Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 4 July 6 >

July 5

Category:Films shot at Pinewood Atlanta Studios

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 delete this isolated category, but it may be fruitful to have a discussion regarding the entire tree. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm not trying to be disruptive, but I'd like to get consensus before this goes on any further. This category was created out of a discussion now underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_28#Category:Pinewood_Studios_films. I had remarked that films shot at a soundstage is a shooting location, not a producer. But I also asked whether it was advisable to start a new category branch for these. Well, one seems to be starting. I won't repeat all my comments at the other Cfd, but my worry is: do people feel this is a violation of WP:OCVENUE or more generally, WP:NONDEFINING? I'm going to link to this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, who perhaps could have been consulted before we started down this road. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if that rename discussion applies to this delete discussion, even though the topic area is nearly identical. If kept, I'm open to renaming this category for whatever that's worth. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:03, 20 July 2016 (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:Baseball players nicknamed Soup

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: See WP:SHAREDNAME. GZWDer ( talk) 18:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
agree I should have made a disambig Editosaurus ( talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (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:LGBT Wikipedians

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 and rename to Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians, which received no opposition. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Redundant and confusing; they're even both mutually nested inside each other and listed side-by-side. The one with the longer name claims to be a subcategorization of the shorter one, but that doesn't make sense. "LGBT" no longer encompasses the range of these self-identifications (not even nearly), and is just a shorthand form. When it comes to article categories, LGBT should probably remain in some cases, e.g. for LGBT movement, per WP:COMMONNAME and the actual history of the movement. Internal user categories should reflect editor needs (which are minor, and do not split the hairs that the reader-facing article categories do). PS: For history preservation purposes, I would suggest moving the items in LGBTQIA to LGBT, deleting the former, then moving the latter to the less exclusionary name.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Pinging Checkingfax as I know he created the LGBTQIA category, which we also discussed over at WikiProject LGBT Studies. Funcrunch ( talk) 20:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Update – (cc to Funcrunch and SMcCandlish). I have removed Category:LGBTQIA from Category:LGBT. I thought that had already been done. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Editors falling under QIA will benefit from having the choice to be in a more descriptive category, while those wishing to stay in the mainstream category may also do so. Cheers! {{u| Checkingfax}} { Talk} 00:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think resolves the redundancy and confusion problem (indeed, the reason I nominated this was discovering this redundancy and saying "huh?" when creating Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label the same day. We should just have a LGBTQIA Wikipedians category, with all this stuff in it. "LGBT" being "the mainstream categorization" is a very temporary assumption, and not a universal one. It's also important to remember this is not an article category and has no relationship at all to question like "is 'the LGBT movement' historically a term of art in RS that could affect how we category articles for reader navigation, despite broader actual scope of the movement today?", etc. That said, I agree with the circular-nesting fix in the interim.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Pretty clear support. I would like to see queer, intersex, and ace subcategories for the LGBT category, but this umbrella one is just useless, as it technically encompasses less than "LGBT" does Abe only works to exclude alternative identities from some "list of accepted ones". Ahem, either way, I was quite frustrated the way this discussion went last time, so I hope we can reach a practical conclusion this time. ~ Mable ( chat) 08:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge both to Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians Encompasses everything without endless extension of the acronym. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • That would work for me too. ~ Mable ( chat) 00:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I just stumbled on this, and I'm not necessarily aware of past discussions of this, but FWIW, I looked at the category (as someone who would fall under the A), thinking it was using LGBT as a catch-all, but a little disheartened to find it wasn't. I would support a merge into LGBT+ as that acronoym wouldn't need to be continuously extended. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 02:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • You were not mistaken. I'm quite sure "LGBT" was being used as a catch-all, much like how the LGBT wikiproject covers all non-heteronormative genders and sexualities. LGBT+ is fine, but not necessary. ~ Mable ( chat) 07:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Ah! You're right. Then I probably got the impression from the fact that the only subcats are for the L, G, B, and T. At any rate, I would support the addition of a + because, even if it's not necessary, it just seems clearer, and additional subcats in any case. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 14:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge both to LGBT+ per DavidLeighEllis. As annoyed as some people are by the ever-expanding alphabet soup of new letters being added to LGBT, I'm old and decrepit enough to remember when even L, B and T were as contentious as the Qs and Is and As and 2s and +s now are, on the grounds that just "gay" alone was good enough to cover everyone (with a side dish of "bisexuals don't exist"). But we certainly don't need two separate categories whose only substantive distinction is people's position on inclusion or exclusion of the extra letters (a matter which has nothing to do with collaboration on improving an encyclopedia) — our best choice here would be to pick a compromise term that's inclusive without having to be renamed every time another new letter comes along, and/or redebated every three months because people on one side or the other of the alphabet soup debate disagree with the name. Bearcat ( talk) 15:52, 15 July 2016 (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:Ukrainian heraldry stubs

