Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 30

< May 29May 31 >

May 30

Category:Kosovo–Serbia border

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. WaggersTALK 11:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a bit POV pushing category, per current Kosovo status. As Serbia does not recognise Kosovo, there are no border on this side, but only administrative crossing. It is also empty... Anyway, i am afraid that will only be question of dispute, and not neutral encyclopedic addition anyway. WhiteWriterspeaks 22:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't understand me probably well. Administrative border is one thing. Only BORDER is other. Therefor, your comment is for deletion, more then against. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, my comment is not for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to all parents. There is too little potential content for a useful category. While Serbia does not recognise Kosovo, that polity is widely recognised by others. Kosovo has a govenment that is in control of (at least, most of) the territory that it claims. There may be an unresolved issue as to the status and location of the border, but it certainly exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (REvised vote) Keep -- I was misled by the out-of-prcoess emptying. It is a small category, but I observe that there are similar ones for other borders of Serbia. It should therefore be kept for consistency. Whatever the status of Kosovo, as a country not recognised by a neighbour, it has a government that in is de facto control of its territory, and there is (at least) a de facto boundary with Serbia. I partly voted upmerge before, because it seemed such a small category, but recent additions have changed that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary, until we have some more content (although I disagree with the nom's assertion of POV), we can put the border crossings cat in the parents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to have been singled out not due to its size, but due to a POV desire to end the category and try to ignore Kosovo at all. This border clearly exists, and the cat structyre has enough to justify it. Until the equally small Category:Bulgaria-Turkey border is nominated for deletion, this looks like a POV-inspired attempt to deligitamatize this border, which I oppose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I realise that WhiteWriter finds the concept uncomfortable, but in reality there is a border between Kosovo and Serbia; multiple reliable sources say so, and we have multiple articles which touch on the border. Deliberately depopulating the category is a bad idea. bobrayner (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've taken the liberty of adding a few relevant pages to the category (at least one of which had been decategorised by WhiteWriter shortly before he argued the category was empty). I don't want to spam it with hundreds of pages, but - for example - the bridge in Kosovska Mitrovica is only notable because it's become a border crossing. bobrayner (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering that this is now the sub-cat of Category:Borders of Serbia with the most direct contents, some of the above articles against its existence seem to be flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. Those should be removed. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense. Do you want to remove the keep !votes above or do you want to remove articles from the category? bobrayner (talk) 01:43, 7 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.

Category:Presbyterian Church of Trinidad and Tobago

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. WaggersTALK 11:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary WP:EPONCAT JFH (talk) 21:58, 30 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.

"in" Vancouver Island categories

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: nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 13:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One user oppose speedy renaming. Both categories are about to propose renaming to become "in Vancouver Island" categories. Both categories needs to match to it's parent category Category:Transport in British Columbia and Category:Populated places in British Columbia on both categories for a C2C. Steam5 (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. — DivaKnockouts 01:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose "in Vancouver Island" is not an idiom associated with the Island, or any island. "populated places" are communities. CANENGL applies, and the local usage is very well-established. Do I have to go to the bother of comparing "on Vancouver Island" and "in Vancouver Island" on a googlesearch to prove this. This is not regular English, and is a mis-use of a preposition. It doesn't matter what the parent categories are; this is "standardization" and "consistency" run amuck.Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose in Vancouver Island doesn't make sense in the English language, nor would anyone on the Island ever say that. Cities are located in provinces but on islands because a province is an idea whereas an island is a physical designation. If one were to say that Victoria is located in Vancouver Island it would mean that the city of Victoria is underground, similar to saying a town is in a mountain, as opposed to on a mountain. Trackratte (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose unless it's a tunnel or a pit mine, it's "on" Vancouver Island, since that is an island. Though I do see the 'want' for consistency. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Skookum1, Trackratte and 65.94.76.126. An island is a physical entity, whereas a province is an administrative entity. Communities, etc. are on the former and in the latter. They are not in the former or on the latter. Hwy43 (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question—Is the term "Vancouver Island" used to represent an administrative area of BC? The article has little to no information on administration matters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. There are several administrative regional districts within Vancouver Island, but the island itself is not a distinct administrative area in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I will !vote oppose based on prepositional use for a geographical feature. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The nom seeks to mangle English grammar to fit a WP category scheme, but it is frequently necessary for the names of sub-cats to vary according to the local situation. In English a place is "on" an island; this island is in the province of BC. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per nearly everybody. This is not the type of consistency that our categorization practices require; Vancouver Island is a physical entity, not a political one, and therefore places are "on", rather than "in", it. (Prince Edward Island, conversely, is a Canadian province that is coterminous with an island, such that its categories are for the political entity rather than the physical one per se — but the difference between "in" vs. "on" for an island is political vs. physical, not "same naming format as its parent at all costs".) Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It's an island; things are ON an island, not "in" an island. The alternative mangles grammar whether it's CANENGL or any other type of English. Montanabw(talk) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone, Since you all oppose, I want to withdraw the nomination and declare this discussion expecting to be closed. Steam5 (talk) 21:43, 31 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:1198 Establishments

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 delete as (empty) duplicate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deletion Category:1198 Establishments
Nominator's rationale: It is a duplicate of Category:1198 establishments. Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:26, 30 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:Fictional American people of Dutch descent in video games

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 don't see much stomach for merging to Category:Fictional American people of European descent in video games. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Fictional American people of Dutch descent in video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into Category:Fictional American people of European descent in video games
  • Category:Fictional American people of English descent in video games
  • Category:Fictional American people of French descent in video games‎
  • Category:Fictional American people of German descent in video games‎
  • Category:Fictional American people of Italian descent in video games‎
  • Category:Fictional American people of Russian descent in video games‎
  • Category:Fictional American people of Scottish descent in video games‎
Nominator's rationale: These categories are a serious case of overcategorisation. I make this one a quadruple intersection: fictional characters + in video games+ American + of Dutch descent. I'm not sure we need to categorise video game characters by ethnicity at all, but we certainly don't need to go this finely grained. (I'll be adding all the other subcats of Category:Fictional American people of European descent in video games to this nomination.) Robofish (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering the same thing. Do we need to categorize any fictional characters by their ethnicity? Why not just categorize them by their jobs? I agree it's quite hard to see how this would be "defining" except in a very few cases.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the nomination, I'd happily delete the entire category tree, but that might be more contentious, so I figure why not start with the low-hanging fruit at the bottom. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "we need to categorize any fictional characters by their ethnicity". Just like we need to categorize any real people by their ethnicity (in addition to nationality). --Niemti (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? of course doesn't cut it. I would say for the vast majority of fictional characters, the biggest influence on their actions is what the writer wants them to feel and do, not what some imagined ethnic background might lead them to do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what kind of "influence on actions" of all real people is theirs ethnic background that everyone is categorized by it if possible? "Racial profiling" on Wikipedia? --Niemti (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Real life != fiction. If you grow up in a family and around a certain group of people, that will influence how you think, no matter what. To a greater or lesser degree. But here, we're talking about fictional characters, so the only influence will be in the writer's mind. It's apples and oranges.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Even if you don't "you don't grow up in a family and around a certain group of people" (orphans etc)? Anyway, the real problem with these specific categories ("of X descent", with X being a country/nation) is that it's often a matter of guessing (for example, "Kennedy" might be Scottish or Irish), so I'm actually okay to downmerge it to just European-Americans. --Niemti (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I have insisted it not be applied to real people unless there is in article support for it, which has at times caused people to attack me, especially when I was removing unsupported claims that people were African-American. In reality a person with the last name Kennedy could be African American, they could be "of Korean descent" because a-they were born in Korea and adopted to the US at birth (of course, I am not sure there are clear ways to deal with adoption ethnicity, since we are categorizing by ethnicity, not race, this is why not only should it be referenced in the article but preferably sourced), b-they could be the child of an ethnic Korean mother and a half ethnic Korean father, and not identify with any specific European ancestry at all, c-they or some ancestor could have changed their name. When we are dealing with fictional characters things get even more fun. As I mentions, in "Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman" they cast an actress of part Choctaw and part Lebanese ancestry as Lois Lane. What is even more fun is one character was named General Zeitlan, the actor who played him was Afircan-American, but that is an Eastern European last name that most holders of are Jews. They never went into that characters background, since he appeared in two scenes in one show, so it is not clear if the writers and directors just did not care that they were making this