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. Except for 3 original recordings, none of these songs are defining as a song from Back to the Future (no matter how memorable for some). "The Power of Love", "Back in Time" and "Doubleback" can be upmerged to the parents but the others don't need to be in these categories as non-defining. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me23:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. At what point does WHERE a song is played and/or performed become notable? There is a reasonable argument that a list of the songs performed can be added to the main article, but seriously folks, what use a separate article or category? --
Richhoncho (
talk)
13:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I would posit the connection is notable if the songs were explicitly written to be used in the movie. That is what is going on with the two parent trap songs we have under discussion elsewhere, but that is not what is going on here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)reply
we have
Category:Songs from musicals which has a lot of musical specific sub-cats, but there the connection of the song to the musical in question is usually one of creation for use in the musical. I would support removal of any song in that category that did not originate in a musical.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Response to JPL. This was why I used the words "WHERE performed" - specifically to avoid including songs written or performed FOR... Other things I nearly wrote came under
WP:BEANS--
Richhoncho (
talk)
21:00, 3 December 2012 (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:Muppets
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: The former name is vague and does not directly connect itself to what it is attempting to categorize which are articles relating to The Muppets franchise. ~
Jedi94 (
talk)
23:28, 27 November 2012 (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.
Culture by city
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.
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No Spanish culture in Latin America or France. Instead there could be English culture in Barcelona. All the cities here are in Spain. This is a by country category.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No Belfast here. No Irish culture in Canada. But in turn there can be Polish culture inside Culture in Dublin (city).
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The problem here is that most of the other sibling categories in
Category:Culture by nationality and city are named in the current format rather than the proposed one. So unless you'd like to propose that theyall be renamed in the proposed format instead, we're left with the question of which parent should take precedence over the other one — and normally the naming convention from a topic tree (i.e. "Culture by nationality and city") takes precedence over a "Categories by city in country" tree in determining the correct format for subcategory names. If you'd like to propose a mass renaming of all the "Culture by nationality and city" subcategories, I would support that, as it reduces potential ambiguity about what's intended for the exact reason that you describe — but if you want to treat this particular one inisolation, then I have to oppose on the grounds that
Category:Culture by nationality and city takes "C2C" precedence over
Category:Categories by city in Italy.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The content is what matters. Not C2C Csxyz. The content is not Italian exclusively (Culture in Rome can have Turkish culture in Rome) nor inclusively (No single content of Italian culture in Canada).
ChemTerm (
talk)
19:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
If you know how to propose them all with ONE edit, please tell. And 'BTW I don't have to do anything. I could also say, you have to ... but I don't.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Let me make this clear: it is more important that this category be named consistently with its sibling subcategories in
Category:Culture by nationality and city than that it be named consistently with its sibling subcategories
Category:Categories by city in Italy. That's the crux of my objection here, but I also clarified that since I do agree with the fundamental reasoning behind your proposal, I wouldsupport a renaming proposal that dealt with them all — but the argument is not unique to Italy alone, so I cannot support a nomination which deals only with this category while leaving all of the others alone. And the main page at
WP:CFD already explains quite clearly how to propose a batch nomination that applies to multiple categories at once, so there's nothing for me to explain since the information is already available to you.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The main page does not show how to do it with ONE edit. To oppose fixing an error because the error exists elsewhere is meant as a JOKE, right? If you like consistency more than correctness then go and propose renaming the others.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
There's no way to do it "with ONE edit" — and you don't particularly have any prerogative to simplyrefuse to do it just because it's not possible to do it "with ONE edit", either. If you want the thing to be done, then the onus is on you to follow the proper procedure to get it done — you don't get to take shortcuts just because the process is a bit more complicated than you'd like it to be, or to demand that other people do the work for you.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Firstly, you're misinterpreting if you think "Oppose a fix. WP:ILIKE I rather prefer consistent application of the error everywhere" has anything to do with what I said. And secondly, between this conversation and the fact that instead of following proper process you've spent a big chunk of today already jumping the gun to create a bunch of new categories that you first proposed in a renaming discussion justyesterday, you're acting like an entitled brat who's cruising for an
WP:RFC if you don't start following the rules.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Saying "this category is not an isolated case, you need to fix them all", when you've proposed this as an isolated case that's somehow subject to different considerations than its siblings, is not the same thing as "opposing" a fix — especially given that I specifically pointed out that I wouldsupport a proper nomination that dealt with the whole tree instead of singling this one out as an isolated case. If that's not clear to you, that isn't my problem.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, you do need to look at the others. They're all subject to the same considerations, so if there's a "bug" then you need to propose them as a group so that the "bug" can be fixed across the board. You do realize that it's taking you more time and effort to start a separate individual discussion for each category than it would to batch them together from the start, right?
Bearcat(
talk)
21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Um, I didn't "finally" get anything; this is exactly what I've been saying from the start, and you're the one who was saying you didn't have to.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Bearcat, ChemTerm did nominate many others. True, they weren't all put together in one nom. And true, ChemTerm is being neddlessly snippy. But the intension is good. ChemTerm, learn some manners, you'll catch more flies with honey. PS I support the rename. --
Kevlar(
talk •
contribs)
19:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
For the record, he only started nominating any of the others after I forced his hand via this discussion — and as of right now, as far as I can tell, he still hasn't actually nominated them all.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename we have
category:Italians in New York City which is basically a culture category, so the current name is less than clear. Also, I not only does Italy have large immigrant communities in some parts, but
Sicilians and some other sub-groups in Italy are not "Italian" by all definitions, so I could see all sorts of problems with the current cat.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is about culture in cities of Poland. 1) Not about Polish culture in Canada. 2) Not about Polish culture alone. There can be Jewish culture in Warsaw.
ChemTerm(
talk)
20:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug.
ChemTerm (
talk)
20:54, 27 November 2012 (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:Climbing and mountaineering-related lists
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: Mountaineering is a type of climbing. The category "climbing and mountaineering-related lists" is akin to a hypothetical "swimming and breaststroke-related lists" category. Most of the category contents are related to mountaineering, but I think the broader category "climbing" is better in this case.
Nathan Johnson (
talk)
20:40, 27 November 2012 (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:Regensburg culture
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 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:Tribal communities of Rajasthan
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: India has a complex social ordering system that involves, inter alia,
jati,
caste,
gotra and tribe. Sources often vary in how they describe a particular community. In the case of tribes, you might also find them described as a caste, a gotra or a clan (although gotra is the pretty much synonymous with that). The variation - and there are others - is huge and often there are inconsistencies in the same source.
However, the government of India has a
social classification system that specifies
tribes. Instead of dealing with the inconsistencies that can arise both in and across articles dealing with such "tribes", it seems sensible to use the government system as a standard for categorisation. This is a test case: there are a few other similarly named categories that could be merged or renamed per my proposed schema. I am prepared to verify the contents post-merge - in fact, it ties in with my current exercise anyway.
Sitush (
talk)
17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, the Government of the Indian Union certainly does define the capitalization of the names of its designations and classifications. Not every U.S. representative is a
Representative; not every U.N. special rapporteur is a
Special Rapporteur, and so on.-
choster (
talk)
21:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I really don't mind about the caps either way. but it is a sideshow in terms of my proposal. Whoever closes can do whatever they want about that. -
Sitush (
talk)
19:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. We bow to local usage by English-speaking countries. Since India has English as an official language, is the government of India feels that "Scheduled Tribe" should be capitalized we should do it. Anyway this is more or less a proper name, so we should capitalize.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
It is not "mpre or less a proper name", it is a proper name. This is an official government classification system that comprises Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Classes and Forward Classes. You'll never see those in lower case in the Indian media etc when they are referring to the system and, indeed, often they simply abbreviate to SC. ST, OBC and FC. However, everyone here seems to be missing the bigger point: I am proposing a merger - the capitalisation issue is less significant that us being able to categorise in some sort of sensible manner. The creator of
Category:Tribal communities of Rajasthan agrees with me, btw, but has said so on their talk page rather than here. -
Sitush (
talk)
10:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Fayenatic, I've been a bit troubled by
Indigenous peoples of India but haven't had the heart to raise the matter. I'm in enough squabbles as it is, right now. One of the difficulties is that, particularly in northern India (of which Rajasthan is a part), many groups claim the
Aryan invasion theory. I'm unsure whether the terminology - "indigenous" - is even being correctly applied but I'm not a professional anthropologist etc. The "tribes" defined by the government of India may or may not be the equivalent in anthropology to, say, the Aborginal people found in Australia but until we have a really good definition for "indigenous" that is applicable to India, well, my suspicion is that the category you refer to should actually contain far less articles and perhaps none at all (although there may be a case for those who claim
Dravidian descent in the south). I think people may be confusing indigenous/ethnic group/tribe/caste etc in all sorts of inconsistent ways and it might be better to use
Category:Social groups of India etc. But it is all probably a topic best dealt with in another nomination, if ever I can summon the willpower. I'm a bit dis-spirited with the sniping going on elsewhere at present. -
Sitush (
talk)
14:21, 10 December 2012 (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:Villages formerly in Derbyshire
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.