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 and upmerge. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category is half a year old, but only has one article. Propose upmerging template, and deleting category. Dawynn ( talk) 18:09, 5 July 2016 (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:Ukrainian nobility stubs

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 and upmerge. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Empty stub category. Well, it had one article, but that had grown past stub level, so I removed its stub tags. Propose upmerging templates and deleting category. Dawynn ( talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (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:Handicrafts

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 and rename as per nom. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Arts and crafts to Category:Handicrafts
Nominator's rationale: Arts and crafts is synonymous to handicraft, the latter term being used more commonly (derived from the article Handicraft). The parent categories of both original categories all apply to the combined category. CN1 ( talk) 16:53, 5 July 2016 (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:Nigerian law stubs

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. Dawynn ( talk) 13:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unpopulated, and likely will not be filled soon. Proposing upmerging template, and deleting category. Dawynn ( talk) 16:52, 5 July 2016 (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:Nigerian cemetery stubs

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: upmerge and delete. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't expect to see this hit the needed population quota any time soon. Propose upmerging template, and deleting category. Dawynn ( talk) 16:50, 5 July 2016 (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:Nigeria tourism stubs

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. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The only tagged article here can easily be categorized under Geography, not Tourism. The template itself reads like a Geography template. Propose retagging the article, and removing both template and category. Dawynn ( talk) 16:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep Your rationale isn't good enough. The tagged article is a tourism related subject. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 17:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Ok, how about: this is a vastly undersized stub category, created out of process. It's been established for nearly a year now, yet does not even have a proper template for the category (the only template is for a subset of the category). If kept, this would set precedent, as no other country (not even USA or UK) have a Tourism subcategory. I would request that the category itself be deleted specifically for size and interest alone (Stub categories should be no smaller than 60 articles -- see Wikipedia stub sorting. If there was interest, this category would have more tagged articles). If the template should be kept, interested parties should reword the template to differentiate its purpose from a standard -geo-stub template. Dawynn ( talk) 16:30, 7 July 2016 (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:Islamabad stubs

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 and upmerge. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category existed for about a year. Looks like recent efforts now have this down to a single article. Propose upmerging template to the parent category, and deleting this category. Dawynn ( talk) 16:43, 5 July 2016 (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:Caucasus ethnic group stubs

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 and upmerge. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category has been around for a year, and only 1 article tagged. Upmerge template to the two parent categories, and delete this category. Dawynn ( talk) 16:36, 5 July 2016 (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:Ethmiidae stubs

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. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Although currently unpopulated, I can see that there could be some use for this category. However, both the main category and the main article are named 'Ethmiinae'. I do not see an indication of Wikipedia following a naming scheme that includes family Ethmiidae. Please rename the stub category to Ethmiinae to match main article and permanent category. Dawynn ( talk) 16:29, 5 July 2016 (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:1994s hip hop album stubs

