Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 28

< November 27	November 29 >

November 28[edit]

Category:Assassin's Creed characters[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Both articles in this category are already included in its parent category (Category:Assassin's Creed), and the category only actually includes one character from Assassin's Creed. – Pee Jay 23:26, 28 November 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.

Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture[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.'--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These were deleted by consensus in August 2011 (see WP:CFD/2011 Aug 3). I don't see previous concerns addressed, particularly issues on adequate sourcing. A G4 speedy request was contested as the author feels he can address the concerns of the previous discussion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars for dropping the Speedy request and opening this CFD for discussion. I had probably originally created these categories and recreated them recently, in the process of starting articles on NRHP-listed places. I was not on wikipedia during the period of the last CFD.

The discussants in the CFD which deleted Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture and 3 related others did not have full information, such as exactly how this category is used, and how many National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed places have this description. The term is one of 40 most commonly coded architectural styles for NRHP-listed places, as entered into the NRHP's NRIS database and is indeed somewhat a catchall, for buildings built with an amalgam of Revivals styles. The category is useful. There are many architectural Revival styles, and many of them were popular in the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th century period. Many buildings defy categorization with just one, like "Classical Revival" or "Egyptian Revival" (tho I am not sure these specific ones were among the popular revivals then) or other narrower terms, because they in fact show a mix of the Revival styles that were all in fashion. For individual buildings, if a primary, narrower category can eventually be determined from more sources, it would be fine to revise the categorization to something more specific. It was stated in the CFD that there probably would not be an article corresponding, ever. That is not so, the existing corresponding article/section at Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture could easily be expanded to give more info. To respond to CFD statements:

In the CFD it was stated "I have a feeling that this may be another NRHP designation category that is not really defined in any articles." It is sort of defined in current article/section Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture and that could/should be expanded.
In the CFD it was stated "these are all arbitrary if not original research categories of architecture" -- not so, this is not arbitrary or original by an editor, but rather it is following the National Register architectural style coding.
In the CFD it was stated "Delete if you can not find a place to put them, which no one has suggested," well, that loses useful information from all the articles. It would be fine to reclassify a given article to a more specific category if one has more specific info, but the category is just right for some/many buildings and more specific info is not yet available for most cases.

