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. This is a multiply bizarre nomination, so I'll take the problems one at a time. a) I have no idea what gives LL the impression that the word "Leinster" implies a county. It's not a county, and it doesn't say county. b) The common name of the organisation is Leinster GAA. A Google search for "Leinster provincial council of the GAA" throws up only 3 results, all on Wikipedia, all recetly created or renamed by LL. The head article was at Leinster GAA until Laurel Lodged moved it 1 hour before opening this CFD. That was the page's only move since it was created in 2005, so I have moved it back. Laurel is welcome to open an RM discussion if he wants to, but in meantime the category title matches the name of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply a) I did not say that I believed Leinster to be a GAA county. The category contains only GAA counties plus the article Leinster GAA. A reader unfamilliar with the structure of the GAA would assume that Leinster was just another county. The name change would dispel that idea. b) The common name is not the official name. The official name is unlikely to cause confusion but the same cannot be said for the common name. c) if BHG was unhappy with the new article name, she was supposed to assume that it was done in god faith and take it to the talk page. Instead she changed it without discussion inviting an edit war. Is that good wiki etiquette? d) I await a large cut 'n' paste from BGH of my alleged bad faith edits. Brace yourself folks. While all of it will be irrelevant to this discussion, most of it will prove to be entertaining. At least it will be to BHG and her acolytes. Why else would she do it so frequently? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LL, see WP:BRD: bold., revert, discuss. You were bold, I reverted, now there can be a discussion if you want it.
The name you have chosen appears to be a neologism (see Google search), so it is not the official name. Your chosen mae = "Leinster provincial council of the GAA". Official name = Leinster Council G.A.A. Committee, according to you. Not the same thing, and not the WP:COMMONNAME
The title of the article has been stable for over 6 years. You appear to be the only person confused.
I note that you have also been engaged in yet another massive restructuring of article names and categories relating to counties and provinces, without AFAICS making any attempt to discuss this first. Most of the changes seem pointy, and I am in the process of reverting them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 25 February 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.
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. Not necessarily a bad idea, but it does radically change the scope of the category, because "Pornography in the United States" inludes non-American porn imported from somewhere else. I generally prefer non-adjectival names for categories-by-country, but before making the change I would want some evidence of the effect ... and since the current name fits the convention of the parent category, it should be done by a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is another case of the hoary old issue of whether "American" refers to the two American continents or USA. Most of the sibling categories are fooian pornography, suggesting there should be no change, but the category needs a short head note to the effect that it relates only to USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 28 February 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.
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.
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 Stefanomione's preference, which is misleading. This category also contains subcats which are not by writer. Category:Works about writers by writer would be a good name for a container categ for the by-writer subcats, but I don't think it is needed. Neutral on the nominator's suggestion of "Works about writers and their works"; it is a more complete description of the categ's content, but I am not sure that the extra accuracy justifies the increase in length. To my mind "works about writers" implicitly includes writings about their works. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've been meaning to nominate all the subcategories of this category for renaming to "Works about (name)," but just haven't gotten around to it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:21, 25 February 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.
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 None of the three entries can reasonably be considered as a school museum. They are open-air museums that happen to include a school. The phrase is seldom used to start with but I have found no instance of a reliable source that refers to either of these three museums as a "school museum". Pichpich (talk) 18:47, 25 February 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.
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.
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:User:Stefanomione has created a new category tree, and populated it with Category:Terminology of Jacques Derrida, which I believe should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:DEFINING, as only two of the category contents appear to have been coined by Derrida. If we began to categorize all terms that are simply used by writers, philosophers and academics, this would lead to a massive and pointless clutter. The parent category Category:Terminology by author is misleading, as the other two subcats, Maoist terminology and Marxist terminology, are obviously not "authors." We could also decide to keep the Derrida category and simply add it to the appropriate pre-existing subject grouping in Category:Terminology, such as Category:Postmodern terminology, or merge it there—though deletion for both is still my strong preference. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 25 February 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.
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 to a plain English name which incorporates the title of head article Slough Grammar School, and fits the convention Category:People educated by school in England. The current category name consists of an English-language adjective derived from the Latin word for "Slough", and gives no indication of the contents of the category to any reader or editor who is unfamiliar with the school's history. I see no evidence that the term "Old Paludians" has gained currency outside the school's own circles. For example, searching for "Old Paludians" produces no hits in Google News. The article Old Paludians Association is referenced entirely to the Association itself, and makes no claim of notability.
