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 to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose "Commonwealth" is excessively ambiguous, even your link uses "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland" It is not Commonwealth nor most of the Commonwealth (disambiguation) entries. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought the fact that no other Commonwealths had MPs in the seventeenth century would have been sufficient disambiguation, but I take your point. What about Category:Protectorate MPs 1654–1655 etc? Would that be better? Opera hat (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose -- If we were dealing with an English Parliament the category ought to be Category:English MPs 1654–1655 to conform to many similar categories for other Parliaments. Since the Parliaments covered substantially the whole of the British Isles. I would suggest the target should be Category:British MPs 1654–1655, etc. Protectorate is unnecessary, since the rump was dissolved and there was no other Parliament at the time. We should treat the recalled rump of 1660 as a separate Parliament for this purpose from the 1642 Parliament. Post-1801 categories have "UK", but that is inappropriate for a period when it was not a kingdom. "Commonwealth" is ambiguous since it also refers to the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly British Commonwealth). However a national demonym is required for consistency with cognate categories Peterkingiron (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British MPs 1654–1655 etc would be geographically more accurate, but is the 17th-century Commonwealth ever really described as "British" by historians? I don't know enough about the period to say. I still don't see how any category with dates in the 1650s could be taken by anybody to refer to the 20th-century Commonwealth of Nations. Opera hat (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These MP categories purposely have short names, because a long-serving MP may have a lot of these categories. I suspect that no solution is wholly satisfactory, without being very long. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three together This excessive splitting by specific Parliament is really an example of overcategorization and should be stopped. We stopped it in Puerto Rico, we should stop it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So would you also advocate that all the subcategories in Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament should be merged into a single category with 30,000-odd articles? I would assume not. Wikipedia is a work in progress and going by WP:POLITICIAN the ideal would be that every member of the Parliament of England would have his own article. Given that the Parliament of England lasted for almost 200 years longer than the UK Parliament has done, I think some sub-categorization of its members is in order. Opera hat (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some sub-categorization is probably needed, but breaking them down by parliament served in, when so many served in multiple parliaments and some served in so many parliaments is not the way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not much consensus here, then - though User:Nimetapoeg (who created the categories) agrees the current titles need changing. I'll post on a few WikiProjects' talk pages in the hope of getting some more opinions. Opera hat (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, first preference being to Category:English MPs 1654-55, second to Category:English, Scottish and Irish MPs 1654-55 (etc mutatis mutandis). I've had a think about this and checked some original source material. The point made above that the term 'British' was ahistorical seems to be made out. King James I & VI had attempted to unify his thrones under the title 'King of Great Britain and Ireland' but this title was not accepted, and Cromwell cannot have looked with favour on any unilateral act by a Stuart King. The key document is the Instrument of Government of the Commonwealth, in effect a Constitution. This document gives the full name of the nation it covers as "the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging", but section XI states that "the summons to Parliament shall be by writ under the Great Seal of England". Cromwell's speech to the opening of the first Protectorate Parliament indicates that England, Scotland and Ireland are three nations (Cromwell at one point correcting himself when he inadvertently says they are one nation). England is clearly to him the most important of them. I also take into account the fact that Parliaments of England up to the time of Mary I included Members elected from Calais and (briefly) Tournai, being English possessions in France. From the time of Henry VIII, the Parliament of England included members from Wales. Taking this into account, I think the situation is that the Protectorate Parliaments were Parliaments of England to which members from Wales, Scotland and Ireland were also elected. If I am wrong about that then the alternative would have to be 'English, Scottish and Irish'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, another point that I meant to mention. The Return of Members of Parliament of 1878 (HCP 1878 69) names these three as 'Parliament of England' - see pages 499-512. This fact is possibly affected by the fact that the Return was compiled at a time when it was very common to refer to 'England' and mean 'the United Kingdom', but there it is. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:40, 1 June 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.
