Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 8

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

August 8[edit]

Category:List of trademarks using common nouns[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 as the category is empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A fanciful category whose sole contents are both at AfD at present. IT would be quite surprising to find trademarks that do not contain common nouns, really. Then, I suppose, we could have categories for common adverbs, common adjectives, nonsense words and the like. This stuff may be suitable for a miscellany of trivia, but it is not suitable for WIkipedia. There is nothing notable about this as an access point to content, nor even useful. Interesting and amusing, yes, fun, yes, notable, no. Fiddle Faddle 22:10, 8 August 2013 (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:Asian Indoor-Martial Arts Games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found this doing cleanup. I did not see a discussion started anywhere, so bringing it here for a fresh start. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom to match title of 2013 competition. It looks as if this is a merger between two separate preceding competions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2013 (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.

American male actors categories[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: Closed as Keep per concensus and request of nominator. Non-admin close by Cgingold (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have several similar situations here. An editor has recently created a split in these categories to give male their own category. Females are currently in an "actress" subcategory. Currently, the "male" categories are pretty empty and instead, all the males are in the parent categories. So we either have to move everyone into the "male" (or female if appropriate) categories or they have to be deleted. Personally, I'm in favor of deletion because while "actors" can refer to females, it is generally consider to be the masculine form of the word, while "actress" is the feminine form. However, I do not feel very strongly about this; I just feel that something has to be done here. JDDJS (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Category:American male child actors was endorsed in the recent discussion of Category:American child actresses at CfD by some who commented, with no one outright objecting to the creation of this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merges it makes sense to make this subdivision. Fiddle Faddle 22:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note It seems clear that the consensus is going to be to keep all the articles. I am fine with this discussion ending now, but this means all of the categories without male in the title are now just container categories, and should be emptied. JDDJS (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was done at one point with Category:American actors (although it got some more article). This is a real big job, but so is creating the actress categories. I never got done with that. What we have not figured out is, do we want to subdivide the male actor categories all the way down, do we want Category:Male actors from Michigan. I think we should either go that route, or upmerge Category:Actresses from Michigan. I am ok with either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving all the pages is a big job, but all the categories should be tagged as container categories so other editors know not to add more articles. I will do that myself now. About details like Michigan, I was initially going to say not to split by gender, but then I saw that they both had over 100 articles, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. JDDJS (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is now only one article in Category:American actors. It is a multi-person biography on a man and a woman, so I do not really know what to do with it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep We are going over the same issues in other CfDs, some of them active right now. The problem is that "actors" can refer to male actors OR male and female actors. "Actresses" is dated and used less often these days. Ideally, there would be a "American female actors" and "American male actors" which would both be categories under the parent category "American actors". But because "actors" can refer to either men or men and women, it shouldn't be the default category for only men. So, I don't think this is a good move at all.
A study of the Corpus of Modern American English shows a very high rate of usage of the term actress. Quick google searches about actress will find lots of newspapers using the term in the last few years. It is still clearly used in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We seem to have a rather clear consensus that sex is a strong defining characteristic for actors based on how they are categorized in the real world through awards, books, magazine articles and other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 August 2013‎
  • Keep. The word "actor" can refer to a "male actor", but it is widely used in a gender-neutral sense, so the gender needs to be specified. As agreed at numerous CFDs over the last year, gender is a defining characteristic of an actor, so we need the explicitly gendered categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This discussion can be closed now. I withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2013 (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:Puerto Rican bloggers[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: No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in this category JDDJS (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bloggers by nationality is an accepted structure. While Puerto Rico is under US control, it is socially and legally distinct enough that for all intents and purposes it is a separate nationality, and we can have a category no matter how small, as long as it is an accepted set up. Plus, just because we only currently have one article is not the same as there only being one notable blogger who is Puerto Rican. I find that hard to believe to be fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge they carry US passports, they are US citizens, etc. People in the District of Columbia have similar social, political, and legal distinctions - like not having a governor, not fully self-governing, unlike the 50 states, no senators or members of the house, and for a long time no electoral votes.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep - Puerto Rico may be a US possession, but it has its own distinct history, and the Puerto Rican people are most assuredly quite distinct. And this is by no means the only category for Puerto Rican people by occupation -- there are many, and this one is no less valid than the others. Cgingold (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:IMPROVE, WP:EDIT, and dozens of precedents as evidenced by a Google search with the parameters 'site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:Puerto intitle:Rican intitle:Category -intitle:talk'. Nominator's rationale is not backed up by any policies. Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus to merge this category should be "determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The nominator has not provided any policy for which this nomination should be "viewed through its lens". Per WP:IMPROVE, a policy, editors should "improve pages wherever [they] can" and "be bold in updating articles". The author of this category created this category within the framework of both Wikipedia's policies and practices as evidenced by WP:IMPROVE and the Google search provided in this argument. The argument that only one article is part of said category as of this writing is weak as the category can be easily filled as time passes by. In addition, WP:EDIT, a policy, establishes that "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide [...] the better it is." This category "provides information to people" and generally speaking, by doing so, makes Wikipedia better. Furthermore, WP:EDIT also establishes that, "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress." Therefore, the argument that only one article is inside said category is weak as Wikipedia is a work in progress and more articles can be added to said category in the future easily. In conclusion, this CfD should be closed as a speedy keep. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Ahnoneemoos - As it happens, we are in agreement about keeping this category. However, I've noticed that you have posted the same basic paragraph-long argument in at least one other CFD discussion. I think you should understand that you're really not helping your cause with this sort of brow-beating approach. It's entirely possible to articulate your essential points without using such obstreperous verbiage. Please give it a try. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- There are no subcats for any of the 50 states, nor is the category obviously over-populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Puerto Rico is a special case. Until and unless they take up that "become a state" thing, their current status is distinct enough that lumping them in as "American" is premature at best. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:54, 15 August 2013 (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:Leakers[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 Bushranger One ping only 17:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Even if we were to put aside the fact that virtually everybody in government "leaks" something at some point, an even more salient issue is that the actions which are presumably the focus of this category are already well-captured by Category:Whistleblowers and its subcats. In other words, it is redundant at best, and hopelessly unbounded at worst. Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have proposed merging if that made sense, but Category:Whistleblowers is a high-level category, with individual articles being listed in the sub-cats by nationality rather than in the main category. Cgingold (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how does one distinguish between the two concepts? Which were the Rosenbergs, for example? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—in my part of the world a leaker can be a whistleblower, a journalist's source, a Kim Philby type, or even someone caught urinating in a public place. There are also inanimate objects that leak such as trucks, boats and containers with holes in them. There is no single definition of "leaker" and so best to delete this category. Merging with whistleblowers is problematic in that not everyone who "leaks" information is whistleblowing per the definition in the lede at Whistleblower: "A whistleblower is a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organisation." Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whistleblowing is a clearly defined thing, but much more limited to this. This includes people who are acting as spies, who are getting money for releasing classified documents, and I see no evidence it is a clearly defined term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Leaking information is such a routine thing in politics that it is in no way defining of those who do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is different from whistleblowing, which is about shouting about something that is obviously wrong. Spies are also different; most are paid informants, though a few (such as Anthony Blunt are not, rather operating out of loyalty to the objectives of a foreign power. Those recently involved in publishing classified information - or revealing its existence do not seem to fit either of these exactly. They believe they are acting from high motives (like whistleblowers), but whether there actions are for the public good (even in their own countries) is a POV-issue. The sentences imposed clearly show that the US-government does not share that POV. There may be the basis of a category here, but I do not like the present name and cannot think of a better one. Would Category:Publicisers of classified information do? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of course in favour of Keep - Leakers (sources leaking a secret [stase secrets etc.] to the press) - are a very important issue in the news and politics and we should enable people to search and find a category that will include all leakers, as any leaker is a topic related to another leaker. --Midrashah (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Note: User:Midrashah is the Category's creator. Cgingold (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Midrashah, you haven't addressed what I would say is the overarching problem with this category, which is the nearly boundless scope it encompasses. In places like Washington DC, nearly everybody in a position to do so leaks something at one time or another (and usually more often than that). I'm quite serious. The more noteworthy cases are generally going to fall under the heading of whistleblowing, as I've already pointed out. Cgingold (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2013 (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 Committee against Torture[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. Once the merge is completed, appropriate cleanup will need to be completed, hopefully by those who supported these actions. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a rule we do not categorize by membership in specific organizations. Exceptions are made only for highly notable organizations. This may possibly qualify as such, as it appears to be intended for Members of the United Nations Committee Against Torture, which is not at all clear from the misnamed title of the category. If kept, it should be renamed accordingly. Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:IMPROVE, WP:EDIT, and more than 42 precedents evidenced by a Google search with the parameters 'site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:Category intitle:Members intitle:Committee'. Nominator's rationale is false and incorrect since we do categorize by membership in specific organizations (see Google search linked). Furthermore, his rationale is not backed up by any policies. Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus to merge this category should be "determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The nominator has not provided any policy for which this nomination should be "viewed through its lens". We have also proven the nominator's rationale to be a fallacy (a false argument). In addition, WP:IMPROVE, a policy, establishes that "[editors should] improve pages wherever [they] can" and that editors should "be bold in updating articles". WP:EDIT, another policy, also establishes that "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide [...] the better it is." This category "provides information to people" and generally speaking, by doing so, makes Wikipedia better. The author of this category created this category within the framework of both Wikipedia's policies and practices as evidenced by WP:IMPROVE and the Google search provided in this argument. In conclusion, this CfD should be closed as a speedy keep. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Ahnoneemoos's rationale is based on policies and guidelines relating to articles but the page under discussion here is not an article. This is a category, which per WP:CAT#Overview is a form of navigational device. The merits of articles are asssessed on their content, which may indeed be capable of improvement if the topic is notable; but a category based on a flawed concept cannot be improved. Ahnoneemoos provides no argument to support any claim that membership of this committee is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of its members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ahnoneemoos' WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments doesn't negate that membership in this organization is not defining for those people. Only one of the 3 mentions membership in the 1st para, and one doesn't mention membership at all. Imagine if we had Category:Members of the American Bar Association and the thousands of bios to be added to that crap. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, per WP:CONSENSUS, which policy are you invoking to delete this? John McCain's first paragraph doesn't mention he is a memoirist yet he is categorized in Category:American memoirists. The articles can easily be edited to reflect membership. Regarding the Category:Members of the American Bar Association and the "thousands of bios to be added to that crap", are you aware that Category:Living people exists? There are more than 600,000 articles in that category. Please make sure you also see how many "Members of Association 'X'" we do have by doing a Google Search with the parameters 'site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:Category intitle:Members intitle:Association -intitle:talk' (36 as of this writing). Whether a category would be bloated is irrelevant and doesn't constitute merit to prohibit a category from existing, per WP:NOTPAPER, a policy. I have cited three policies to backup opposition to this deletion, which one would you like to cite? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or at least merge). The nominator's rationale makes some good points (such as the ambiguous name of the category), and is right about the general practice of categorising people by membership of organisations only in some rare circumstances. However, the nomination is flawed by its failure to cite any policy or guideline. In this case, the relevenat guideline is WP:DEFINING, and I see no evidence that membership of the United Nations Committee Against Torture is defining characteristic of its members.
    Editors may take different views of the merits or notability of the Committee, but that is not the issue here. What matters is the significance of the committee in a biographical article on its members, and I don't see any evidence that the committee's members are usually defined by their service on it.