For a more comprehensive rationale for renaming "Old Fooian" categories of school alumni, see the group nomination at CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. The "Old Paludian" term also refers to alumni of the predecessors of Slough Grammar School, which was created in 1993. The renaming will not affect that, because the standard practice is categorise alumni of merged or renamed educational institutions under the current name. However, if the renaming goes ahead, editors may wish to create {{category redirect}}s for people educated at:
Comment This name is rather an oddity and has a whimsical origin. It is also curious that it refers to the former pupils of so many schools. While "Old Paludians" is properly used in the category name, I can see the advantage of not lumping all the schools together. Moonraker (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity and per previous discussions. This one is especially hard to recognise and navigate. Subcategories for those who attended pre merger institutions are fairly well established for universities and can work just as well for schools. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is truly bizarre to anglicize the latinized version of a name of the school. The fact that even Moonracker admits it is "whimsical" should indicate it is not a good category name for the vast majority of us who have no clue what a slough is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:12, 3 March 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.
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 both to plain English descriptive titles which clarify the purpose of the categories to both readers and editors by incorporating the full article title of each school. These names follow the "Alumni of Foo" convention of their respective parent categories
In the case of King Edward VII School (Johannesburg), the proposed new category name directly reflects the title of the head article. For St. Edward's Secondary School I have added its location "Freetown" as a disambiguator, because although we do not have other articles on schools with that exact title, St. Edward's School (disambiguation) lists many other secondary schools whose name begins with "St Edwards". The disambiguator will help editors to avoid miscategorisation.
For a more comprehensive rationale for renaming "Old Fooian" categories of school alumni, see the group nomination at CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The term "Old Edwardian" can properly be applied to dozens of schools founded by Edward VI - or rather refounded, as most were the refoundations of schools conducted by chantry priests. There is an Old Edwardian Club in Stourbridge, whose membership is (or was) that of the local Grammar School (now a Sixth Form College) or of other Edwardian foundations (such as Shrewsbury School). This whole thread of CFDs started with problems over the schools of the King Edward VI school foundation in Birmingham. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but if... In principle, like several other editors, I support the use of the "Old Fooian" format where it is actually used, and we do not have a general policy in favour of stamping it out all around the world. If these categories were to be renamed, is there any evidence that people in Sierra Leone and South Africa use the Americanism of "alumni" for former pupils of secondary schools? In the absence of that, it would be better to use the People educated at format which is becoming so much used in the United Kingdom, the former 'mother country'. Moonraker (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have no policy either way on Old Fooians, which is why we are having this discussion rather sending this for speedy renaming. It's interesting to see that once gain, cast a WP:JUSTAVOTE but you have no actual argument in favour of the "old Fooian" form.
As to the choice of "alumni of" vs "people educated at", I really don't care a fig either way. These renamings use the existing convention of their parent categories, but if you want to challenge that convention then please open a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the question of using alumni I've had a look at some sources for Sierra Leone and they do use the term alumni for former secondary school pupils. I can add links to the sources if anyone's interested.--Kaly99 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 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.
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 to clarify the purpose of the category by adopting a plain English descriptive format which incorporates the title of the article on the school: University College School. The assists the majority of the wikipedia's readers who will be umfailiar with the inhouse WP:JARGON of individual schools.
The "Old Gowers" terminology arises from the school's former location on Gower Street in central London, but it left there 105 years ago (in 1907). Schools may of course use whatever internal terminology they like, but this terminology makes for poor category names unless it has a) achieved sufficient common usage in reliable sources to be recognisable to those not involved with the school, and b) is unambiguous.
In this case, the title is ambiguous, because a plain English reading of the term relates to people from the scenic Gower Peninsula in Wales. I can find no evidence that the term is widely connected with the school: there is no such usage in a Google News search. A Google Books search throws up 831 hits, but most of them refer to old things from the Gower Peninsula (e.g. "Old Gower Farmhouses") or old things from Gower Street (e.g. "the old Gower Street Chapel", see 102 gbooks hits for "old Gower Street"), and there are a lot of references to the character of Gower from Shakespeare's play Pericles, Prince of Tyre (see the many hits for the phrase "pardon old Gower", a quote from the play). I checked each entry in the first ten pages of the Google book search, and found not a single reference to the school.
