France
Propose renaming Category:People from Brest to Category:People from Brest, France
Propose renaming Category:Sport in Brest to Category:Sport in Brest, France
Propose renaming Category:Transport in Brest to Category:Transport in Brest, France
Propose renaming Category:Fortifications of Brest to Category:Fortifications of Brest, France
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article Brest, France; Brest is ambiguous. Category:People from Brest should be a dab category, per Category:People from Brest, Belarus. Tassedethe (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2011 (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:Encirclements in 1941[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: Articilized. What remains will be renamed to Category:Encirclements in World War II. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Encirclements in 1941 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inappropriate in category space. Perhaps can be recreated as an article?. Members of this cat are otherwise well-categorized. Tassedethe (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2011 (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:Districts in Taipei City[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 15:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Districts in Taipei City to Category:Districts of Taipei
Nominator's rationale: Currently, this category and the parent category (also mentioned below) both exist, but the parent category only contains this category. There is no reason for both to exist. At the same time, I also think that "of" is more syntactically correct than "in," so I am nominating a merger and name change at the same time. --Nlu (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2011 (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:Archbishops of Melbourne[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 per nom. I agree that bishops of foo (in plural) is not a title and should not be capitalized. Ruslik_Zero 14:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Melbourne to Category:Anglican archbishops of Melbourne
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Rockhampton to Category:Anglican bishops of Rockhampton
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Sydney to Category:Anglican bishops of Sydney
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Adelaide to Category:Anglican bishops of Adelaide
Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Armidale to Category:Anglican bishops of Armidale
Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Perth to Category:Anglican archbishops of Perth
Nominator's rationale: There are/was (at least) two offices of "Archbishop of Melbourne" etc. - Roman Catholic and Anglican. Thus these names are ambiguous. Mattinbgn (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Firstly, there is Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Melbourne. The Anglican church has no special status in Australia and indeed I would suggest that unless specified most Melburnians would take a mention of the "Archbishop of Melbourne" as meaning the Roman Catholic one unless context suggested otherwise. So, disambiguation is most certainly needed. As for the parenthesised suffix point, I agree entirely but that would be inconsistent with every category in Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese and Category:Anglican bishops by diocese that is in the least bit ambiguous. If you want to have a mass renaming of "bishop" categories, go for it but in the short term some consistency may be useful, no? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears you do want a mass renaming of bishop categories. When and if it reaches a full CfD I will support disambiguation by parenthesised suffix. Be aware that will make the categories inconsistent with the articles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If other categories are incorrectly named, they should be fixed. But regardless of whether the denominational label is prefixed or suffixed, the addition of the denomination does not justify decapatalising the name of the post. If two denoms have a post called "Bishop of Foo", then sticking an adjective in front of it does not alter the fact that "Bishop of Foo" is a title and should still be capitalised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But 'bishops of Foo' is not a title, so it shouldn't be capitalised. I am quite surprised at this objection as there must be thousands of categories capitalised in this fashion. Occuli (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Titles are usually capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it worth differentiating between the two based on the diocese rather than by the denomination of the bishop themselves? For example, instead of "Anglican bishops of Foo" vs "Catholic bishops of Foo" (or "Bishops of Foo (Anglican)" vs "Bishops of Foo (Catholic)"), it would be "Bishops of the Catholic Diocese of Foo" vs "Bishops of the Anglican Diocese of Foo". It may be a technical point, but the difference between the two is the diocese, not the denominations of the individual. There's a big geographical difference between the Anglican Diocese of Adelaide and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide (for example).  -- Lear's Fool 06:52, 24 January 2011 (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:Teddybears STLHM 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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Teddybears STLHM albums to Category:Teddybears albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article for band at Teddybears. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2011 (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 buried in Braintree, Massachusetts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Burials in Braintree, Massachusetts. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People buried in Braintree, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete a category for a non-defining and trivial characteristic.TM 04:30, 15 January 2011 (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 lieutenants[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. Not properly tagged. Ruslik_Zero 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional lieutenants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't understand how a category for every fictional character who has the rank of lieutenant is useful. A lieutenant in a military unit is not the same thing as a lieutenant on a police force or a lieutenant in an organized crime family. Just being a lieutenant doesn't seem to be a strong enough association between fictional characters from across every fictional genre. I Want My GayTV (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's much better to categorise fictional characters by their type of occupation, than by rank. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and maybe break apart. We also have Category:Fictional captains, Category:Fictional commanders, Category:Fictional generals, et al. I can see an argument for breaking them up into police and military, or the like.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Mike Selinker is onto something here. Naval and military captains in the same category is silly, but splitting the ranks need not be. In fact it may make more sense for fictional characters than real people, given that fictional characters may only have one or two ranks in their appearances, whereas a real person may have held many during their career! TheGrappler (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Downmerge Some: A lot of the articles in this cat, should actually be in the Category:Starfleet lieutenants sub-cat. (I can't believe I just said that, but there it is!). RevelationDirect (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The other categories Mike Selinker mentions should also be CFDed. They're far too broad and rather pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – the category is not properly tagged. Neither do its parents make sense: some of its members being police and others army means it is a subcat of neither, not both. Occuli (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2011 (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.

