Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 3 July 5 >

July 4[edit]

Category:Canal 5[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canal 5 to Category:Canal 5 (Televisa Network)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Canal 5" is too general a name, as many stations worldwide, particularly in Latin American countries, use the Canal 5 name. azumanga (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are going to rename things I suggest you keep it simple rename it to Category:Canal 5 network..., there aren't any networks called Canal 5 just local channels that do not have affiliates or notable shows or rename it to Canal 5 (Mexico) I agree to the renaming as long as its kept simple, and the word "network" shouldn't be capitalized. Don't forget to clean up after renaming articles. More power to you, -AMAPO (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Canal 5 (Televisa Network) and Canal 5. Occuli (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename article back to Canal 5 and add template leading to canal 5 disambiguation. Canal 5, erroneously redirected to the network's flagship station XHGC-TV for the last 5 years, I don't see what the problem is keeping it simply as Canal 5, it was renamed wrong, it was just copypasted instead of being moved. Seeing that plus there aren't any broadcast networks or stations with Canal 5 as their official name, some local stations are just informally known as canal 5 (channel 5) with call-signs and affiliated to other networks. Hundreds of the articles that link to Canal 5 are intended for the network article. As for these cfds, they do not apply, since I stated above there aren't any broadcast networks called Canal 5 much less with affiliates and notable shows. In my opinion a network's official name outranks stations' informal names. Google Canal 5 and see what shows up. Canal 5 redirect to channel 5 serves no purpose as this isn't es:wikipedia or a translator website. —AMAPO (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom categories should not be ambiguous, regardless of however ambiguous the article is named, the category should not be so. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2011 (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:Canal 5 shows[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canal 5 shows to Category:Canal 5 (Televisa Network) shows
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Canal 5" is too general a name, as many stations worldwide, particularly in Latin American countries, use the Canal 5 name. azumanga (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are going to rename things I suggest you keep it simple rename it to Category:Canal 5 network..., there aren't any networks called Canal 5 just local channels that do not have affiliates or notable shows or rename it to Canal 5 (Mexico) I agree to the renaming as long as its kept simple, and the word "network" shouldn't be capitalized. Don't forget to clean up after renaming articles. More power to you, -AMAPO (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Canal 5 (Televisa Network) and Canal 5. Occuli (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename article back to Canal 5 and add template leading to canal 5 disambiguation. Canal 5, erroneously redirected to the network's flagship station XHGC-TV for the last 5 years, I don't see what the problem is keeping it simply as Canal 5, it was renamed wrong, it was just copypasted instead of being moved. Seeing that plus there aren't any broadcast networks or stations with Canal 5 as their official name, some local stations are just informally known as canal 5 (channel 5) with call-signs and affiliated to other networks. Hundreds of the articles that link to Canal 5 are intended for the network article. As for these cfds, they do not apply, since I stated above there aren't any broadcast networks called Canal 5 much less with affiliates and notable shows. In my opinion a network's official name outranks stations' informal names. Google Canal 5 and see what shows up. Canal 5 redirect to channel 5 serves no purpose as this isn't es:wikipedia or a translator website. —AMAPO (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom categories should not be ambiguous, regardless of however ambiguous the article is named, the category should not be so. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2011 (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:Canal 5 affiliates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canal 5 affiliates to Category:Canal 5 (Televisa Network) affiliates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Canal 5" is too general a name, as many stations worldwide, particularly in Latin American countries, use the Canal 5 name. azumanga (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are going to rename things I suggest you keep it simple rename it to Category:Canal 5 network..., there aren't any networks called Canal 5 just local channels that do not have affiliates or notable shows or rename it to Canal 5 (Mexico) I agree to the renaming as long as its kept simple, and the word "network" shouldn't be capitalized. Don't forget to clean up after renaming articles. More power to you, -AMAPO (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Canal 5 (Televisa Network) and Canal 5. Occuli (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename article back to Canal 5 and add template leading to canal 5 disambiguation. Canal 5, erroneously redirected to the network's flagship station XHGC-TV for the last 5 years, I don't see what the problem is keeping it simply as Canal 5, it was renamed wrong, it was just copypasted instead of being moved. Seeing that plus there aren't any broadcast networks or stations with Canal 5 as their official name, some local stations are just informally known as canal 5 (channel 5) with call-signs and affiliated to other networks. Hundreds of the articles that link to Canal 5 are intended for the network article. As for these cfds, they do not apply, since I stated above there aren't any broadcast networks called Canal 5 much less with affiliates and notable shows. In my opinion a network's official name outranks stations' informal names. Google Canal 5 and see what shows up. Canal 5 redirect to channel 5 serves no purpose as this isn't es:wikipedia or a translator website. —AMAPO (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom categories should not be ambiguous, regardless of however ambiguous the article is named, the category should not be so. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2011 (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:Klingon-language operas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Klingon-language operas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category links to a one article, and not enough articles to populate. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The nominator failed to see that this is part of the complete Category:Operas by language, which has several other categories with only one article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Michael Bednarek. It's a useful navigation aid. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course keepas per above.--Smerus (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is only one existing Klingon opera in the world as of yet (in the real world) so that is why there is only one entry. SpeakFree (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The parent category is for operas in actual spoken languages. Klingon is not such, so this category can not be preserved on the grounds of small categories can live if part of a larger schema. Even at that there is no reason to think that creating a category that is limited to one article by the nature of things can be justified by that rule. It is meant for small categories, but it is not clear that it can be stretched to categories that by their nature are limited to one thing. This category seems to be an example of overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's not true. There is an opera in Sanskrit (Satyagraha) and three in Latin, neither of which are spoken languages today, except in ceremonial settings. Note also per Wikipedia:SMALLCAT, this doesn't apply

    "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country."

    Category:Operas by language is a large overall accepted subcategorization scheme. Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment categorizing things by languages that have never been functional languages undermines the respectability of wikipedia. Sanskrit and Latin may not be widely spoken at present, but if you can not see how they are fundamentally different than Klingon than you do not understand why wikipedia is mocked in some circles. Wikipedia has too heavily been involved in overcovering and overcreating non-ecyclopedic content about fiction, and this category just begs for more of that. "a few" is different than "one". "A few" means more than one, one is an extreme case, and I see no reason any category that is limited in size to one item should be created. If someone writes another Klingon opera we can rediscuss this issue, but until that date it seems pretty clear that a category with one item has no reason to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your view ("I see no reason any category that is limited in size to one item should be created") is clearly not supported by WP:SMALLCAT; as Voceditenore pointed out: "a large overall accepted subcategorization scheme" validates these categories. According to your view, a considerable number of the other categories in Category:Operas by language should be deleted, not to mention the substantial number of categories in Category:Operas by composer with one entry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Johnpacklambert that the exception in WP:SMALLCAT probably was never intended to extend to situations like this where a work exists in an invented language that has never had a functional existence. I do find it funny (of the ha-ha type), and JPL is not far off when he highlights the mockery factor. If more than one Klingon-language opera article existed in WP, I would reconsider my opinion, but for now I think deletion is appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I frankly don't understand the "mockery factor" argument at all. I taught linguistics at university level for years and have written introductory textbooks on it. I don't have a problem with this sub-category. Categorizing operas by the language used for their librettos isn't about classifying languages themselves or ranking them in terms of "legitimacy". Have either of the objectors actually read the articles on Constructed language and Klingon? The opera (’u’) is not the only work that has been written in it.

    Categories exist to help the reader, not to shore up some concept of Wikipedia's image. You want to see what languages operas have been written in? Go to Category:Operas by language and it's all there at a glance including an idea of the relative frequency of a particular language's use for that medium. Even more importantly, you can see that operas have been written in a surprising number of languages, including "dead" ones, "obscure" ones (see Kuratov) and "invented" ones.