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. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Another unnecessary stub category. Again, the articles should be tagged by decade, not individual year. And the decade category is well within reasonable article counts. The only tagged article was very long, nowhere close to a stub. Template redirect, please delete this category. Dawynn ( talk) 16:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. If we needed it (which we don't currently), it would simply be "1984 hip hop...", unless someone can come up with a logical answer to what the "1994s" are/were. Grutness... wha? 07:22, 9 July 2016 (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:1981s horror film stubs

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 per WP:C1. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This was an unnecessary category. Stubs are categorized by decade in situations like this, and the 1980 horror film decade category is within reasonable record counts. The one film tagged with the associated template wasn't even a stub-class article. I've redirected the template to the decade template. Please delete the category. Dawynn ( talk) 15:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. If we needed it (which we don't corrently), it would simply be "1981 horror...", unless someone can come up with a logical answer to what the "1981s" are/were. Grutness... wha? 07:21, 9 July 2016 (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:Wikipedians with unusual usernames

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Serves no collaborative or other purpose, and has no inclusion criteria (there is no way to measure "usual").  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:55, 5 July 2016 (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:Wikipedians that sometimes use mobile devices

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 here. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In 2016, this makes as much sense as "Wikipedians that sometimes wear shoes". The subcat, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Wikipedians who edit by smartphone, which serves a collaboration-related purpose, should be kept, and "moved up" in the category structure, but is nominated for renaming, below. [PS: If kept, the one in this CfD nomination it should be renamed to "Wikipedians who use mobile devices".]  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:46, 5 July 2016 (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:Wikipedians who edit by smartphone

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 here. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Just for clarity, and to be more 2016 instead of 2010; most such mobile editing, on a regular basis by logged in and thus categorizable users, is probably done with tablets, not phones. [See also CfD of parent category above; the one in this nomination would need to be recategorized to take the place of that one.] —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:46, 5 July 2016 (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:Wikipedians who deplore the use of "outside of"

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, after months, and is populated by a userspaced template (and not a User:UBX one). We don't have or need categories for every imaginable style/grammar/punctuation/spelling nit-pick, even if there's a corresponding userbox (and I've created many such userboxes). If there's a perceived use for it, we should group them all in a single category, e.g. "Category:Wikipedians with writing-style peccadilloes", but it's more collaboratively useful for such people to just participate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (for how WP itself is written) and WP:WikiProject English Language (for article content on English usage).  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:44, 5 July 2016 (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:Nearis Green Distillery

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; this category contains only its namesake and one other distiller. – Gilliam ( talk) 03:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There might be some potential category here for Jack Daniel's distillery people (although we'll need to be careful about the wording) but this category is small and not accurate. RevelationDirect ( talk)
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:Songs written by Brent Mason

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Brent Mason is not primarily a songwriter. He is a session guitar player, and this is his only songwriting credit. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Oppose, per previous discussion (Songwriter is defining of the song), plus being a session guitar player does not preclude one from being a songwriter does it? Also per SMALLCAT. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 11:35, 6 July 2016 (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:Te Whakaruruhau o Nga Reo Irirangi Māori

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. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category does not really facilitate navigation at all. It contains the main article, Te Whakaruruhau o Nga Reo Irirangi Māori, an image file, and 27 redirects, all of which redirect to the main article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pretty curious, doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This a category for a radio network and apparently someone created redirects for most of its individual stations. Unless they actually get individual articles, there is no way to populate the category. Dimadick ( talk) 23:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, though I can see the point of the category. If the individual stations had their own articles it would make sense - and it looks like some of them did have. As Dimadick says though, if they have no articles, the category is redundant. Grutness... wha? 02:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While there are situations where categorizing redirects can be helpful, a category that consists of just one actual article and 27 separate redirects to that same one article is not one of them. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somewhere between five and ten of the stations ever actually have their own standalone articles (or the redirects are somehow pointing to different places instead of back to the category's own head article.) Bearcat ( talk) 22:10, 13 July 2016 (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:Artists from Park City, Utah

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:51, 5 July 2016 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_5&oldid=1074816705"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE