Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 29 >

June 28[edit]

Category:Ancient China video games[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 to Category:Video games set in historical China. The new category can be renominated for a rename if any user wants to propose a more appropriate name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I am guessing, that User:Ham Pastrami, do not realize that not all periods in Chinese history would consider Ancient China. Which is why I have removed the category Category:Ancient China and proposed to be rename as Category:Video games set in historical periods of China or a more appropriate title. NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Something I think the proposed name is a little awkward, but it way better than what's there now. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agreed. The initially title is irrelevant, and needs to be properly renamed. That's why I said "or a more appropriate title," because I do not want to make the same mistake as Ham Pastrami. Anyone who can come up a better name is welcome.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this category includes both historical periods ((Imperial, Ancient) which works with this proposal as well as ethno-regions (Mongolia/Manchuria) which don't work as well. Maybe Category:Video games set in historical China would work to include all four? If not, I'm not opposed to the original rename.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love your proposed name, RevelationDirect, simpler yet better than mine.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, when's the category going be change?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2014 (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:Mongol Empire in fiction[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. C2C. NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Including non-fiction then.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you are the nominator, exactly what are you opposing? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as you the nominator removed "Oppose" from your statement per [1] ; exactly what's your statement now?
Not sure that including non-fiction is actualy the case. Take a look at Category:Works by empire of setting. "Setting" seems to imply fiction in practice. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That you want to expand the scope to include non-fiction? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support original proposal, as I don't understand why non-fiction needs to be excluded. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2014 (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:Roman Catholic Church novels[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 to Category:Roman Catholic novels for now, without prejudice to further consideration of the other proposals in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: The current category name is confusing, as it may suggest that these novels are being published by the Catholic Church. The proposed rename gets rid of this possible confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Novels by genre with subcats fooian novels, in particular Category:Christian novels with grandchild Category:Roman Catholic Church novels
  2. Category:Novels by topic with subcats novels about foo
Your suggestion might be translated as to move the Christian novels from 'genre' to 'topic' and name the categories: Category:Novels about Christianity; Category:Novels about Catholicism. That would definitely be worthwhile to consider.
Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please elaborate how you would distinguish between Category:Novels about Christianity and Category:Christian novels? Wouldn't that become too subjective? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO it will be usually be clear. Allegorical novels like Pilgrim's Progress or the more recent Hinds' Feet on High Places are Christian novels. We can probably assume that novels published by a specifically Christian imprint are Christian novels. Most of the nominated category are probably not Christian novels, e.g. Graham Greene's works, but The Robe is. The categories should have "see also" navigation links between them anyway, so finding the contents will be no harder than at present. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm entirely neutral towards whether or not to make this additional split. Just for curiosity, who is actually going to execute this split if that's going to be the final decision? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After a night of sleep I've become a bit hesitant about this split after all. It's not only us who need to understand the difference between Category:Novels about Christianity and Category:Christian novels, but it should be anyone who classifies a novel in these fields who should understand the difference and that's something I'm getting doubts about. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2014 (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:Roman Catholic Church art[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 to Category:Roman Catholic art for now. Further discussion on related points can continue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: The current category name is confusing, as it may suggest that this art is exclusively sponsored by the Catholic Church. The proposed rename gets rid of this possible confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question Many if not most of the articles in this tree were not only about Catholicism but also sponsored by The Church. It looks like the entire subcategory of Category:Roman Catholic Church decorative artists were employed directly by The Church. Are you looking for this tree to move entirely to "Catholic" or would there be some "Roman Catholic Church" sub-categories? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would certainly not object to making a distinction between Church-sponsored and non-Church-sponsored art as a second step. Nor would I object against keeping Roman Catholic Church subcategories that already exist, provided the subcategory names are in accordance with the contents. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose there is a whole tree Category:Roman Catholic Church art that would need to be handled as well. As a short fix, we could rename to Category:Roman Catholic art (church isn't necessary). But we should fix the whole tree, which may require a broader discussion, which you could bring here or elsewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Caution should be used in simply using "Catholic" to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, as it means different things to many people (see History of the term "Catholic"). Retaining the phrase "Roman Catholic" would probably be wise. SFB 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Roman Catholic, removal of Church from title would work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: should the Category:Roman Catholic Church artists part of this hierarchy be kept? Under a slightly shorter name it was deleted, long ago but with a strong consensus and rationale: see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 23#Category:Roman Catholic Artists. If we think it should be kept but only for official artists of the Roman Catholic Church, then it may be appropriate to keep the "Church" in its name, and also in the name of this parent category. On the other hand, if we think consensus has changed and "Roman Catholic artists" could have a sensible category definition (cf. the explanation at Category:Latter Day Saint artists) and not be over-used, or if we think the Artists categories should be nominated for deletion, only then I would agree with OWK, SFB and JPL to drop the word "Church". (Note: let's carry on discussing this here, then relist once we have decided which other categories we want to implicate.) – Fayenatic London 21:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we should expand to Category:Roman Catholic artists, but with a clear implication that this is not a category for any artist who is a Roman Catholic, but only for those artists who there is a clear link between their art and their Catholicism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe 'Artists producing Roman Catholic art'? Is a slightly longer name, but covers the scope well. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2014 (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:Films produced by Nicole Kidman[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT (unlikely to grow beyond a few entries), and the producer is not a defining characteristic of a film (the director is, however). Nymf (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support has less than 5 articles which is my cutoff for WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kidman is not known as a film producer. There is only a handful of these "by producer" categories too, and I don't think it's a good structure to start. I'll raise the issue of the others with WP:FILM. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lugnuts. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMALLCAT. Also it is not currently a defining part of her career. MarnetteD|Talk 15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we shouldn't classify films by who produced them, that's not DEFINING of the films.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nicole Kidman's production of these films is not a defining aspect of them. No prejudice against related recreation regarding Blossom Films, if that were to become a significant production company. I disagree with Obiwankenobi – I think production can be a defining feature of films, particularly where similar themes or artistic interpretations are displayed (e.g. Category:Films produced by Steven Spielberg, Category:Films produced by Guillermo del Toro etc). SFB 19:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with Sillyfolkboy. There have been "auteur" producers such as George Lucas and David Selznick, and while not exactly an auteur Roger Cormon films are recognized as "Roger Cormon" films. Therefore I think there are valid exceptions, but in this case Nicole Kidman's production credits—at least as yet—don't really define a body of work. Betty Logan (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unlike directors, we do not currently have a comprehensive scheme of categorizing films by their producer, which would be the baseline necessary for justifying a SMALLCAT such as this. We have a few isolated cases where an individual producer is so prominent, and so noted specifically for their work as a producer, that a "produced by" category is warranted for that particular person, but it isn't a scheme that should ever be rolled out comprehensively to include all people who ever produced a film at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2014 (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:Valve timing tradenames[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#Overlapping. It looks like the these were created without awareness of each other because neither is a parent of the other and the articles seemedd randomly placed in each (or both) before I sorted them in good faith not realizing this nomination was forthcoming. The categories now overlap each other except for lead article and 3 generic articles (1, 2, 3). Category:Variable valve timing is superior because it has a main article and the tradename category places this under the Marketing/Advertising category trees when the articles cover mechanical design and smog/mileage compliance rather than consumer marketing. There is room for improvement for categorization by untangling Lift from Timing, but I don't think the branded/unbranded breakdown is useful. And not a single article documents that the term has a Trademark, the defining criteria for this category.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. – RevelationDirect (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2014 (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:Dutch members of Calvinist political parties[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: upmerge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: In general Dutch Protestantism and Dutch Calvinism almost coincide - and in politics they completely coincide because there is no political party that specifically targets non-Calvinist Protestants. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2014 (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:Christian saints by century[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. – Fayenatic London 19:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an old categorization tree which has become redundant after a new and more refined categorization tree Category:Christian saints by period has been introduced. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oldness does not equal badness. Part of an established "by century" tree structure. It complements the "by period" tree structure. Some centuries straddle two periods. There is a gap between Ante-Nicene and Middle ages (as Middle Ages is usually taken to begin with the fall of the Western Empire). This gap is filled by the "centuries" structure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The person who created the new category structure (note, that was not me) was apparently clever enough to have the centuries nicely follow up from one period to another, so that is not really a problem as such. I must admit that with the 4th and 5th century it's not entirely correct now, that's something we can easily resolve by renaming Anti-Nicene into Ancient Christian and moving the 5th century one period back. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was extensive debate last year about the Ante-Nicene/Ancient Christian name; the former was the consensus. If you want to re-open the debate, that's a whole new CFD proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am frequently not in favour of "by century" categories, but in this case I think it is justified. Taht does not mean there is anything wrong with the "by period" tree, which I would not want changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2014 (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:2nd-century Christian saints[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: do not rename, though several users seem open to other approaches in perhaps eliminating gender divisions in these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: The current structure is:
  • 2nd-century Christian saints - of which the single articles are only males
    • 2nd-century Christian female saints - a child category that obviously only contains females
Suggest to name both categories after their gender and rearrange the categories such that they become brother and sister category instead of parent and child category. Note: this would apply similarly to all XX-th century Christian saints. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Keep the current category. Create a new Category:2nd-century Christian male saints. Upmerge all single articles (checking for maleness) to the new category. This leaves male, female and child saints as the sole members of the current category along with Exuperius and Zoe (a married couple). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose there is a much bigger problem with female saints being children. Rather than deal with it here we should take it to a religion board to come up with a solution workable across the board, as more than this one cat is impacted i think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The description "child category" used for the subcategory seems to have given the impression that it is a category of child saints. There is nothing wrong with having a subcategory for female saints regardless of age or martyrdom; another for child saints regardless of sex or martyrdom; another for martyrs regardless of age or sex; and maybe other subcategories also, such as for virgin saints; but of course subcategories should be created only for classes that really are of specific interest. The saints left in the "parent category" (I don't mean a category of parent saints) would be those not included in any of the subcategories. I doubt if male saints are of sufficient specific interest to create a subcategory for them. If a subcategory of them is set up, then of course Wikipedia articles that concern male as well as female saints would have to be listed not only in the subcategory for females (as now) but again in that for males. Such Wikipedia articles are not limited to husband and wife pairs: they include articles about female and male saints who were martyred together, and articles about male and female saints whose liturgical celebration was or is on the same day. In the present arrangement, with only one subcategory, there is no need to list such articles in the parent category as well as in the subcategory. Esoglou (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be sure on what you mean: do you propose to leave it as it currently is (for as long as no new subcategories are being created)? Then what about the ghettoization guidelines? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eliminate the division by "female" (or not), if no other division such as "martyr" (or not), "child" (or not) is given. The ghettoization recommendation is: If you cannot create "Gay politicians from GermanySecond-century female saints" without ghettoizing people from Category:German politiciansSecond-century saints, then it may be more appropriate to eliminate the more specific category. The recommendation does not say: Then create a new category "Straight politicians from GermanySecond-century male saints. It says something that is applicable here: An ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically dividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African-American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category. Instead, simply apply "African-American writers" (presuming Category:Writers is the parent of Category:Poets) and "American poets" as two distinct categories. Is there really any more need for a subcategory of female 2nd-century saints than for subcategories such as bishop 2nd-century saints, martyr 2nd-century saints, and the like? But categorization is by no means my principal field of interest. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The problem is that we have ghettoised the female saints. There are two solutions - merge the females back to the parent category OR move the men to a new subcategory. IN the latter case, articles covering saints of both genders (such as married couples) would alone remain in the presnet one. HOwever this policy would need to be applied to every century. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We need to move forward in fixing these problems, and gender is central to the identity of saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take no action just on this century - either restructure the whole Category:Christian saints by century tree, or take no action on this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely agree that we should consistently apply the outcome of this discussion to all centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite my support of action here, I think that the best way to deal with the issue might well be to have a discussion of every category of saints by century, bot the general ones and the female saints ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On further reflection, I am not sure that a female saints by century category tree is needed. I think at a minimum we should discuss this proposed change in a forum where we leave the option of just upmerging the 2nd-century female saints category into the general 2nd century category. I think in this case, we may have gone too far in creating by gender categories, and would be wiser to upmerge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the original proposer for renaming, I support this alternative proposal for upmerging too. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest again, as in my closure at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 25#Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages, upmerging each female by-century categories to all 3 parents. Then we would end up with Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages as the lowest rung by gender. A further option would be to create male categories such as Category:Christian male saints of the Middle Ages, but this may not be appropriate. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be okay with any of the two latter proposals, but my preference would be to take over JPL's suggestion. Just generally, I tend to think there are many by-gender childcats in Wikipedia that aren't all as relevant for the topic (see also the pending CfD about Women historians). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wouldn't it be simpler just to upmerge "Christian female saints by century" into their appropriate time periods (century)? I don't see the need to segregate them. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2014 (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:Ontario road transport articles without KML[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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Template:Canada Roads WikiProject, articles without the KML parameter are supposed to go to Category:Canada road articles without KML. However, the code was changed here without any other of the categories being moved so I reverted that except Ontario which still exists. I'd guess the prior naming is the convention to be used. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—all of them should have at "X road transport articles" previously, which is the standard scheme used by the banner templates for the various roads projects (WP:HWY, WP:AURD, WP:HKRD, WP:INRD, WP:UKRD, WP:USRD), and any categories populated by the WP:CARD template should be switched over in due course as I did with the "without KML" ones. (Note: I'm out of town for a few days, but if I can, I will attend to the banner once home.) Imzadi 1979 → 15:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then nomination withdrawn. A number of the categories in the template don't match the categories created. Let me try to get it all consistent then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2014 (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/2014_June_28&oldid=1200949517"