I had a report once of the number of NRHP listings having this and other of the 40 most common style categories, but can't find it right now. My guess is that there are 500-2,000 possible members of the category. Hope this is adequate explanation, will watch and respond to questions. --do ncr am 23:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Until there is a proper article defining what this is, we cannot have a category. Even then, I am dubious as to whehter this title would be the right one. The article directs to a general one on American architecture that consists of a series of stub sections. I feel sure that there must be proper articles on many of the styles, to which that article, probably renamed as History of United States architecture might become a useful general (parent) article. However, creating a category is not the right way to start this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you mean "we cannot have a category". We can: there is one now. It makes sense to have it, to collect all the instances of the use of this type of architecture, mostly as identified by one reliable source, the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I see that you don't like the current article, nor do i. Would it help to change this to a hidden category, consider it for administrative purposes, until there is a better article? I would be okay with that. --do ncr am 17:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read "should not" for "cannot", I think you'll find the comment makes sense. Users express an opinion; sometimes a user will express an opinion using absolute language, when really what they mean is that you should preface everything they write with "in my opinion", or "I think". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about that, thanks for explaining. --do ncr am 22:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see that the concerns from the previous discussion have been addressed. I don't think we need to have a category for every NRHP division, especially when there is so little information on WP about this particular division that would set out its notability and relevance. Wikipedia categories do not need to mirror the categorization schemes developed by other organizations. I've seen this a lot in, for instance, the medical/health categories, and in some cases, it just doesn't work in the WP context. At this stage, it looks like one of these instances. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (voted Keep above) Look, there are about 37 architectural styles in Category:Revival architectural styles. And there are many buildings built with a combination of styles, e.g. with elements of both Greek Revival architecture and Italianate style that are included in that list. Ebenezer Watts House is an article i just visited, which has both Italianate and Federal elements. It would be absurd to assert that buildings having mixed architectural styles don't exist. The 2,000 guess-timated NRHP-listed buildings having this "Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture" coding are certainly each including one or more Revival styles in them. Is your issue that "Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture" is too specific as a proper noun type phrase? I wouldn't mind creating some new Category:Revivals architecture or Category:Mixed Revivals architecture or some other more general term, corresponding to article Revivalism (architecture) that could be used for more than just these NRHP-listed places. But, it defies logic to remove the architectural style category altogether from the NRHP articles that i have added it to, since the category was last deleted (losing who knows how many articles). --do ncr am 00:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues is—why do we have to use the NRHP styles coding system for WP categories? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we have to, where the NRHP coding system doesn't make sense for wikipedia. The NRHP system does make perfect sense for us to follow, as we do, for its narrower categories corresponding to our Category:Shingle Style architecture and Category:Greek Revival architecture. I would accept that "Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture" is a phrase coined by the NRHP though, and that we could use a broader phrase like Category:Revivals architecture. --do ncr am 03:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After having gone through thousands and thousands of NRHP articles, I am not inclined to believe anything from the nominations or the database. Bottom line is that the information presented is not always reliable. So creating categories to match how the NRHP has decided to organize things may have some benefit, but I'm not inclined to blindly go forward supporting it. Anyone for Category:Triple deckers? Oh, and consider salting. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a different matter, Vegaswikian, about how many edits you put into the conversion of date-of-significance categories from the NRHP's NRIS database, into date completed type categories, and in dealing with historic districts vs. individual properties. I don't happen to think that would be very rewarding, especially as NRIS is not specifically recording construction completion dates, but rather is recording "dates of significance" more generally, often not completion dates (and obviously not for historic districts). I don't know what you refer to about salting, unless you refer to Category:Saltbox architecture which, indeed, i created. It is not an NRIS category. About triple deckers, that is not an NRIS category, and I have the impression it is a Boston / New England local term, not worthy of a wikipedia category. But, there is no reliability issue about NRHP database identifying architectural styles that I am aware of. --do ncr am 03:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More info Okay, here is some more information for you. Working on article for NRHP-listed Buena Vista Park Historic District, in Tulsa, OK, one of the NRHPs for which a NRHP nomination form is available on-line, I note that the 2006 document shows coding for

 
Architectural Classification (Enter categories from instructions)
LATE 19TH & 20 CENTURY REVIVALS: Colonial Revival
LATE 19TH & 20 CENTURY AMERICAN MOVEMENTS: Prairie School
LATE 19 & 20 CENTURY AMERICAN MOVEMENTS: Bungalow/Craftsman

at its Section 7, page 4. I've seen this before i guess. Colonial Revival, often used in the first decades of the 1900s, is indeed a 20th century revival; the Prairie School and Bungalow/craftsman are indeed better described as American movements. The corresponding NRHP NRIS database codes for this are just the two, which have been getting categorized in new wikipedia articles as Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States and Category:Late 19th and Early 20th Century American Movements architecture. It seems reasonable, for the article, to replace those two categories by more specific Category:Colonial Revival architecture, Category:Prairie School architecture, and Category:Bungalow/Craftsman architecture, which I did in this article. However, for many NRHP-listed places, the NRIS database info is available but not the full NRHP nomination document that NRIS coders work from. It is also possible that NRHP nom docs will actually describe the places as being mixes of revival styles, or mixes of American movements styles, I suppose. I think it best to keep the categories in, although I would agree that the category could be hidden and considered an administrative category, for articles where more specific categories are yet to be identified, for now at least, until proper articles on the American Revivals and American Movements get written. Which I could be the one to do, someday, but I would probably need to get to a library with architecture books, and that's not gonna be soon. --do ncr am 22:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