Please view and comment my proposal about the Category:Poets[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: Procedural close - not an actual CfD discussion, pages not tagged, in project space. Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please view and comment my proposal about the Category:Poets :

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:History of Australasian and Oceanic Clothing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:History of Oceanian clothing. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:History of Australasian and Oceanic Clothing to Category:History of Australasian and Oceanian Clothing Category:History of Oceanian clothing
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category seems to be for clothing retaing to Oceania - i.e., Oceanian clothing. "Oceanic clothing" would be things like scuba suits. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an excellent idea, and I named the category in the first place. I don't know what I was thinking ... probably tired that night. Thanks for the fix. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2011 (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.

People from, part 3[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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Crosby to Category:People from Crosby, Merseyside
Propose renaming Category:People from St Helens to Category:People from St Helens, Merseyside
Propose renaming Category:People from Whiston to Category:People from Whiston, Merseyside
Propose renaming Category:People from Loftus to Category:People from Loftus, North Yorkshire
Propose renaming Category:People from Arnold to Category:People from Arnold, Nottinghamshire
Propose renaming Category:People from Beeston to Category:People from Beeston, Leeds
Propose renaming Category:People from Southwell to Category:People from Southwell, Nottinghamshire
Propose renaming Category:People from Madeley to Category:People from Madeley, Shropshire
Propose renaming Category:People from Chard to Category:People from Chard, Somerset
Propose renaming Category:People from Highbridge to Category:People from Highbridge, Somerset
Propose renaming Category:People from Stainforth to Category:People from Stainforth, South Yorkshire
Propose renaming Category:People from Fenton to Category:People from Fenton, Staffordshire
Propose renaming Category:People from Hanley to Category:People from Hanley, Staffordshire
Propose renaming Category:People from Haverhill to Category:People from Haverhill, Suffolk
Propose renaming Category:People from Mildenhall to Category:People from Mildenhall, Suffolk
Propose renaming Category:People from Woodbridge to Category:People from Woodbridge, Suffolk
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As before 1, 2; these are ambiguous, rename to match main article. Consider making dab categories for Crosby (Category:People from Crosby, Minnesota,Category:People from Crosby County, Texas), St Helens (Category:People from St. Helens, Oregon,Category:People from St Helens, Merseyside (district)), Beeston (Category:People from Beeston, Nottinghamshire), Madeley (Category:People from Madeley, Staffordshire ), Haverhill (Category:People from Haverhill, Massachusetts), and Woodbridge (Category:People from Woodbridge, Ontario, Category:People from Woodbridge, Virginia). Tassedethe (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all iff the key articles are also disambiguated in this way, which I assume they all will be (e.g., Crosby, Merseyside). Grutness...wha? 01:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone wants to double check I'll be happy. Tassedethe (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator. I have checked all the categories, and can confirm that in each case: a) the head article is named as per the nom's proposed renaming, and b) the bare name is geographically ambiguous. Support re-creating these as dab categories using {{category ambiguous}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all – per nom and re-create all as dab categories using {{category ambiguous}} per the assiduous BHG. Occuli (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent articles and reduce ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2011 (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/2011_January_15&oldid=1074807397"