Oppose and expand category system I think it might be better to categorize according to both former and present county (though that might lead to cumbersome category names), but I personally find the category helpful in sorting out the shifting county boundaries, and I would like this kind of category extended to other counties in England. Since deletion seems a foregone conclusion, I would prefer Listifying as suggested below.
Mangoe (
talk)
00:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete many of these articles are on things that are not villages at all. Categorizing places by all the 2nd-levl country subdivisions they have been in is a potential nighmare causing plan, and not really advised.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete we cannot categorize places based on their former jurisdictions...nearly every large European city would end up being in dozens of categories: Warsaw, Poland, would be in categories: Cities formerly in the Duchy of Masovia, Cities formerly in the Kingdom of Poland, Cities formerly in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Cities formerly occupied by Sweden, Cities formerly occupied by Transylvania, Cities formerly occupied by Brandenburg, Cities formerly in the Kingdom in Prussia, Cities formerly occupied by France, Cities formerly in Congress Poland, Cities formerly in Russia, Cities formerly occupied by the German Empire, Cities formerly in the Generalgouvernment, Cities formerly in the People's Republic of Poland... too much.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
07:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I agree would create many, many new categories. But in somes cases, wouldn't those things be defining, and demand a category of some kind. We already have
Category:Roman towns and cities for places formerly in the Roman Republic or Empire. I supposed the alternative to list them, as in
List of towns in New France or template them as in {{Gardariki}} (Norse settlements). Do wikiproject former countries or cities have any poicies on this? --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
20:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete -- There have been lots of boundary changes in England over the past couple of centuries. I do not think it is useful to try to reflect past geography in categories. An article can explain when and why changes were made. I think I recall an article on places that have ceased to be in Worcestershire.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I would consider this a satisfactory solution. There really needs to be some easily understood presentation of these changes, and I'm not wedded to categories as being that presentation.
Mangoe (
talk)
17:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I would support listifying. It would solve the problem that some of these articles are on wards that are made up of vilalges that were in Derbyshire at one point, but the wards that the articles are on were never part of Derbyshire.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:33, 30 November 2012 (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:Steam 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.
Nominator's rationale: While there are other facets of
Steam (software) that would be useful categorization (such as Steamworks-enabled game, Steam Workshop games, etc.) just being available on Steam is equivalent of building a catalog of what products a retail sells (eg this is a stone's throw away from something like "Amazon.com products") This is not necessary nor appropriate for WP.
MASEM (
t)
14:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete – I love me some Steam, but I don't see that the category does anything useful besides organizing by retail source, which we shouldn't be doing. I also agree that the idea for a Steam Worship category in particular would be useful. —Torchiesttalkedits15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Reply: You haven't really said why it is useful - in fact, I would think the lists you mention would largely make the category redundant. For a list of steam games, Steam (or Valve, note these lists are not in the category discussed but in
Category:Valve Corporation), is a defining feature of the list. For say
Braid (video game), steam is not a part of the game, it is just somewhere you can buy it. It is is not a defining feature of Braid any more than Gamestop or Amazon. --
Qetuth (
talk)
07:20, 4 December 2012 (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:Philosopher templates
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 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:Radio show templates
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 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:Disease-related deaths by country
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.
Comment - I don't mean to step on any toes by proposing this deletion, but it seems that the category is in direct violation of
WP:OC#SMALL. I'm also not sure how this form of categorization would be useful to readers, particularly since most of the daughter or grand-daughter categories contain just a handful of members.
Dezastru (
talk)
08:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't see that the subcategories are useful either. I am new at categories procedures. Is there a bot that can delete the tree, or is everything manual here?
Dezastru (
talk)
07:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
There are some bots that have been able to tag the categories. I have been away from WP for awhile though, so I'm not sure what the current status of those procedures are. I believe that these categories are mainly container categories; they are not intended to have articles placed in them.
Good Ol’factory(talk)07:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Thanks to all who have pointed out my admitted error in the interpretation of
WP:OC#SMALL. However, that was a secondary rationale. The primary rationale, as stated, is
WP:OC#TRIVIAL: "this form of overcategorization also applies to grouping people by trivial circumstances of their deaths, such as categorizing people by the age at which they died or the place of death.... Even though such categories may be interesting to some people, they aren't particularly encyclopedic."
Dezastru (
talk)
07:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Not sure I follow what you mean. If you were to say that death by aplastic anemia due to radiation poisoning was defining for Marie Curie, or death by poisoning was defining for Socrates, or death from lung cancer was defining for John Wayne, or death from complications of anorexia was defining for Karen Carpenter, or death from complications of AIDS was defining for Rock Hudson, I would understand. In all of these cases, the cause of death was/has been a prominent part of what has been reported about them. But is that true for most of the individals whose articles are grouped in the sub-categories? Is death by cardiovascular disease defining for former US President Dwight Eisenhower? Is death from myelodysplastic disease defining for Roald Dahl, or death from esophageal cancer defining for Harold Pinter? I'd say, no, disease-related deaths (and their specific sub-categories) were not defining for any of these individuals, or for most of the other individuals whose articles are so categorized. The actor John Wayne led a very public campaign against smoking after his diagnosis with smoking-related lung cancer, and Rock Hudson's diagnosis with and later death from AIDS were widely reported at the time and had an enormous impact on public perceptions of the AIDS epidemic. In their cases, the cause of death is part of what people remember about them. The other group of folks just died of diseases people get when they get old. Everybody dies eventually; the cause of death is not automatically notable/defining.
Dezastru (
talk)
05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep. like
Category:Establishments in California by year, each year may not have many, but the category is unambiguous and the fact documented is noteworthy. nearly all notable humans have their cause of death noted in their obituaries, thus the fact is not trivial, though of course some may see it as such. human civilization documents and honors each human death, esp. the cause of death. I refer you to the film F/X, where the killer is identified because he DIDNT ask how the person died, and the detective KNEW that the first question asked by everyone upon hearing of someones death is "how did they die?".
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep the whole tree. This is a well-defined category tree grouping an important biographical parameter. It is normal to include cause of death in a biographical article when known and documentable. Whether or not the cause of death is to be considered trivial is a matter of POV.--
MChew (
talk)
06:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I have just noticed that this topic had been raised recently at
WP:DEATH. I have put a link to this discussion there. (When oh when will people have the good grace to involve actual editors in these CfD? -
WP:BIOG may also be interested in this discussion)
Ephebi (
talk)
15:08, 5 December 2012 (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:Culture by region navigational boxes
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:Rename. When I first saw "area" I thought it meant different types of culture. "Region" clarifies this as being different parts of the world and the content of the category seems to relate to
regions as Wikipedia describes them.
86.40.203.115 (
talk)
05:06, 27 November 2012 (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:Book navigational boxes
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 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:Literature award navigational boxes
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.
Rename per nom. obvious. Locus Award templates now has a parent cat for the award categories, founder, mag, so the template category may not be necessary any more.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
10:18, 2 December 2012 (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.