For a more comprehensive rationale for renaming "Old Fooian" categories of school alumni, see the group nomination at CfD 2012 February 22, where I set out the general problems with this type of category name and linked to the many precedents for renaming this type of category. If you have concerns about the general principles of this renaming, please read that rationale before commenting here!
I omitted the "Old Gowers" from that group nomination and a further group nom, because I had noticed that the school is of the 12 members of the Eton Group of leading public schools, and Category:Old Gowers currently contains 184 biographical articles. Since the school itself is so eminent, and all of the 184 biogs are presumed to be on notable people, I had hunch that an eminent school which churned out so many notables might have gained some wider usage of its terminology, and left it aside to do some research. My hunch has turned out to be wrong: lots of notable "old Gowers", but no sign of common usage of the term "old Gower". Apart from the googling above, I also checked each of the online references to the List of Old Gowers, and not one of them contains the phrase "old Gower". BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In principle, like several other editors, I support the use of the "Old Fooian" format where it is actually used, and we do not have a general policy in favour of stamping it out. "Old Gowers" is undoubtedly the most common term used in describing former pupils of the school. It causes no harm and is hardly ambiguous. I was quite amused by the new dab page at Old Gower and have added a {{cn}} tag to "Historical people and things associated with the Gower Peninsula in Wales", which strikes me as rather fanciful. Moonraker (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the nomination? Really? There is plenty of evidence there of ambigiuity.
As to your claim that "Old Gower" is "the most common term used in describing former pupils of the school", try one simple test: how many 184 biographical articles on Wikipedia use it anywhere other that in this category name?
BrownHairedGirl, you seem to overlook the fact that there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group. Most or all of the Wikipedia biographies you refer to have no reason to refer to Old Gowers collectively, they are dealing specifically with only one. Where people who attended the school are referred to collectively (often, of course, in the context of the school itself) "Old Gowers" is undoubtedly the commonest term used. A multiplicity of others could be contrived, but in any event, categories are not for giving information, they are for categorizing. Moonraker (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker, I'll take it then that you don't have any evidence that "Old Gower" is common usage.
I have not overlooked the rarity of references anywhere to people educated at a particular school, and you make my point very well. Because it is so rare to refer to them as group, the specialist collective terms are rarely used. That rarity makes them unrecognisable for most readers, which is why a descriptive format per WP:NDESC is much more accessible to readers and editors alike.
As to your claim that categories are not for navigation, I am sorry to see that ytou have not yet read WP:CAT#Overview, which pointed yo to in another discussion, It says "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics."
That's a navigational function, and it's a great pity that you show so little concern for the readers who navigate through these categories. A category with a name they don't understand is an obstacle to navigation, and you seem determined to erect these obstacles in readers' paths. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am particularly delighted to see Moonraker's sentence "BrownHairedGirl, you seem to overlook the fact that there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group." I can't think of a more succinctly worded argument in support of eradicating all of these "Old X" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - the term might well be in common use between Old Gowers but I have never heard it used myself (and I know people who went to University College School). It is not used outside Old Gower circles, as the nom amply demonstrates. Oculi (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Rename. BHG has gone above and beyond the call of duty. She has fully demonstrated that the term "old Gower" when used in English refers to lots of things, but none of them are connected with this school. It has been nearly 6 years (or over half the life of wikipedia) since we abandoned city level demonyms. Why did Londoners fall while Old Gowers stood?John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:22, 3 March 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:Lists of government ministers of Australia
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 but modify contents. To avoid non-list articles being in a list category, the moving of the contents to appropriate categories, possibly with redirects, can be done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is filled predominantly with articles about ministries. Even thought the articles in the category may contain a list the category should be reserved for pages that are purely a list ie. preceded by "List of". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the nomination since the vast majority of the member articles belong in the category suggested. I did consider re-categorising each one and leaving something like two categories behind. In retrospect creating the redirects suggested below will help to populate the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – this is a clear case for the creation of redirects to each embedded list, and the categorisation of the redirects in the list category (under the current name). I agree with the nom that the articles (about ministries) should be moved to Category:Government ministries of Australia, as they are not themselves lists. (Eg Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Australia) is an article about a ministry and contains not 1 but 2 embedded lists, each of which should have its redirect. I have created and categorised these 2 redirects to lists. In the past editors have disagreed about categorising redirects and undone my efforts so I shall see what happens to these 2. Otto4711 springs to mind.) Oculi (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The description in Category:Lists of government ministers says "These are lists of Ministers ordered by country." Perhaps it should say "These are articles which contain lists of...". I think categorised redirects are a fine interim solution for long lists, but a permanent one for short lists. A de facto rule that these lists must be sawn out of articles on the office is fine if there were 50 office-holders, but isn't it better to have the information in the article if there were only a couple. BTW Australia has departments rather than ministries – there is already a Category:Government departments of Australia; but maybe a need for Category:Ministerial offices in Australia since most departments have several ministers. Jll (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ministerial offices in Australia" has a subtly different meaning to "Ministerial offices of Australia". The "in" format could include the states, whereas the "of" format implies those at national level. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 26 February 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.