    The "only one" argument doesn't really hold any water either. For the same reader-oriented reason we categorize operas by language of the libretto, we categorize them by their composer. Hence Category:Operas by Ludwig van Beethoven. It has one member, Fidelio, and there will never be another. Are you going to argue for that category system to be abolished too so the reader can no longer see at a glance the array of composers who have written operas, and what those operas are? Actually per BEANS, I probably shouldn't have asked that. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "I frankly don't understand the "mockery factor" argument at all." Maybe you're just not hanging in the right circles ... :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto; see "What is Klingon?" at Brown University; "Want to study Klingon? Take new UBC language course" at University of British Columbia; the talk by Marc Okrand "Linguistics and Science Fiction: An Introduction to Klingon" at Leipzig University; and "Klingon Speakers Now Outnumber Navajo Speakers" at The Onion, and of course Category:Klingon languages and the Category:User tlh. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to say the same thing. At the university where I taught, Klingon constituted a significant portion of the syllabus for the course on Invented Languages. There are articles about Klingon in academic journals (both in linguistics and in cultural studies) and it is discussed in many linguistics textbooks. The fear that Wikipedia is covering "non-ecyclopedic content" and will therefore be mocked is really quite misplaced in this case, and frankly wrong. Voceditenore (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of that means it's not mocked in particular circles, which was what was asked about. Those same circles no doubt mock the scholars that study Klingon and the universities that employ them to an equal degree. It is, afterall, Brown. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am enjoying the irony of seeing those interested in opera being criticised for being insufficiently snobbish almost-instinct 07:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. It's positively refreshing. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to those "interested in opera". One doesn't have to be interested in opera to be interested in a particular category structure. I was assuming those interested in this category are interested in the category, not opera necessarily. I have no idea if you personally are interested in opera, but you do seem interested in the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my original point about the "mockery factor". No one argues that Wikipedia isn't mocked for some of its unencyclopedic content. What I didn't, and still don't, understand is the use of this general fact by you and Johnpacklambert to argue for the deletion of this category. Can you please explain why the content under discussion, a constructed language which has been the subject of academic studies and university courses, and an opera written it, are unencyclopedic? You both seem to be using this as a reason to delete the category which contains the article, although apparently not the article itself. In other words, I don't understand how fear of the putative "circles" who might mock this specific topic (out of ignorance, in my view) is a valid reason to delete the category which contains an article about it. Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was unencylopedic. This is not a discussion to delete the article, which is where such an argument would be made. My agreement with the "mockery factor" was just an observation of agreement that a category such of this is the height of mockery fodder and wasn't meant to present or agree that it was a rationale for deletion of a category. I'll avoid saying "loosen up", but ... oh, there, I said it. (Or maybe what I meant is "tighten up", depending on your particular interpretation of what I write, which may be different than what I intended, which happens, as above.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from the many excellent arguments put above by Voceditenore etc, it's worth pointing out the Klingon (whatever you or I may think about it) is in some ways a more alive language than the kind of Italian used in, say, the libretti of Handel's operas. The one opera written in it clearly has responded on an artistic level to the aural qualities of this (created) language, and it is far from unlikely, given the position of the concept of opera in the language's (created) mythology that this will be the end of the matter. This category is a useful tool, and that should be the end of matter almost-instinct 09:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating a linguistic study of Klingon is the ultimate in misplaced fan enthusiasm in my mind. This category just strikes me as part of a trend to have way too many categories related to fictional things and too little attention to reality. Is there Category:works in Klingon? I will follow up the answer to that with more observation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have Category:Klingon languages, however for other opera categories they are generally in the Category:Foo language category. Thus Category:Croatian-language operas is also in Category:Croatian language. The general schema is that we have sets of works in various media by language, so that opera categories are both subcats of the related opera category and the related language (not languages) category. I see no reason why we can not put this one article in Category:Klingon languages and Category:Operas. There is no purpose served by creating the juntion category for one item.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of fixing the typos in the comment above which had resulted in multiple red-links. The categorisation system for Klingon is a mess. First of all it's misnamed. It should be Klingon language not Klingon languages. Secondly, that category currently links to a dab page as the main article. However, there is a great deal of inconsistency across all the various language categories. Prime example: Category:French language has French-language operas and French-language plays as direct sub-cats although not French-language novels. There is no reason why Category:Operas has to be congruent with or modelled on Category:Languages. They relate to two entirely different areas of knowledge and serve two entirely different purposes. Plus, the latter category is so full of vagaries and inconsistencies, I'd hardly use it as a model for the former. Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gather you are not a linguist or familiar with the academic literature and study of constructed and fictional languages. If you were, you would not characterise their motivation as the "ultimate in misplaced fan enthusiasm". We have articulated a very clear purpose for creating a junction of operas and the languages they're written in, regardless of size. Category:Operas by language serves to show the reader the articles on operas written in every single language and to help the reader locate them. It is primarily to help readers interested in opera, not those intererested in Star Trek. How does removing, or more accurately censoring, this particular one-member category (as opposed to the others, e.g. Komi-language operas, Sanskrit-language operas) help the reader? You have said Wikipedia "pays too little attention to reality". The "reality" is that ’u’ is an opera. It is entirely written in the Klingon language. Klingon is a fully fledged (and highly notable) constructed language. You seem to be saying that it's OK to have a one-member category if the language is a natural language but not if it is a constructed language, even though it is far more likely that another opera will be writtten in Klingon than one in Komi. Do you consider all constructed languages verboten for these purposes? For example, Esperanto, Solresol, etc.? Or only the subset of artistic languages? Or only the subset of artistic languages which derived from a popular television show, some of whose fans can be quite goofy? Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the reasons given above. We categorise operas by language, regardless of how few examples there are in each category. The Klingon opera is notable enough to have its own article so it should be categorised in the same way as other opera articles. Most of the arguments for deletion amount to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Folantin (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2011 (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:Clown painters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Clown painters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is this a legitimate subcategory of Category:Artists by genre? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly didn't think so. But then I see there is Chuck Oberstein, too, described in the lead as "an American painter, best known for clown paintings." So maybe. As you know, a bisexual version of same was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_28#Category:Bisexual_clown_painters.(talk) 14:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really think so either, but I'm not sure, because there are a couple of articles that specifically mention that the artist mostly painted clowns. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I understand that clowns may have been a fairly common subject of paintings. However, that doesn't make "clown painting" stand out as a genre. N.B.: I nominated the bisexual clown painters category for deletion. szyslak (t) 01:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think clown painters is a legitimate category for discussion. Clowns have been the subject of paintings since medieval court jesters and other fools were painted. Unfortunately, these paintings (and their often very talented painters) have been overlooked in the greater art world. Yet new clown painters emerge with every generation simply because these paintings and the artists who paint them know how to juxtapose human emotion against the folly of contemporary times. Julian Ritter, who was better-known for his nudes and showgirls was also an excellent clown painter who delivered complex multi-figure clown compositions dealing with the complexities of human emotions. As Ritter said, "In the clown one sees all the emotions a man can express; to record him is to depict humanity itself." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyt.tft (talk • contribs)
    • If the art world has largely ignored clown paintings (and it sounds like they have) and as a result there is no widely accepted genre of "clown painting", then it's not WP's job to try to reverse that treatment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have said the art establishment (i.e., museums) although commedia del'arte and harlequins are represented. But in many cases, this simply reflects the painter's lack of desire to market to the art establishment. In truth, clown paintings are very commercially successful even if you are not likely to find a contemporary clown painting in a museum.
      • A couple of other clown painters to consider: Georges Rouault and Pablo Picasso. Rouault's "The Clown" hung in MOMA and clowns were considered a favorite subject. Picasso included many harlequins in his paintings. I will try to update the Rouault and Picasso pages to reflect their clown paintings. Then there is Leighton Jones who was well-known for his paintings of the clown Emmett Kelly; Jones painted Kelly paintings for the Kelly estate for six years which were successfully sold as lithographs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyt.tft (talk • contribs) 15:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there is some pre-existing scheme for Category:Painters by subject or somesuch. I can see how it might be useful to have painters who do landscapes versus portraits, etc., but if this is the only one, then delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The statements by Tommyt.tft about who else could be put in this category show it will open a floodgate of problems of overcategorization. If we can categorize artists based on the subject of one notable painting they did, I shudder to think of how many new categories will be born. Do not go there, down that road lies madness. This is not a genre of painting. It is a sub-section of some other types of painting. There is no reason for this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess you missed the part where I said that clowns were a favorite subject for Rouault and that Picasso included harlequin clowns in a number of paintings. Using some of the above arguments, there are really only four genres: portraits, landscapes, still lifes and abstracts. Do we need even need an artists by genre for broad painting categories. Many artists (I will use Julian Ritter as an example because I am most familiar with his work painted in three of the categories and, in some later reviews, his works were referred to as "semi-abstract" possibly covering the fourth category. The problem here would appear to be under-categorization as many artists appear in all genres or the contrary that the artist by genre category is meaningless. I am personally willing to let this go because the artist I am most concerned with is well-represented in the other categories but I am not sure we are doing much service to differentiating the types of art. Would it be worthwile to classify the artist by the school or movements they are primarily associated with or would this, too, be considered over-categorization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyt.tft (talk • contribs) 05:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how many paintings by a given artist need to include people in a given occupation for them to be put in a genre category of x painters. How many lawyers or soldiers or assasins does one have to paint to be in Category:Lawyer painters, Category:Soldier painters or Category:Assasin painters? This just opens up overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say. Perhaps the best solution is to create the category of "Figurative painters". This would encompass all forms or painting the human body including clowns, nudes and portraits. But some might argue that portraits deserve a separate category even though they are clearly figurative paintings. I actually prefer this idea as I think it would best address the issue of over-categorization while still providing a useful "target" for painters doing similar work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyt.tft (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_4&oldid=1138395287"