guy multi-cultural, or if they had an elaborate back-story, where his mother was an African-American WAC from Arkansas in the US occupation army just after WWII and his father had just escaped from Auschwitz when they met and married in Berlin. I personally prefer the later explanation, but what is clear is here even more so than with living people we need well sourced and proven explanation of the ethnic background of the character. An example of totally unsourced applications of these types of categories was when we had Category:Fictional American people of Armenian descent. The whole contents of this category was Camille Saroyan, a person whose article never says she is Armenian, and who is played by Tamara Taylor, whose mother is black Candian and whose father is Scottish Canadian. I am also always tempted by these categories to create the related Category:American people of fictional Mongolian descent to put Yule Bryner in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the alleged ethnicity-nationality of fictional people in a particular medium is too trivial to be a notable intersection: Are there articles on any of these topics, for example?? Fictional American people of European descent in video games probably cannot be written other than a list. What WP:RSes are there for the notability of that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of convincing proof that this is more than fan fiction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, I'm for a downmerge too. (But SmokeyJoe, you don't even know what fan fiction is.) --Niemti (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, don't forget to downmerge also to the other cat, like in case of Dutch-Americans vg charas back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_American_people_of_Dutch_descent (in addition to Euro-American vg charas). --Niemti (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all I can see the argument for some by ethnicity categories, but doubt any "by descent" categories for fictional people will work. In this particular case though, we should not have this category unless we can create the article American people of Dutch descent in video games as more than just a list. This is the worst example of trivial categorization I have ever seen. We do not even do all descent+occupation for real people, and the best way to understand being in a video game as a sub-set of fictional people is an occupation. We already got rid of the more general American of Dutch descent fictional people categories because they were just too trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would question any claims about most characters ethnicity from video games or other forms of popular culture. We can not imply these. What next, will we put Lois Lane in some sort of Category:Fictional American people of English descent because we assume Lane is an English last name? How does that work with the casting of Terri Hatcher in the role, who has both Choctaw and Syrian ancestry? These categories should be limited to cases where the ancestry of the person is actually given in the median, but considering that Lucy van Pelt was placed in Category:Fictional American people of Dutch descent, who was never described as having Dutch ancestry ever, I think it is safe to say such things are really bad ways to categorize. Another issue to consider is that at times fictional narratives are inconsistent. We should not upmerge these, because there is no evidence that these people are actual notable for having "Dutch ancestry", I am not even convinced it is known in many cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These categories seem to lead to assumptions that are not justified by the articles. Where in the article Tommy Vercetti does it say he has Italian ancestry? Where anywhere does it say he has Italian ancestry?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiri Miller, Playing Along: Digital Games, YouTube, and Virtual Performance, page 29; Mark J.P. Wolf, Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, page 511; PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art - Volume 27, page 92. Here you go. Oh, and even Top 25 Italians In Video Games. --Niemti (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. In the discussion, I see nothing that convinces me that we should keep these. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to European category per nom. Like others I am dubious of the usefulness of this tree, as it seems to involve WP:OR. However deleting the caregories will result in the loss of potentially data. One article that I checked was also "of Janpanese descent". This nom may need to be followed up by a wider-ranging one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the European descent category will largely function as a "by race" category, which we do not allow for real people, and I see no reason to allow it for fictional people. It also will present some unique problems with characters like Perry White, who has been presented as of multiple ethnicities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 9 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.

Category:Organizations founded by Bono

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; I have created a redirect on the other spelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think that as Bono is Irish, we should following the spelling of Category:Organisations based in Ireland. Tim! (talk) 20:20, 30 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:People from Río Piedras, Puerto Rico

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Río Piedras is not a city in Puerto Rico but a section/district/boro/neighborhood of the city of San Juan, Puerto Rico. As such the newly created category unalignes categories such as "Category:People by city in Puerto Rico" which end up displaying all cities in PR plus a non-city (Rio Piedras). Mercy11 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wouldn't removing "Category:People by city in Puerto Rico" be the move to go with as there are quite some people with articles on WP that are from Río Piedras? — DivaKnockouts 18:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem here is that Rio Piedras is not a city, to exacerbate it is part of a city. As such, the category is misleading. Perhaps you might want to consider checking out Category: People from Brooklyn and see if you can develop and analogous scheme for people from the Rio Piedras locale. Mercy11 (talk) 19:49, 30 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:1781 establishments in Mexico

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: relisted on August 1. The Bushranger One ping only 06:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:1781 establishments in Mexico to Category:1781 establishments in New Spain
  • Nominator's rationale This is anachronistic in most senses. There was not a domain named "Mexico" in 1781. If people had been foced to designate some area Mexcio, it would have been much smaller than modern Mexcio, only the central part of the country. That is why it worked perfectly well to have a New Mexico also under the domain of New Spain. Some people seem to be trying to impose lines from 1848 on Mexico in 1781, which makes no sense since many of those lines cut across state boundaries of the time. This is an ahisotrical impostion, and also leads to needless category fragmentation. We should treat all new Spain as one body, and not have any pre-1821 establishments in Mexico categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but popular history do treat things this way, with things "in the modern jurisdiction" going back before its establishment, and being "in" the jurisdiction even before that piece of territory was attached to the jurisdiction. Look at titles "History of X" and you'll see stuff on that. (such as the pre-Celtic peoples in modern jurisdiction X) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, why would you want to lose aspects of the history of what is now Mexico in such a way? What is of more interest to most of the readers: what happened in what is now Mexico (or Italy, or Germany, or ...) in a distant past, or what happened in some entity that no longer exists and is only of interest to a much smaller subgroup of our readers? We also have Category:16th-century Mexican people (and 17th and 18th century) as subcats of Category:People of New Spain, so it is not as if this is a sole exception to some general rule. What is the advantage of losing the link between what happened in 1781 and where it is located now? I see no benefit at all from this upmerge proposal, no information is gained, but information is actually lost. We have e.g. Category:18th century in Mexico: this info would no longer be accessible through that category if this upmerge is done. Fram (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico did not exist in 1781. The attempts to to impose post-1848 boundaries on this category are ahistorical and misrepresent how things were organized at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I know your position by now. I have not claimed that Mexico existed in 1781. But things that happened in 1781 have an influence now on Mexico, not on New Spain. They are important for Mexico. The history of current countries doesn't start at the date of their creation or independence, it starts much earlier. Your reply doesn't indicate what the benefit is of losing that aspect. What is gained by removing the Mexico aspect? Fram (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing prevents the establishment of say Category:Pre-statehood history of Mexico. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. Precedent indicates that we categorise things according to their contemporary polity, not their present one. We have a school in Mexico, whose status can be recorded by a city category and a subcat for Pueblo de Los Angeles, which is in modern California and already categorised for pre-state history of California. That covers the problem. These establishment categories (except in recent times) tend to be miniscule and probably need merging by decade. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; keep and use both. Examine Category:Years in Mexico: this proposal would take one category out and thereby eliminate one part of what is a fairly consistent and broad naming scheme. I do not think there is anything terribly wrong with using a broad framework that uses curent terminology to help organise historical information. The reasoning 65.94.76.126 and Fram use is convincing—it is very helpful to maintain the link between what happened in a place in a particular year and where that place is located now. It also makes obvious sense to point out that the place was part of New Spain at the time. I see no problem with the articles being in both a Mexico and a New Spain tree. I don't think we need to choose one particular way of approaching this over the other. What I find most problematic about this nomination is that it takes one category out of dozens and dozens that exhibit the exact same issue and attempts to rename it in isolation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1871 establishments and Category:Establishments in New Spain, and Category:Establishments in Mexico would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the open RFC on this general topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 23 July 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:1957 establishments in Bangladesh

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. There is support for a rename to East Pakistan/Bengal instead. However there are questions about the ability to populate those subcategories. Feel free to create and populate those subcategories if and when there is sufficient content to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but not for all things - anachronism is widely accepted in other cAtegories. The question is, do we really want to ensure non-anachronism in these 'establishment' and 'disedtablishment' cats? In some cases something may be created in one country, flourish in a second, be disestablished in a third, and leave remnants in a fourth. If we want to do this right it would be madness. I prefer anachronism, esp for modern stuff.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
However with these categories we very clearly know what country they were formed in, and it was clearly not Bangladesh.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 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.

Category:African-descent American

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:African-descent American to Category:African American
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to divide these like this. Yes, I know some are more recent arrivals from Africa, but its drawing too fine of a line. Group all under African-American makes more sense to me. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose African-American is an ethnic group that in general refers to people who have ancestors who were slaves in the United States or who have some African ancestry and have idnetified with the general ehtnic group mentioned above. Many recent immigrants from Africa see themselves as a seperate and distinct ethnic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:American people of African descent. This is currently its subcat, but to my mind they are indistinguishable. My target is in the standard format Fooian people of Booian descent, which is used in WP worldwide, except perhaps US. I see no reason why US should not conform. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in the US we have Category:American people of German descent, Category:American people of Mexican descent, Category:American people of Japanese descent, Category:American people of Kenyan descent and many many more. The Category:African-American people is an ourlier even within the American category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I omitted the word "category" from what I put, which resulted in an inappropriate redlink - now corrected. Category:African American should also be merged in. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is, arguably, a difference between Americans of African descent and African Americans. (I can remember a few arguments back in 2008 over whether Barack Obama was 'African-American', since his African ancestry is from his Kenyan father rather than going back to slaves.) This category is worth keeping to preserve that distinction, even if it's a contentious one. Robofish (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • administrative comment. I changed the proposed target from Category:African-American to Category:African American. I presume that that is what was intended. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Yes, we need to specify and clarify the different people who arrived in the US some time ago as slaves and their descendants from various African areas (countries) from those who are arriving in the US recently from modern African states. This fits into the existing category structure including Category:Ethnic groups in the United States and its similar Asian and European sub-categories. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what you all seem to be suggesting is that there were two waves of arrival of black people in the US. First, as slaves, and then much later, as free Africans. Do you realize what a ridiculous reading of history that is? The reality is a lot more complex - but by dividing into two cats, you are reinforcing this notion. I think it's much fuzzier, there are debates about identity and who belongs, etc, and as children are born it gets even more complex, so I'd rather take an inclusive view. Barack himself identifies as African-American, no matter what others say, and he's present in dozens of 'African-American+job' cats. If we take this division to its logical conclusion, we would have to create 'american actors of African descent' parallel to African Americans and separate out all of them. If you don't believe we should do that, these cats should be merged.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both untenable race/ethnicity categories. The argument above is further evidence that these are unworkable and not meaningful. Category:African Americans of slave ancestry, Category:African Americans (all of? some of?) whose African-side ancestors came after slavery was abolished (by state? nationally"), Category:African Americans whose ancestors came before slavery was abolished but whose ancestors weren't slaves, Category:African Americans whose ancestors came to the US after slavery but whose ancestors were slaves in the Caribbean, Latin America, Africa, or elsewhere.....lots of distinctions, but unless you did the Alex Haley research, would you know. And, how precisely do these people differentiate (with reliably sourced references, please) today? Do they play football differently, do they do surgery differently, do they politic differently, do they do all the things we categorize by African Americans differently? Nope. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Colin Powell would argue that there are clear differences between immigrants from the Caribbean and those with ancestors who were slaves in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are also differences between an african-american kid who grew up in a nice suburb of Atlanta with a wealthy family and his separated-at-birth-twin-brother who grew up in the projects in Baltimore, as in, night-and-day different. But, we categorize these two together. Remember, the category system is a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 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.

Category:People of American-Jewish descent

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This one doesn't make sense. We already have {{x of American descent}}, I don't know why we need to refine further by "American-Jewish". Only one member of this cat, I think we can delete it. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has it been established this is a talked-about category? Russian-Jewish descent is talked about, but American-Jewish descent? Seems a bridge too far. THis would include anyone who had a Jewish American mother - there are many Israelis that fit this bill. American descent (for each country) is tl sufficient, we don't need religion+ethnicity+American descent, esp when this intersection is not discussed as such as far as I can tell.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unworkable race/ethnicity/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unworkable. "American" is not an ethnicity. Neutralitytalk 00:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am of Russian-Jewish descent. I am a citizen of the U.S.A. If I were to emigrate to another country, whether Israel or not-Israel ;o) no... let us say, emigrate to a foreign sovereign nation, I would continue to be of "Russian-Jewish descent". If I surrendered my U.S. citizenship, I still would not be of "American-Jewish descent", as that is incorrect in two regards:
  1. it denies my Ashekanzi heritage
  2. more important for purposes of standardized classification (as used by public health departments in the U.S.A., which is relevant, as we are referring to the U.S.A.), the only individuals that self-describe and are categorized (to designate ethnicity) using the word "American" are the indigenous peoples of the Americas, South and North. They are also known as Native Americans.
The only circumstance under which one could be of "American-Jewish descent" would be if one were the biological child, or grandchild, of a Jewish person (Ashkenazi or Sephardic) and a Native American person. The number of such individuals, much less those who are notable, is insufficient to warrant a category in Wikipedia. Also, one would refer to one's tribe, specifically. Thus proper usage would be, for example, "Zuni-Jewish" or "Seminole-Jewish descent", rather than the more general "Native American-Jewish descent" (and certainly NOT "American-Jewish descent"). I believe that Neutrality is, in fact, correct. "American" is not an ethnicity. --FeralOink (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how we use the Russian-Jewish descent category. It only means that the person has ancestors who were Jews in Russia, not that they were in some way ethnically Russian in addition to being ethnically Jewish. It is also not how American is being used in Category:People of American descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 15 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.

Category:Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ministers

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ministers to Category:Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) teaching elders
Nominator's rationale: I hastily created this category before checking the current book of order for the PC(USA). Apparently they recently changed the preferred title from "minister" to "teaching elder." See the current BCO, para. starting "The 219th General Assembly." JFH (talk) 14:49, 30 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:Computing by domain

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. What is this supposed to be about? In other words, what is the domain in this context? I checked the Domain disambig page, but nothing seems relevant. Perhaps a computer scientist could explain what is the connection between the current subcategories in this: Computing in classical studies‎, Computer-aided engineering‎, Industrial computing‎, Library automation‎, Personal computing‎ - because I don't see any. This is in Category:Categories by type, but renaming to Category:Computing by type still doesn't seem to explain anything. As such, I am calling "useless and confusing", and suggest we get rid of this seemingly pointless category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment domain here means the various business applications that different types of computer applications are designed to support. These and other domains are very different as regards to their computing requirements. Hmains (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A computer is just a tool and there is no difference in its use in different fields. All businesses need software (payroll, accounting, database) and apart from the names on some data items there is no difference in its use. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:25, 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.

Category:Activism by method

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is our common naming convention to use the "by type", not "by method" in category names of this type (pun not intended...). Please note that this category is already categorized under Categories by type, clearly implying it was supposed to be "by type", and has a by type subcategory (Category:Protests by type). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the whole "activists" and "activism" trees ought to be discussed as they make no distinction of time or degree. Read the definition of activism. Basically, nearly anything counts: if you want to change the status quo or not, if you do it by words or deeds, by peaceful means or by bombs, by education and terrorism. Activists would include Gandhi and Hitler, Jesus and Caesar, Hugh Hefner and the pope, the Communists and capitalists, the NAACP and KKK, Al Qaeda and the Jewish Defense League, every voter, every non-voter, every person who thinks about the consequences of their words and deeds and those who abdicate that thinking to others. Every wikipedian, right? We need to somehow tighten up the categories (perhaps limiting them to orgs to get some of the BLP issues solved). The wording change proposed above just brings this entire morass into clearer focus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the social movement theory perspective, this broad view is acceptable, as most activists do not need to consider themselves such to be activists. I.e., as I have even argued in my published peer reviwewed paper, all Wikipedians are activists in the free culture/free software movements, even if they'd be surprised at learn that. Category wise, this is a bit trickier, but not so much. We don't need to list Hitler or Stalin as activists, we just need to ensure that at some point there is an overlap between activism and belonging to a political party (political activism). I see activist categories as useful for people who are members of organizations not yet having their own membership categories, through perhaps I am being to narrow here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming. As to the "activist"/"activism" definitional problem, it is probably not useful to classify people as activists solely based on their membership in an organization some part of which actively works for some kind of change. As an aside, are they "activists" who actively work to maintain the status quo? On the flip side, some "activists" have organizations form around them rather than being a member of one. Regardless, I don't think we are going to solve the definitional problems in this discussion. It needs a great deal more focus. --Bejnar (talk) 19:52, 4 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.

