Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 23 March 25 >

March 24[edit]

XYZ in fiction overcategorization[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason: Overcategorization. Wikipedia is not meant to have an exhaustive list of every topic or concept that appears in every work of fiction. See discussion at the village pump. --Atlantima (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and rename They should be cleaned out to only those which the central plot point is the thing being categorized. Then they should be renamed to Category: X about Y, such as Category: Fiction about dreams , Category: Fiction about incest , Category: Fiction about twins , Category: Fiction about rape , Category: Fiction about alien visitation . Possibly merge them together into Category:fiction about Z categories, instead of having separate subcategories. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The themes of fictional works ARE their defining characteristics. Nothing trivial here. Dimadick (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • cleanup and rename per 65.92.180.137. Presence of a dream in a film does not define that film. OTOH, if the whole film is about dreams -e.g. that is the theme of the film, then there may be some merit. The same applies for rape, twins, etc. The 'about' may capture this, and help clean them out. We should not have a category where every book that happens to have a character who is a twin gets classified under 'Films with Twins'- that's just silly. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even when most of a film consists of a dream, such as is the case with The Wizard of Oz (1939 film), it is really just a literary device and not something worth categorizing. Categorization by literary devices used is not a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now we're near tackling the intractable problem of the "about" categories which is how much about the subject must it be (and who establishes that threshold) and what reliable source tells us that it's at least that much. Pure OCAT and OR and SYNTH. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is not what categories are about. Fully referenced encyclopedic articles on, for example, Alien visitations in television, might be a better idea. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment is that a listify and delete (qualified by what appears on the lists) ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:07, 31 March 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:Italian emigrants to England[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 Category:Italian emigrants to England to Category:Italian emigrants to the Kingdom of England; keep Category:Italian emigrants to Great Britain; and upmerge Category:Iranian emigrants to British India to Category:Iranian emigrants to India – Fayenatic London 21:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. "This category is for people who emigrated from areas under the control of governments that would be united into Italy after 1870 to the Kingdom of England prior to the formation of Great Britain in 1707". Anyone spot the inconsistency in emigrating from the post-1870 entity of Italy to the pre-1707 entity of the Kingdom of England? In any case these are single-article categories that could easily be added to Category:Italian emigrants to the United Kingdom which at 32 articles is hardly overloaded. Le Deluge (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(update)I think we can add the 2-article Category:Iranian emigrants to British India by the same logic - technically in English they would have been Persians for most of that time, but if we understand what is meant by "Iranian" then I think we can cope with them going to "India". I've not quite decided how I feel about some of the similar categories - technically Category:White Russian emigrants to Yugoslavia is another mismatch of dates with the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes aside from the ambiguity of that name which also applies to similar categories to Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia and Japan. Do we have any established conventions on cases like the above or the likes of Category:Hanoverian emigrants to the United States, Category:Imperial Austrian emigrants to the Russian Empire and Category:Zanzibari emigrants to Germany?Le Deluge (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed the CfD going for 6 weeks on White Russians so I'll wait and see on that front, but my instinct says that it's close to breaking WP:OC#OPINION even if they are probably the best group to WP:IAR if any on that front. I'd rather just go with one cat for Russian emigrants and another for membership of the White movement if appropriate.Le Deluge (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete These people were clearly emigrants. There is no good reason to delete these categories. They might be worth merging somewhere, but deleting them outright just does not work. The people involved were clearly emigrants and we categorize emigrants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Bonvisi is described in his article as an "Italian" emigrant to England. There were clearly Italian people before 1870. The way it is described in the article is less than ideal, but it is clear that Italians existed and emigrated in the time period.
  • Comment If you think the Iranian category should be renamed to Persian, you should nominate it for being renamed. However in Iran the name has for centuries been Iran, so I think the category works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise how are we going to describe Giovanni Battista Cipriani other than as an Italian emigrant to Great Britain. He was clearly Italian, coming from what was then considered Italy, and clearly emigrated to Great Britain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cipriani was presumably a subject of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, a distinct country like the Kingdom of England. Your real problem is that you're trying to mix apples with oranges, or rather legal entities like the Kingdom of England with geographical entities like Italy pre-1861. I guess it's because some of those geographical entities have given their names to modern-day countries, but you should understand the distinction. As a result, perhaps the best long-term option would be to use only geographical terms for the British Isles, and have people emigrating to either Great Britain or Ireland (as in the islands) rather than trying to overlay short-lived man-made constructs like kingdoms. As for Iran - we're in the English wiki not Persian, and in English "Persia" was the equivalent of "Kingdom of England" up until 1935. But I'm happy to stick to the anachronistic "Iran" for pre-1935 emigration. "British India" was just "India" for pretty much its entire existence, again it's overcategorising to split it up. Aside from that, +1 to just about everything GO said. Le Deluge (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing immigrants anachronitically is just a bad idea. People emigrated to specific countries, and the people involved in the previous Italian categories were not immigrating to the United Kingdom because it did not yet exist. The Italian emigrants to Great Britain category is larger than many other emigrant categories, it currently has 10 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea in these cases—at least for the first two. For the most part, the change from GB to the UK was really a change in name only, as far as the issue of emigrants to the country go. I don't see why we would need subcategories for those who emigrated to GB rather than UK. As the nominator pointed out, if we wanted to completely avoid anachronisms, we would have to change the "Italian" as well, and I don't think that's a good idea either. In my opinion, some users have gotten way too concerned with the issue of "anachronisms" in category names, which results in some overly specific categories that will never be well populated or adequately linked into appropriate category trees. The category system is a blunt tool, and I don't support trying to fashion it into a scalpel. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of these are now single-entry categories. So the initial assumption we should scapt them as such really does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Italian emigrants to Great Britain currently is larger than Category:British emigrants to Italy. To merge it as overly small does not make sense. It is logical to subdivide by time, especially when such reflects major political changes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The White Russian cats are not about opinions, it is about the fact that the people were clearly not nationals of the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire was distict, and they were in their own mind stateless people seeking new homes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 26 March 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:Struggle/Fight of Democratic Filipinos politicians[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: Speecy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject article is now at Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino, and this party has never been referred in English as "Struggle/Fight of Democratic Filipinos". –HTD 18:08, 24 March 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:Rise Up Philippines politicians[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 renam C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject article is now at Bangon Pilipinas Party. –HTD 18:07, 24 March 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:Philippine Democratic Party – People's Power politicians[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject article is now at Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan; can be amended on how the dash/hyphen is to be used (either "-" "–", with or without spaces before and after the dash). –HTD 18:07, 24 March 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's Power (Philippines) politicians[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject article is now at Lakas ng Bayan, and it has never been referred to in English as "People's Power". –HTD 18:05, 24 March 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:Partner of the Free Filipino politicians[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject article is now at Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino. –HTD 18:04, 24 March 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:New Society Movement politicians[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject article is now at Kilusang Bagong Lipunan. –HTD 18:03, 24 March 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:Force of the Filipino Masses politicians[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subject article is now at Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino. –HTD 18:02, 24 March 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:Suicides by jumping in front of a train[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current category name is somewhat accurate (but also note that a person can commit suicide by lying on the tracks or standing in front of a train as well, which should fall into this category but won't technically be "jumping") but very awkward. Shortening would make it more manageable. (There is a separate nomination for Category:Suicides by jumping from a height to Category:Suicides by jumping that I would have included this category in the renaming discussion of, had I noticed this category.) --Nlu (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Seems reasonable, concise is usually good. Le Deluge (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this expands the scope of the category, doesn't it? If you jump from a moving train then couldn't it also be part of this category, which is different from being run over by one. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but then doesn't it make sense to group them? --Nlu (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to more concise name. The slight theoretical expansion is worthwhile. It would not really make sense to have seperte Category:Suicides by jumping from a train and ;Category:Suicides by sitting on the railroad tracks until run over by a train and Category:Suicides by running in front of a train and other possible permutations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. JPL puts it well; the defining thing is that the train is what kills you, while the way you get it to do that isn't really relevant for categorisation purposes. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if you jump from a train, the train is a vehicle towards your death, but what kills you can be a large variety of things, such as a telegraph pole, or drowning in a river. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, but then train is still the main instrumentality of death. I mean, we can conceivably think of situation where a person commits suicide and ends up dying by a combination of five or six causes due to freaky events. That still wouldn't make sense of overly specific category names. --Nlu (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess there are cases where you jump from a stationary train, and the train is not at all part of your death, but they probably do not belong here at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A train itself doesn't kill, so renaming to Category:Suicides by train hitting or the like would be more appropriate I think. Brandmeistertalk 19:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, poison itself doesn't kill, either, for example. I think in this case, given that the train is the means, shortening it makes it less unwieldy. --Nlu (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Category:Suicides by train is pretty evocative of what happens in most cases. --Lquilter (talk) 14:45, 2 May 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:Fish and chip restaurants[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL. Only four notable entries, the fifth being a redirect to a target which makes no mention of a restaurant. H. Salt and Arthur Treacher's are more appropriately categorized as "fast food seafood". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between a "fish and chip" shop and a "fish and chips" shop? Also, the category itself links to Fish and Chips.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fish and chip shop sells fish and chips - but you don't get "fish and chips shops", the s of chips is elided. I'd agree that they are different to seafood restaurants - it's OK maybe as a parent category but it's inappropriate to merge F&C into seafood. Le Deluge (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pointless to ask for lobster in a fish and chip shop, selling fish and chips. Deal with it. In their classic form they are all fast food restaurants as well, or exclusively, but deserve to be a sub-cat of that. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointless to ask for lobster in a fish and chip shop. It really depends on the locale. In New England, you can always get lobster at a fish and chip shop. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't have fish and chip shops in New England. You might have fish and chips shops. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - distinct enough subspecies to justify separation from "seafood restaurants" - and many f&c shops are takeaway only. Presumably "fish and chip shop" is an extension of "chip shop".Jsmith1000 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 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.

Populated places in the United States with African-American plurality populations[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 using "lists of" if still required after contents have been listified, otherwise ensure that the new lists are in suitable categories and delete. – Fayenatic London 06:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addition Listify and Delete Category:Counties of the United States with African American plurality populations
  • Nominator's rationale In many ways this category suffers the same problems as Category:Populated places in the United States with African American majority populations, and many of the issues discussed there are relevant here. The trait is changable, not fixed, and if the place currently does not fit the definition it would seem odd to so categorize it. This category, especially in its definition, brings up other problems. Some of these are my fault as the creator, but I think they reflect actual real world understnading of the topic. To beign with St. Louis, Missouri and Bowie, Maryland maybe should be in the majority category, because a majority of the population identified as African-American on the census, they are not because the African-American percentage most often reported is those who only marked Afircan-American on the census. For example, I marked Native American on the 2010 census, but I normally do not get counted as part of the Native American population because I also marked that I was white. The biggest problem is that as defined this category could include places where more people marked a specific rae, alone, than Afircan-American. Let us say a city had a population where 37% marked themselves as African-American, 40% marked white, 10% marked Asian, 13% marked other and filed in some other race (although technically they would also have to fill in something the census could not after the fact reclassify as white, black, Native American, Asian or Pacific islander, but I digress). To simplicy this explanation no one in said city marked more than one race. However 20% of the population who marked themselves white also marked themselves as Hispanic or Latino, and all those who got classified as some other race did so. Only 1% of the population marked themselves as African-American and Hispanic. Thus we have 36% non-Hispanic black, 34% Hispanic or Latino, 20% non-Hispanic white and 10% non-Hispanic Asian. The city would qualify as this category is currently defined, but I think a list would much better grasp this than a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong procedural oppose. The nominator makes a good rationale for removing this type of category, and I support that rationale ... but this nomination itself is pointless.
    The nominated category is a container category, and deleting it will simply leaves dozens of sub-categories un-parented. If the nominator actually wants to remove this type of category, then he should make a group nomination which lists all the sub-categories here, and has them properly tagged so that interested editors are notified of the discussion ... but the omission of the subcats means that this nomination here can lead to no action at all. It's just a waste of everybody's time, and I hope that the nominator will withdraw it until such time as he is ready to make a proper nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the one sub-category not currently proposed. This is not really a container category, it has 23 articles, the counties category, which I just added, and then Category:Populated places in the United States with African American majority populations. That category and all its sub-categorizes are currently nominated for deletion. This category only has one sub-category, and is not really a container category at all. It only has two direct sub-categories, so its removal would not affect dozens of sub-categires. This category has not had any state subcategories former.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only the counties sub-cat has roughly the same definition. It would be possible to argue having an African-American majority population is notable, definable and worth categorizing, but that if the population is less than 50% Afircan-American, it really is not a categorizable issue, so realiztically this category should be a totally seperate discussion from the majority sub-cats, which are already nominated for deletion. So a-this makes a lot more sense as a seperte discussion, b-we could remove this category without orphaning Category:Populated places in the United States with African American majority populations, they are really two seperate concepts, and just because we have the majority ones does not mean we need the plurality ones. The now two categories in this discussion really stand or fall on their own, with some influence from the majority cats, but there are clearly issues that differentiate the two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Not defining. Have you every seen a book or list in the outside world that makes such a list (e.g. here are all of the african-american-plurality-locations in the US? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All sorts of census & statistical abstracts list & sort by demographics. So, yes. It's a topic of great interest to a wide variety of people for a wide variety of reasons. That said, it makes a lousy category. --Lquilter (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same thing though - a list showing how the African american population has changed over time is different than saying "Here is a list of african american pluralities for 2010". In any case, I think we agree - demographics is interesting, as a cat this doesn't work. Article-ize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion on the vast majority of the sub-cats closed with listify and delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The whole tree should be deleted per the nominator's discussion. In brief, this is exactly the sort of attribute that needs to be handled in an article with references and context, and not in a category which is by its nature a binary on/off label. Historical trends, definitions of places, definitions of ethnicities, all of those are things that are of great interest & importance, but none of which can be adequately captured with a simple category. The core of an article is here, if re-created as a list, and contextualized within historical migration and demographic trends. --Lquilter (talk) 14:49, 2 May 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_March_24&oldid=1079934547"