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/rename as proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge and redirect as there is no agreed meaning of "ministers". This category previously contained various sub-categories of people who "minister", meaning serve the Church in some way, and this resulted in no consensus at CFD 2013 Jan 9. The top category has since been redefined and tidied up, and now it contains only leaders and missionaries. Category:Christian religious leaders has a more fully developed set of hierarchies, including various other countries; only the US, Canada and Germany have both layers, "Christian ministers" and "Christian religious leaders". If this merger is approved then Category:Christian missionaries should be removed; it is already within Category:Christians by occupation. – FayenaticLondon 22:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand the difficulty with defining ministers. However, lots of people are called "ministers". And "religious leaders" often means folks in leadership positions, rather than those in ministerial positions. So even though "ministers" is ambiguous, I'm not sure "religious leaders" is better. Wouldn't it be better to just police "ministers"? --Lquilter (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify what you mean by "ministerial positions." --JFH (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the Protestant "minister", to attend to the needs of; those folks who occupy themselves with pastoral concerns of individual parishioners. --Lquilter (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a policy not to categorise subjects just by what they are called: WP:OC#SHAREDNAME. Musicians who offer contemporary Christian worship, and youth workers, are sometimes called ministers. I think it is unhelpful to categorise them alongside e.g. Baptist ministers (church leaders) just because they all use the word "minister". Note that I am not proposing to change the category where "minister" is the usual name for church leaders, e.g. Category:Baptist ministers. – FayenaticLondon 07:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another reason for this nomination is that the overall hierarchy and some countries have three layers: Christian religious leaders, Christian ministers, and Christian clergy. We really don't need all three. Note that "merge and redirect" would keep the old names as redirects, so if anyone adds those categories to a page, a bot will move it. – FayenaticLondon 07:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that "clergy" and "ministers" are more akin, in Protestant religions, at least. "Religious leaders" can be used that broadly but the more common connotation of it is for folks in higher administrative positions; heads of very large religious organizations (megachurches, regional groupings); folks who are involved in political leadership from a religious perspective. I agree that there likely needs to be some merger and consolidation of the trees, but to go to the less common term seems like the wrong way. --Lquilter (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first point at least… I think that the natural thing to do would be to have a single tier with each denomination using their own most common words, "clergy" for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and some Protestant denominations, alongside "ministers" for other Protestants. I don't think that either of those words would be universally appropriate as a head category over the other, so a neutral word or phrase is required. Category:Christian religious leaders is pretty well established already. IMHO it comfortably covers local church clergy/ministers and people above them in denominational hierarchies. I don't agree that it would cover political leaders unless they are also in positions of authority in churches… can you give examples of who you had in mind? – FayenaticLondon 21:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Note that I see this as another step in rationalisation. We can come back to "clergy" and "religious leaders" afterwards. It will be easier to see those two when this third layer has been merged into one of them. – FayenaticLondon 22:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you lay out the proposed tree? (just with the "religious leaders", "ministers", "clerics", etc, in it) --Lquilter (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, I propose that "ministers" or "clergy" only be used within a denomination, as JFH suggests below.
I would also propose that the head categories of "clergy" by country, which are not specific to Christians, should be upmerged to "religious leaders", as rabbis and imams are often in both these levels. – FayenaticLondon 08:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Seems like a reasonable tree, and I like the use of denomination/sect-specific titles at the lower levels. I guess I'm neutral as to the term at the top of the tree. "Religious leaders" still seems a bit off, but it may not be possible to find a "perfect" generic top title. One concern: That in the process of the renamings, that we not lose the sect-specific terminology. A lot of these "FOO ministers" may have appropriate "FOO ministers" titles currently. --Lquilter (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Actually I wouldn't mind if the next CFD votes to use "Christian clergy" rather than "Christian religious leaders", so long as they get merged. As you can see above, I suggest leaving "Protestant clergy" even though some of its sub-cats use "ministers" rather than "clergy". I agree with keeping "ministers" for denominations where that is the common name, but there should only be one leaders-category for each denomination. For example, "ministers" is the main word used by Methodists in the UK, but if "clergy" is established in the US and a majority of others, then the rather small Category:Methodist ministers should probably be merged into Category:Methodist clergy which is currently more substantial anyway; otherwise, a reverse merge/rename would be called for, from Methodist clergy to ministers. The overall renaming process will have to be done piecemeal, in order to discuss such cases. – FayenaticLondon 18:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit beside the point for this nom, but I don't think "clergy" is the best at the level of Christianity or Protestantism, as it implies ordination. The purely descriptive "religious leader" seems the best way to unite people of different faith communities but a shared occupation. I wouldn't be too upset if we went with clergy, but some provision will have to be made for non-ordaining groups, either by explicitly stating that "clergy" does not imply ordination or by having a separate categorization tree for them, which seems arbitrary when we're talking about an occupation. --JFH (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Various Protestants use the word "ordain" but called the ordained "ministers" rather than "clergy". – FayenaticLondon 21:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- The titles used vary, by denomination and even inclination. I consider that minister is about as neutral a term as we are going to find. They are all ministers of religion of some kind. It may be that some national categories will do better with a different term. I could accept "clergy" (but again perhaps selectively). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept a reverse merge, or are you !voting to keep three layers: Christian religious leaders, Christian ministers and Christian clergy? – FayenaticLondon 08:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was voting on the nom, rather than the wider discussion. I think we should aim to get all the Christian ministers under clergy. The term is perhaps more appropriate to Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican, but probably applicable to all denominations: strictly the non-conformists are "ministers of religion", whereas the Anglicans are "clerks in holy orders": this is of course British usage. However, we should follow the usage of each denomination. The ordained Methodists are "Ministers", so that there is no need to alter that: Methodist clergy should be merged into Methodist Ministers. The Presbyterians have ministers, who are different from elders, even if elders (or some of them) can fulfil ministerial functions in the absnece of a minister. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind if we end up with "Christian clergy" as the main structure rather than "Christian religious leaders". We seem to be agreed that we do not need the three current layers. Did you perhaps mean to !vote for "merge/rename to corresponding Clergy categories" rather than "keep all"? "Methodist ministers" is not in the nomination, just the national categories and "Christian ministers". – FayenaticLondon 13:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(changed vote) REname all (and restructure) either to Christian clergy [or possibly (Keeping) as Christian minsters]. The titles in subcategories will vary according to denominational usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all -- "Minister" has a specific definition in some groups. For example, it is an ordained elders licensed to preach and administer the sacraments in Presbyterianism. Ruling elders are also ordained, but not licensed to preach or administer sacraments. "Religious leader" is a purely descriptive term encompassing all the various titles for leaders in churches. These titles should only be used in the context of a specific denomination. --JFH (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all -- Per JFH titles (such as the vague "minister") should only be used in the context of a specific denomination... NOTE WELL: for the purpose of this limit, "Baptist", "Lutheran", "Presbyterian", etc. are NOT specific denominations. Different denominations (e.g. LCMS, SBC) within denominational families often use these words differently and/or vaguely. I only see partiular terms-- clergy-- usefull for non-Protestant groups. tahcchat 20:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Religious leader works. Even clergy is not always a good term. At least in the Latter-day Saint sub-cat we have two major problems, 1-either virtually all males in the LDS Church are clergy, or it does not have clergy at all, but clearly there are leadership positions. 2-We have sub-cats for female leaders who hold positions like General Relief Society President of the LDS Church. A good portion of the holders of this position are only notable for having held it, such as Belle S. Spafford, and others like Emmeline B. Wells and Eliza R. Snow would be notable if they had not been General Relief Society President, but it is also clear that it is connected with their notability still. Minister is not a generally used term in Mormon speech, but some would argue that among others all full-time LDS missionaries could be considered ministers. We are best off using the religious leaders term as the general default.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 3 June 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. Small English village, upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. If kept it would have to be renamed "People from Botley, Hampshire" as Botley is a disambiguation page. – FayenaticLondon 22:22, 19 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.
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 as proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and delete as nominated. I would have settled for starting with a simple upmerge to Category:Chinese culture, and that may be a better home for some of the contents, but if the nominator is prepared to do the work described, so much the better. – FayenaticLondon 22:03, 20 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:Scottish Premier League young player of the month awards[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The category name is misleading, and this appears to be a case of over categorization; where does one draw the line with football award winners? This is a case of OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST (with good reason!) as I also cannot find any similar categories on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 12:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What has finding similar categories got to do with anything. Categories are intended to group together a pages on similar subjects whether thats by age, place of birth or an award they have won whether that be an football, stage or anything else. Out of the thousands of players that are notable to wiki how many actually win any awards, the answer it overall not that many. This category clearly backs up the main article List of Scottish Premier League monthly award winners and in my opinion is a valid grouping of similar subjects. Whilst i agree with the first point which is the name but that is not a valid reason to delete anything, rather an argument for a rename to match the article title. BletheringScot 17:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blethering Scot -- This is really just about the principles of categorization and overcategorization. Sadly, the Wikipedia software functionality of the "category" is not very functional, and thus we have developed a variety of rules to keep the numbers of categories to a minimum, in order to maintain the existing (minimal) functionality of the category system. A template, series of lists, or some other functionality would group these articles together. But the category system -- while it is used for grouping -- has to be maintained only for categories that are "defining". Read WP:overcategorization for more info. --Lquilter (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete. We should definitely not be categorizing by "FOO of the month award winner" -- there is no way that is not over-categorizing. All sorts of non-notable folks could win monthly awards, which would mean that award categories would necessarily be incomplete because the winners would not have wikipedia pages; plus, for the notable folks who win, this is certainly going to be a less-than-defining award. Delete, delete, delete. Maintain as a list in the article page of notable winners of the award, only. --Lquilter (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not every non-notable folks could win this award, as every player that has played in the Scottish Premier League are presumed notable as they pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is definately not an argument to delete, but I do agree with Lquilter that winning these awards are not defining for the players, and thus we shouldn't have a category for this. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not the type of award we should categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 28 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:Events affected by Hurricane Katrina[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.