    Note that I prefer deletion rather than merger, because I don't think that this sort of role really counts as "activism", but I could live with merger as a second-best option.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and purge of anyone who is not really an activists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and purge per JPL. Contents should be individuals. Membership of UN committees is commonly open to one delegate per country. IN some cases, this will be people from countries perpetrating torture, whose objective may be to hinder the work of the committee, by getting it off their country's back. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2013 (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 of the Parent-Teacher Association[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 Bushranger One ping only 17:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A Parent-Teacher Association isn't a single national organization with many local branches, but rather a type of organization on an extreme local level (that may be affiliated with a national group). This is WP:OCAT by a really trivial intersection; in no case does this contribute anything to subjects' notability, and in a number of the articles it's not even mentioned. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I pretty much agree with the nominator's remarks. However, I would like to know if this category is in fact being used for people who have served as officials in a local or national PTA. If so, then it should probably be kept and renamed accordingly. (Sorry, I just don't have the time to go thru the articles myself to answer the question I asked.) Cgingold (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: For starters, the assertion that the PTA affiliation isn't even mentioned in the articles so categorized is false; each of the articles not only mentions the PTA, but links to it. And it is by no means a trivial intersection, as a great many politicians have used the PTA as a stepping-stone for greater prominence. The assertion that it doesn't contribute to any of the subjects' notabilities is also untrue; Alice Birney's notability stems solely from the fact that she started the PTA. So, in short, pretty much all of the rationale for deletion is invalid, and it should be kept. pbp 05:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - FYI, while there is no outright "rule" requiring editors to disclose the fact that they are a category's creator, that is the generally observed practice here at CFD, Purplebackpack. That said, I am always happy when category creators join these discussions, especially because it affords us an opportunity to ask/answer pertinent questions. So I would appreciate it if you would address the question I asked in my preceding comment. Thank you! Cgingold (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case it is possible that articles were just added to the category carelessly. Julia Lathrop, for instance, is stated to have been in opposition to the PTA, while Joy Berry has been a guest speaker for them but there's no evidence she was a member. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like the category was populated with anyone who held any sort of position in any PTA at any level. Apart from perhaps founders, I don't think being a "PTA person" is defining for individuals. It's certainly not defining for a bunch of those currently in the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there may be some subset that could be recovered under a more specific name (eg 'Presidents of the National Parent-Teacher Association (United States)' but the present name is hopelessly vague. Oculi (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—The existence of this category suggests that "people" can be considered as notable for having served on their child's primary/elementary school PTA (assuming of course that the local newspaper publishes their name). Alternatively rename and repurpose per Oculi. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no one is notable solely for being a member of the PTA. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a general name for many organizations in multiple countries that are linked. Membership is not generally defining, many people will join without ever doing much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or (possibly) Rename, repurpose and purge In UK, almost every school has a PTA. If in US, there is a single national organisation, we might allow a cateogiry for its officials, but it would need a title indicating that it was for officials of the US PTA. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2013 (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:Modern military equipment of <country>[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. I deleted all of these since they were empty as long as they had been nominated working from the list in the CfD category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...China ...Republic of China ...Colombia ...Croatia ...Denmark ...Dominican Republic ...Ecuador ...Egypt ...Estonia ...Iceland ...Israel ...Italy ...Latvia ...Lithuania ...Malaysia ...Mexico ...Montenegro ...Morocco ...Netherlands ...New Zealand ...Norway ...Oman ...Peru ...Philippines ...Poland ...Russia ...Saudi Arabia ...Singapore ...Sweden ...Ukraine

Note: Any categories that are not empty when the CFD is closed should not be deleted.
Nominator's rationale: These (currently empty) categories are for articles about military equipment (weapons, vehicles etc) developed by the specified country post-1990. These categories have become empty as a result of removing the "Active naval ships of Foo" categories (on the basis that those categories are by period/country-of-usage rather than by period/country-of-development). Many of these categories could be populated (e.g. China and Israel have developed military equipment during this period), but it would be better to create a "Post–Cold War" (or "Post–1945") category instead (thus avoiding the ambiguous word "modern"). My intention is to rename those categories (under Category:Modern military equipment) that are not empty in a future CFD. DexDor (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. The reason that I had created it was that at the time, a page or pages were in it, and it was uncategorized. I'm certainly no expert in military equipment, so I have no opinion on what the cutoff year should be. Ardric47 (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of renaming these categories, most of which would then be deleted under their new names by another CFD/CFDS ? DexDor (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2013 (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/2013_August_8&oldid=1074810465"