Category:1781 in California

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:1781 in Alta California, bearing in mind the RfC results may require additional fiddling with it. The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "California" as opposed to "Alta California" did not exist in this year, and all the categories contents should be only in the Mexico category tree, including "establishments in mexico" as the city was not established in the US in 1781, but in mexico in 1781. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but Rename to 1781 in Alta California and make it a subcategory of Category:1781 in New Spain. Also belongs under Category:Pre-statehood history of California. 1781 was before Mexican independence - it would not be an "establishment in Mexico" by this theory, but an "establishment in Spain." Obviously, that doesn't make any sense. California might have been Spanish territory but it was clearly a distinct region of its own, just as it was under Mexican rule. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The one article should also be in a 1781 establishments category. I doubt that the category (even if renamed) has enough potential contnetn to be worth having. The article should certainly be in Category:1781 in New Spain and Category:Pre-statehood history of California. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:1781 in New Spain. We should also reanme Category:1781 establishments in Mexico. I will nominate that seperately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused by these suggestions. Why Category:1781 in New Spain and not Category:1781 in The Californias or Category:1781 in Spanish California? Category:1781 in The Californias appears to be a correct child of Category:Pre-statehood history of California while Category:1781 in New Spain is not. Also would not Category:1781 in The Californias also be a proper child of a future Category:1781 in Alta California if that was needed? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely create Category:1781 in New Spain and then either merge 1781 in California into it, or make it a subcategory. Tim! (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:1781 in Alta California per NxS-B -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should we keep this category when it only has one article? There is no justification for splitting New Spain by province when we only have two articles on things created in 1781 in New Spain overall.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:1781 in Alta California. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1871 establishments and Category:Establishments in California, and Category:Establishments in Alta California would make more sense (although the split in individual states in the USA will result in categorisations of (dis)establishments way before there were separate states). This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep to allow readers to be able to find things established in 1781 in what is today California. No objection to the creation of any "historically correct" categories as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:California -> Category:Pre-statehood history of California -> ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "... to allow readers to be able to find things ..." = "... to allow readers to be able to find things in this alternate way ..." Of course, anything can be found through one way or the other; some are easier than others or more intuitive, and the more ways there are to a destination typically improves overall navigation, which is the ultimate purpose of categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good Ol'factory, it is a similar technique that you suggested for finding treaties that were of interest to the history of Panama, but not directly categorised as such. All of the cross-categorisations are of use to readers so they can find things. I still don't understand why readers would specifically use this categorisation (i.e., though Category:1781 in California) so exclusively or at least way more than others, or why people would not look for things that happened in 'Alta California'. Why is this scheme so much more useful than all the others. Why insist in helping those readers that look for things that want to find 1781 in what is today California .. who are all those readers that need to find that? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't argued that "this scheme so much more useful than all the others". I have argued for the retention on this scheme and the addition of any other "historically correct" scheme users want to implement. Different approaches will work for different readers, but I think it would not be unusual for a user looking for something that happened in 1781 in what is today California to type in "1781 in California" into a WP search. Many people would not know what certain areas of California were "called" in 1781. (Sure, a "1781 in Alta California" category would pop up in such a search, but it wouldn't in other cases where the current name and the historic name are totally different, as with many other regions.) As always, YMMV, but that's my view. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • And that is what I might consider to use category-redirects for. Categorise them according to the naming of the time, and make all other redirects suitable. Taking the Gran Colombia example, categorise them as being in that time as Gran Colombia, and all now-countries (and maybe even intermediate countries) that were in that territory (IIRC, there were at least 10 of them) as category redirects, or category-disambigs (or something similar, if a now country is half of then-country 1 and half of then-country 2). But those categories themselves should not be occupied. As usual, maybe this should be discussed on a wider forum and come to a consistent scheme. The current scheme gets questioned more and more, and I agree that the alternative does give issues as well, lets try to find a better solution. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I said, YMMV—reasonable people can have reasonable differences of opinion on the matter. I do resent any suggestion (made elsewhere by certain users), however, that there is only one "correct" way to structure things. Anyway, Vegaswikian is on the verge of starting an RFC on the issues. He posted at WT:CFD if anyone had input on such an RFC being planned, but I was the only commenter. In the RFC, I probably won't participate much due to upcoming scheduling issues in the real world. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm, I don't know if there is 'only one "correct" way to structure things', I do think that it would be good to have only one way to structure things (one that does not flood articles with categories, is non-ambiguous, serves all readers, &c.), and that that needs to be thought through properly. I welcome the RfC, I hope that gets a broad input. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Re that comment, I didn't really have you in mind ... (cough, cough) J (clear throat) P (cough, ahem) L (cough cough). A unified approach is what the RFC will be seeking, for sure. I'm pretty optimistic it will be successful in doing that, mainly because I doubt there are very many users who would support having a dual system. Most Wikipedians are relative black 'n' whiters, from what I have seen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the open RFC on this general topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:39, 23 July 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:Eastern religions writers

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: this category was created as a substitute for the recently deleted Category:Dharmic writers. The category page states "This category provides navigation between various Eastern religions" but it doesn't - it provides navigation between writers of various religions, and has been created solely for this purpose rather than as a legitimate category. Renaming the category was proposed in the previous deletion discussion, but was rejected in favor of deletion. The creation of this category therefore appears to be in defiance of a previous recent CFD decision. Yworo (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the definition is too vague. people "know" what eastern religions are, but seriously, what are they? just cause the term is used so often, doesnt mean it makes a good category. the individual religions can have their own writer categories.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I created the category to give the adherents of Template:Modern Dharmic writers further alternatives for this template. One of the outcomes of the discussions at Template talk:Modern Dharmic writers was already that it's better to use the singular names - Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. See also Being Different and Rajiv Malhotra. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, ironically "renaming" has also been mentioned in those discussions as being rejected by keeping the Template:Modern Dharmic writers - an argument I don't support. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 30 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:Flora of the Arab world

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Plants don't really care what language is spoken around them. Better to classify this by neutral continental/sub-continental divisions. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:47, 30 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_May_30&oldid=1136462763"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 30, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.