Nominator's rationale: Having been affected by a hurricance is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an article about an event, structure etc. "Category:Places affected by Hurricane Katrina" was deleted by this CFD. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but Category:Events affected by Hurricane Katrina, which should be considered separately. Events are the one item on this list that might be unique. I'm not sure if it's necessary, but it's a better fit than structures, transportation, waterways, or places (in another CFD). We should consider events separately because because they occur in time and therefore might reasonably be defined by other one-time events. I would be very careful in such a category to exclude recurring events (like an annual conference or Mardi Gras) which happen every year and are not going to be defined, over their entire existence, by having one year affected by Katrina. But, say, the specific Mardi Gras for that year might well fit into a category of other one-time events that (a) are notable enough for wikipedia, and (b) were affected by katrina. --Lquilter (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keepCategory:Structures affected by Hurricane Katrina. A review of many articles in this category shows that the structure was either destroyed or heavily damanged by Katrina. Any heavy damage or destruction of a structure is defining to the history of that structure and we have entire category trees showing this. Hmains (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to this reasoning, but I'm worried about the broadness of "affected by" and the longevity of "structures". How would we prevent all sorts of hurricanes or weather events that broke a single window from being included? Would limiting or renaming the category to something like Category:Structural damage caused by Hurricane Katrina work? That's probably not the right noun form (although the most correct I can think is quite wordy: Category:Structures suffering structural damage caused by Hurricane Katrina) but that would I think at least limit the category to the right level of harm, which might prevent overcategorization problems down the line. --Lquilter (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Structural damage caused by Hurricane Katrina would only be a valid category for articles about the structural damage itself. Category:Structures damaged by Hurricane Katrina (a less wordy alternative) would, IMO, not be a good category as it's not a defining characteristic of the subjects. Note also that there's not a tree of "Xs damaged by Y" categories - in fact there's currently only 2 categories with "damaged" in the title. DexDor (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good solution (although of course I suppose it wouldn't include buildings that suffered extensive damage but were not destroyed ... but do we need to have those?). "destroyed by" also fits within the "death by" structure -- I would venture to say that method of destruction might be more defining for a building than for a person. --Lquilter (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all this is all excessive over-categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this ends up becoming cat clutter for every big disaster; since every high school is notable and most have articles, any destroyed by a storm will be categorized so that every storm that destroys a notable structure or disrupts a notable event gets a couple of cats to put the structures and events in, so inherits their notability, contrary to WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- This is in the nature of a performance by performer (Katrina) category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - clear OVERCAT. GiantSnowman 08:50, 24 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: "Companies associated with ..." is not a good way to categorize articles - for one thing it could easily lead to circular categorization if this tree was expanded. This category was in an earlier CFD, but that was about renaming a whole group of categories - not about the existence of this one. DexDor (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FOO-A associated with FOO-B is a terrible model for categories, since it effectively establishes a many-to-many precedent for categorization. Delete. --Lquilter (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fayenatic -- I would add predecessors, joiont ventures etc. ICL was a major force in the computer industry, so that a category for it is justified, but an associates category cannot be. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peterkingiron about adding predecessors and joint ventures. – FayenaticLondon 05:25, 23 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: As per WP:NCCAT: "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories." The current cat contains only European Union accession treaties and is categorized under Category:Treaties and declarations of the European Union, but the title is ambiguous. TDL (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- If there is anything found that would not fit that, it can be categorised elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 22 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.