So, my proposal for now is to Keep these categories, Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture and Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States, but to change them to hidden/administrative categories. And to do the same for Category:Late 19th and Early 20th Century American Movements architecture, which was deleted in the same past CFD that deleted these ones. The category page can be edited to provide comment that the terms are those of the NRHP program, that there is not consensus to use these as wikipedia categories, and to provide direction that more specific categories such as Colonial Revival or Prairie School are wanted, for articles instead, esp. where that may be provided by consulting the NRHP nom doc for a place. And that this is a hidden, administrative category. And that the status could be revisited if/when further development of American Revivalism and American Movements topics in wikipedia are better developed. My point is that we don't want to lose the actual, accurate information in the articles for NRHP places of architectural note that points towards appropriate categorizing. Building, not tearing down.

A piece of further information, that Vegaswikian but not everyone commenting is probably aware of, is that the Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture and Category:Late 19th and Early 20th Century American Movements architecture categories are provided as suggested categories for articles by the most commonly used off-wiki tool for starting NRHP articles. I think it is helpful to let that tool keep suggesting those, and to accumulate articles in these categories.

I hope this might meet your approval. Would this be okay? --do ncr am 17:42, 10 December 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:Theorems and conjectures about prime numbers[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of Category:Theorems and conjectures about prime numbers, redundant with Category:Theorems about prime numbers and Category:Conjectures about prime numbers.

Nominator's rationale: The new category was recently created without knowledge of Category:Conjectures about prime numbers. The creator brought the matter up to WT:WikiProject Mathematics where it was suggested to replace the category with one for theorems and another for conjectures. This having been done, I request a (procedural) deletion of this category which now contains only two categories and no articles and cannot, by definition, be expanded past that. The parent, Category:Prime numbers, has few child categories and is not in need of further layers of categorization. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty. In theory, the Theorems and conjectures categories ought to be in it, but they are both in the parent, so that there is nothing to upmerge. Perhaps our nom should have made a nomination here, before making the change (out of process), but it does not really matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might have been reasonable for me to have done so. But note that the category is new and never contained very much content at all -- its creator was not aware of the Conjectures category at the time of creation and the Theorems category did not exist. So hopefully I can be excused. :) CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:46, 30 November 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:Rights of the accused[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Rights of the accused to Category:Criminal procedure

Nominator's rationale: Merge. For the same reasons stated here. This category is at best repetitive, and at worst based on a subjective, and misinformed, understanding of criminal law. All criminal procedures can be understood as "rights of the accused." But there are many reasons why this framing is vague and arbitrary. In other words, not an appropriate categorization. Savidan 16:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It ought to be possible to devise a category with this name, which would be a subcategory of criminal procedure. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree. Every question of criminal procedure involves the allocation of rights between the accused and the government. Every rule of criminal procedure affects the rights of the accused. Any subcategory would either be arbitrarily drawn (i.e., if the rule or case seems "pro-defendant") or entirely coextensive. Savidan 07:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. I essentially agree with what User:Savidan has said about this. The category represents a very superficial or at least arbitrary concept of "rights of the accused". All of criminal procedure is done because the accused has rights. The government doesn't do it because they enjoy it, or because it's easy, or because they need jobs for people. They do what they do because an accused has rights. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:32, 5 December 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:Places associated with people[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. With most all of the subcategories nominated for deletion, this one probably should also go. Associated with is rather ambiguous and generally not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As creator, this container cat obviously serves no useful purpose now that its sub-cats are being deleted one after the other. Will soon be empty anyway. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking through my delete !vote: I suggest waiting to see if any of the subcats are kept. Not all necessarily appear to be on the road to deletion, at this time. If we end up with one or two being kept, then we still need a container cat, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the oddest trees in recent memory. There are few places not associated with somebody by somebody; there are some places that are associated with have few if no people as well, but particular places tied to particular people is a bit much especially with no objective criteria for inclusion. Imagine the category congestion on places tied to lots of notable people: London, Rome, New York, to mention three. And while I'm ranting: if London is associated with someone (recent), isn't also England, the UK, the EU, Europe, and Earth also associated with them as well? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 2 December 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:Places that Gautama Buddha visited[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Like associated with, places someone visited is not defining. Anyone for Category:George Washington slept here? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This one was recently discussed here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, it was a rename which is why I did not remember it. Still that discussion had a lot of support to delete. With the rename out of the way, the discussion can focus on deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recently discussed, shockingly kept. I'm still in favor of deletion for all the reasons I mentioned before. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep -- If we want something more specific we might limit it to pilgrimage destinations that he visited. The British equivalent would be Elzabeth I slept here, but this is hardly notable, because such places are not pilgrimage destinations, at least not in the same way. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete places by visitor is a very bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Places associated with Gautama Buddha and keep. As I just commented below, I think 'places associated with people' are acceptable when the people are major religious figures. (Although it doesn't seem to exist, Category:Places associated with Jesus Christ would also be acceptable.) Robofish (talk) 00:56, 3 December 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:Places associated with Muhammad[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: All other "Places associated with X" categories are on the chopping block for the same reason: Trivial, non-defining characteristic for a navigation scheme. Category:Mecca and Category:Medina are even in here, which means that dozens (hundreds?) of articles about things that have nothing to do with Muhammad are subcategorized here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename -- The category is in fact quite a narrow one, covering just Mecca, Medina, and the mountain and cave where he (allegedly) had his revelation. WE might have a more targeted name, but I cannot think of one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete places by people is a very bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think 'places associated with people' are generally a bad idea, but places associated with major religious figures seem worth categorising. This one is small and not likely to increase in any case. Robofish (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being small is not a reason to keep. More of a reason to delete. And why is the persons occupation matter in the case of being defining for this category? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have learned very well over the years that keeping categories that have non defining inclusion criteria creates maintenance problems going forward. While one can say there may be criteria for this category, that does not prevent other like named categories from being created based on the mere existence of this category. Further we really need to see why this is defining for the individual. If the data is important then a template or a list would better serve navigation. I'll add that the four places are already adequately covered in the main article so why do we also need a category for navigation? If there is a need to provide some type of structure for religious people, then consider creating that under some more tightly defined category name and structure. However I'm not convinced that this can be done. As Carlossuarez46 said, this is a very bad idea! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Vegaswikian. I think it's inappropriate to categorize places in this manner—especially entire cities like Mecca and Medina. Cities are "associated with" all sorts of things and people, and we can't have a category for every single one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:19, 5 December 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:Opera ASA employees[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: Speedy rename C2D. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Opera ASA employees to Category:Opera Software employees

Nominator's rationale: Per main article/cat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 28 November 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:Places associated with William Shakespeare[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Associated with is ambiguous and frequently not defining. In the case of the contents of this category, it includes places that did not exist during his lifetime. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the two or three places mostly heavily associated with him, they can be upmerged, but there is no need for such a vague and trivial scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but purge -- Despite its apparent vagueness, the category seems to be well-targeted, mainly covering homes of the bard and his family and memorials to him. I would eliminate Huntingdon Library whose association is only having a unique survial of a printed text. Conversely one might include (for example) the Folger Shakespeare Library, but I would disencourage this. Can we think of a better name? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete place by people is a very bad idea, for reasons I've discussed at the parent category to this. If there is notability of the juncture, write an article Places associated with William Shakespeare and expound on what the association is, what reliable sources tell us about it, and why it's significant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stuff like Memorials to William Shakespeare should just be upmerged to Category:William Shakespeare. Places like cities are associated with all sorts of things and people and we can't have a category for each one of them. Carlos's idea of creating a list article that is referenced would be a preferable first step. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. This is especailly bad since it seems open to inclusion of places Shakespeare never was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 17 December 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:Zurich Minds[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Defined as "Attendees and Participants in the Zurich Minds Conference held in Zurich every year." Having been an attendee at any particular conference is not defining for that person. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is an (oddly named) article Zurich.minds which seems to mainly consist of a list of the same names. I've linked it from the cat page. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining characteristic. Robofish (talk) 00:53, 3 December 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.