Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 26 August 28 >

August 27[edit]

Category:Breast Health[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete, as all contents are already in category:Breast.--Mike Selinker 14:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Breast Health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I can't see any reason to spit this off the Category:Breast; if it is a necessary split the category the capitalisation needs to be fixed and a better name should be choosen. Peta 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only body part categories that seem to have health-related subcategories are those for which there is a corresponding medical specialty to justify define that subcategory; for example Category:Eye has Category:Ophthalmology. Postdlf 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Breast as nom should have specified. Johnbod 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename A number of the articles in Cat:breast are health related and might be better included in a breast health cat. Anarchia 10:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Breast. If the article Breast health specifically defined the scope of the subject, I might be inclined to support a separate category, but as it stands, it's difficult to say what should or should not go into the category. For instance, breastfeeding involves health issues, but it's not solely (or perhaps even primarily) a health issue. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There may be 2-3 more entries that would qualify, but nothing like the ~200 for ophthalmology. TewfikTalk 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for the reasons listed by other editors. Vegaswikian 00:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Turkish actresses[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge as nominated. After Midnight 0001 01:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Turkish actresses into Category:Turkish actors
Propose merging Category:Hong Kong actresses into Category:Hong Kong actors
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, these categories reflect non-notable intersections of nationality, occupation, and gender. — Black Falcon (Talk) 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and per precedent on actor and actress categories. Postdlf 23:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and several discussions of October 23rd. -- 05:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and precedent, TewfikTalk 00:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fictional waiters and waitresses[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Fictional waiting staff. the wub "?!" 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional waiters and waitresses to Category:Fictional waiters or Category:Fictional waiting staff (following the naming of the main article).
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, this is the only remaining fictional by occupation category that still uses distinct terms for male and female workers. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fictional waiting staff. Actually, I'd much prefer Category:Fictional waitstaff, but that word doesn't seem to be used on Wikipedia, so matching the article title seems the right choice.--Mike Selinker 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The terms "waiters" and "waitresses" are still in common use, even though gender-neutral terminology is common for most other occupations. Oddly enough, this category didn't seem to include any male waiters until I added one just now. --Metropolitan90 06:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not so much an issue of the commonality of terminology as consistency in naming conventions. "Actor" and "actress" are in common use as well, but all "actor", "actress", and "actor and actress" categories were merged into "actors" categories. — Black Falcon (Talk) 06:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fictional waiting staff to match the lead, although I'd prefer "waiter" to be used for both. But consistency between the lead article and the category is always a good thing: it reduces confusion and provides at least a temporary illusion that we know what we're doing. Xtifr tälk 08:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fictional waiting staff per mainspace name and gender convention, TewfikTalk 00:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Giantesses[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete, as all contents are already in category:Fictional giants.--Mike Selinker 14:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Giantesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Intersection by gender. Non notable subtopic of "fictional giants". Are female giants negatively portrayed in fiction? Do feminist film theorists discuss the role of female giants as housewives? No. ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into Category:Giants or one of its subcategories We don't normally differentiate between gender in categories unless there's a specific significant reason the gender difference is needed. Delete this one and merge the articles into Category:Giants or appropriate subcategories. Dugwiki 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Fictional giants; these all appear to be comic book characters (and Category:Giants appears reserved for giants from ancient mythology). Most though appear to be characters that can enlarge themselves to giant size rather than characters that are really giants, but I'm not going to get into that fanboy argument. Postdlf 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most are double categorised anyway! Yes, I think Dawn Summers might well be the only real "giantess" in the category and only in her comic book incarnation.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merge - none of these characters are "giants." They are characters of otherwise normal stature with the ability to change their size. They should not be categorized with characters who are always of larger-than-usual size. Otto4711 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would say merge due to the gender issue, but I'm not sure what the strict definition for a fictional giant is, per Otto :-). TewfikTalk 00:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Women in comics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was split and sort into Category:Women comics writers and Category:Women comics artists. the wub "?!" 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women in comics to Category:Female comic book writers and artists