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 to a descriptive format which uses the the title of the head article, Highbury Preparatory School. This rename facilitates navigation by removing obscure WP:JARGON from a category name (where it impedes navigation), and by clarifying the category's purpose as alumni of the school in KwaZulu-Natal. This also disambiguates the category name from:
alumni of the defunct Highbury House School in Highbury, London, England, from which the prep school took its name (see here and here)
A possible further Highbury House School in Hastings [1]
Old or deceased people from Highbury district of London, England
Strongly oppose: To wish to use the Americanism of "alumni of" for a prep school (that is, a primary school) in South Africa is really quite preposterous. I am puzzled by the reference to "the convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in South Africa", as it is notable that all but one of the present categories for former pupils of South African schools include the word "Old". There is consistency at present, which is not based on the use of "alumni". "Old Highburians" is no doubt the commonest term actually used for the former pupils of the school. With regard to ambiguity, no evidence is suggested that any of the other Highburys has ever used the term "Old Highburian", and even if any had there would be other ways to disambiguate the term. I suppose this is the beginning of an attack on the use of the "Old Fooian" format in the South African categories, on the lines of the war of attrition pursued by a small group of editors with regard to schools in the UK? I find all this obsessiveness rather sad. Moonraker (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker, please do try to read the nomination before you respond to it. Contrary to your assertion, the nom includes specific evidence that another school did use the term "Old Highburian", and here is one of Highbury County Grammar former pupils using that term on a comment page.
Also, your WP:BATTLEGROUND language of "attack" doesn't help build a consensus. Nobody is attacking you, so please calm down.
What would help is some evidence of your assertion that "Old Highburians is no doubt the commonest term actually used for the former pupils of the school"? That "no doubt" is empty rhetoric unless you have some evidence of how it is used outside the school and its circles. Usage by the former pupils themselves is not common usage (see WP:COMMONNAME), and you do not address the need for recognisability, naturalness, and lack of ambiguity. See WP:NDESC for why descriptive titles may be appropriate.
The ambiguity problem is not just a question of whether the other schools used the term, because Wikipedia is not actually written for an Old Boys network. It is written for a general audience, and even if our readers and editors are familiar enough with the "old Fooian" terminology to know that it means "Old Boys of Foo School", they won't know which "Foo School". Rather than complaining of an "attack", please could you try to assist other editors in devising category titles which will actually help readers to navigate between articles? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – the case against most Old Fooian categories has been made repeatedly and in detail and has never been addressed other than by assertion. The RSA ones use either alumni or Old Fooian so alumni is the obvious choice. As Peterkingiron says, this is not in fact a secondary school (and is thus misparented) and 'delete' is another strong option. Oculi (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for all the usual reasons I cite every time - clear, unambiguous, non-jargony, standardised. Would prefer "people educated at" as part of a move to slowly rename all the "Alumni" to "PEA", but if it's desired to maintain uniformity across the parent cat, no problem with that. - The BushrangerOne ping only06:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "alumni" is not an Americanism, as BHG pointed out with her quote from the Short Oxford English Dictionary in a previous discussion. The parent category uses alumni, and no one has presented any evidence it is not used in South Africa. Most of the South Africa categories use forms like "Old boys" which is not the same thing as just "old x". Anyway, as of now 2 categories use the alumni of form, and there are only maybe 15 categories at absolute most.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:32, 3 March 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.
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.
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.
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.