Nominator's rationale: Rename, this category isn't about female characters (Wonder Woman) but writers and artists who create comics like Elizabeth Holloway Marston. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-27t17:57z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Another World[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 19:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Another World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show. The small amount of material is all appropriately interlinked and all articles are elsewhere categorized. Otto4711 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Dan Quayle[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 19:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dan Quayle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Doesn't meet the exception laid out in the guideline. The only two articles not about people associated with him are appropriately linked to Quayle through text and elsewhere categorized. Otto4711 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Trends journals[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. The concept of an organizing principle for redirects (say, as under category:Middle-earth redirects) is fine and workable as long as it is under a structure organized by a WikiProject. But this is one editor's well-meant attempt to create a process without consensus, and it doesn't work. There are thousands of categories that could have this treatment, but only a very few that come with the personnel to maintain it. I put the main article into category:Elsevier scientific journals, and also took the opportunity to do the same with Current Opinion, thus emptying category:Current Opinion journals and making it eligible for deletion. Obviously, both of these categories can come back when there are many articles that deserve them, which I fully expect User:Carcharoth to deliver on.--Mike Selinker 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is effectively empty. Yes, it does contain fifteen entries, but all of those are redirects to one and the same article. So in effect it contains one article, fifteen times. That seems pretty pointless for a category. Suggest deletion. >Radiant< 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear - I'd seen it. It's not about notability, but about what you can usefully say about a journal, which in the case of these is probably not much individually. Johnbod 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete category of redirects without prejudice to recreation if and when the individual entries are created per our content policies, TewfikTalk 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that only one (the Plants one) is really notable. The others will probably get created as stubs at some point, but could equallly be left as redirects to the list. Where would that leave the category? What is two became articles? Three? Four? All fifteen? Carcharoth 16:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Roads and highways in the Interior of British Columbia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge to category:Interior of British Columbia.--Mike Selinker 15:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Roads and highways in the Interior of British Columbia to Category:Interior of British Columbia
Nominator's rationale: Merge, since everything here is already in Category:British Columbia provincial highways. NE2 10:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose If there is to be a Category:Interior of British Columbia, then roads and highways seems like a reasonable subcategory for organizing its articles. Why is an 'interior' category needed? Hmains 02:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC) I see that British Columbia has two regions: Coast and Interior so the interior category makes sense. Hmains 01:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what seems to me to be overcategorisation - the roads are categorised as both "roads" and as "Interior", why would we also have "Interior roads"? TewfikTalk 00:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:The Predators albums[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was keep. After Midnight 0001 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Predators albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The group has a single EP, delete. Peta 09:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Bully[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 14:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bully (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with 2 articles in it. There is no way to populate this, and we can't just crystal ball that Bully will have more articles in the future. This is category clutter and overcategorization. RobJ1981 04:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:New York Times Best Seller[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 14:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York Times Best Seller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, sales chart/honorific by one publication (however prominent it is). Better handled by lists (if those lists aren't proprietary), particularly since the NY Times itself maintains separate lists for fiction, nonfiction, and children's books. I think a category further destroys whatever value this information may have because if actually filled 1) it would lump all such best sellers in together regardless of whether they were competing publications or published decades apart, and 2) it would lump together all publications listed at any rank for at least one week with those that dominated the top spot for months. Postdlf 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. --Peta 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure if any of nominator's rationale is actually criteria for deletion. And being New York Times Best Seller is a very notable distinction for a book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - there are potentially far too many of these to make the category useful. Johnbod 10:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: there are potentially a lot of entries here, but that's a valid reason for deletion; large categories can be dealt with by making subcategories (fiction, non-fiction and childrens would be a good start, perhaps with per-decade subcategories beyond that). This is a pretty notable distinction, bordering on a defining characteristic. Xtifr tälk 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selling lots of books is defining, being on one of these lists isn't really. Open the door to this & how do you refuse UK & other list cats, plus the ones the booktrade actually uses. Johnbod 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a valid argument and one I'll accept, so switch my opinion to delete. Xtifr tälk 10:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; listification of the most prominent based on some criterion may be a possibility across the board though. TewfikTalk 00:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: over categorisation emerson7
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Deaths due to shipwrecks[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deaths due to shipwrecks to Category:Deaths due to shipwreck
Nominator's rationale: Rename, unnecessary plural. Cause of death categories seem to be rapidly expanding, where they were previously "outlawed"; I wouldn't be sad to see this and other cause of death categories deleted en masse. Peta 02:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fellows of the IEEE[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 14:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fellows of the IEEE to Category:Fellows of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Nominator's rationale: Rename, another unfamiliar acronym. Peta 01:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod 10:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Institute is more widely known by its acronym, because of the standards promulgated by it. (IEEE-1394 FireWire, IEEE-1284 Parallel Port, IEEE POSIX, IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n WiFi, IEEE 802.16 WiMax, ...) Most people would not expand IEEE or even know what it meant, but would know what IEEE does. 132.205.44.5 22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Most people ....would know what IEEE does" - I think not! Johnbod 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fellows of the RSC[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fellows of the RSC to Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Chemistry
Nominator's rationale: Rename, unfamiliar acronym. Peta 01:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RenameDelete - changed following Bduke's arguments below. per nom. Johnbod 10:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward delete as non-defining characteristic, otherwise rename to expand the acronym. Otto4711 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to come down for delete on this one. I myself am a Fellow of the RSC and almost all chemists in the UK over the age of about 40 are as it goes with the kind of responsibility most chemists have by that age. Given the large number of articles on chemists who actually are FRSCs, one would expect many more articles in this category. Clearly editors do not see it as a notable category for these people. --Bduke 04:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per nom - RSC to many people would suggest the Royal Shakespeare Company. Keep as I feel it is useful and encyclopaedic to have cats of Fellows of learned societies. Bduke's modesty is charming (and a good example to us all), but as a non-chemist I find it a useful category - I agree however that work needs to be done to populate it. DuncanHill 08:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a question of modesty. I have looked at a lot of articles on chemists and I have also written a fair few. The fact that these people are FRSCs is almost always not mentioned. There are two articles in this category. It really is not very useful. It is quite different from the bodies that award their fellowship to only a limited number of people each year. I should add to my comment above that a large number of chemists in other countries are FRSCs also, as they join to get the RSC journals. Here in Australia, for example, there are hundreds of Fellows of RSC. --Bduke 09:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what do you mean when you say that every British chemist is a member - would this be nearly identical to Category:British chemists? TewfikTalk 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I did not say that every chemist is a member. I said that almost all chemists over 40 would be members. I have been trying to get some figures about the proportion of the 43,000 members who are Fellows. I do not know the proportion but it is not small. It could be 20%. It is clear that any UK chemist who is notable enough for an article in WP would be eligible for the Fellowship of RSC. Yes, everybody in Category:British chemists would be eligible for the Fellowship of RSC or one of its predecessor organisations. There is no legal reason to join the RSC or apply for the Fellowship. Some people remain at the Member (MRSC) level and do not become FRSC's. I became a Fellow when I was a Senior Lecturer. You do not have to be that senior or famous. The criteria is "FRSC is the senior category of membership. It is open to those with substantial career progression who can offer evidence of seniority and maturity of experience in any field which involves or promotes the advancement or wider application of chemical science". --Bduke 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bduke. Carcharoth 00:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Members of ISSR[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. After Midnight 0001 14:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of ISSR to Category:Members of the International Society for Science and Religion
Nominator's rationale: Rename, unfamiliar acronym. Peta 01:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod 10:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a partial survey of the articles in the category do not indicate to me that membership in this organization is a defining characteristic. Otto4711 13:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom. Onnaghar tl ! co 14:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It seems to be defining for the first member I clicked on, though I'm unsure if that is representative. There may be some distinction for those 97 founding members. TewfikTalk 00:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2007_August_27&oldid=1138387702"