Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 24 August 26 >

August 25[edit]

Category:Survivors of The Expulsion[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) 05:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Survivors of The Expulsion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated POVed category. Category:The Expulsion was recently created (and needs renaming, since there were many notable expulsions throghout human history, and Expulsion of Germans after World War II is just one of them - also, note that the main article is not named The Expulsion...). The survivors category seems like a perhaps well-meaning but POVed attempt to create partity between German-only expelles (even through many ethnic groups were expelled and forcibly resettled after WWII) and the much better known Category:Holocaust survivors. Even more crucially, Category:Survivors is for people who survived against major odds - survivors of Holocaust, accidents such as plane crashes and terrorism, and so on. Majority of German expelled survived being expelled without any harm, hence the another reason why this category is improper. Lastly, people in nations that Germany tried to exterminate, like Poland and Russia, had a much lesser chance of surviving, yet there are no categories for those groups - which is fine, since they would be way overbloated - but the same holds true for German expelled (notable German expelles likely number tens of thousands). Bottom line, this category is not needed, ORish, and POVed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Never heard of the neologism "The Expulsion", seems like a hoax to me. --Martintg (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In my opinion the existence of this article will be seen as an attempt to equalize the suffering of the German expellees with the Jewish Holocaust survivors or Poles who survived 5 years of brutal German occupation of their homeland. The title creates an impression that the Germans who fled the advancing Allied forces or who were expelled from the territories held by them during the war were as equal survivors as Jewish people who survived the Holocaust. This is absolutely unacceptable.--Jacurek (talk)
  • Keep. Frivolous nomination. If you've never heard of the Expulsion (German: Die Vertreibung), that's your problem. What is unacceptable is the continued attempts by Polish nationalist POV pushers to deny or diminish the crimes against Germans committed by the Stalinists. A genocide in which 2-2,5 million perished clearly justifies such a category, especially at a project where categories are created for much less relevant life aspects than experiencing ethnic cleansing. If this category is deleted, similar categories (like the mentioned Category:Holocaust survivors) must be deleted as well. Employing different rules for different peoples is racism and POV. UweBayern (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't blank the template discussion notice. Please respect our policies such as WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA; please note that if you persist with such attacks you may find yourself restricted as per this ruling. Finally, please note that - as explained here - the 2-3 million estimate is political propaganda, and reliable estimates are in the range of half a million. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot add such templates without a rationale. There was no rationale at the time, you only added a link to it later. There is no need for further discussion with a user who claims that the deaths that are acknowledged by every serious historian, and which is the official government estimate, are "political propaganda", this is way out of line and is exactly the same as Holocaust denial. You demonstrate why this nomination cannot be taken seriously and why this category is necessary. UweBayern (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually the article on the Expulsions of Germans does document (or at least it did until recently) that the 2-3 million number was developed for political reasons by a German committee composed of members with a Nazi past or other kinds of unsavory background, and it was kept alive in the face of serious scholarly research by German historians, who estimated the number at about half a million, for political purposes. Furthermore, comparing this (including the work of mainstream German historians) to Holocaust denial (and incidentally, some of those pushing the 2-3 million number are Holocaust deniers themselves) is, at the very least, in very bad taste.radek (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have any strong thoughts about keeping or deleting the category, but if it's kept it should be renamed to be more specific. (Ditto for its supercategory.) Piotrus is right: there have been countless expulsions in history, and the use of the generic phrase here is confusing. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only one event which is widely known as The Expulsion/Die Vertreibung - that's the predominant term used. UweBayern (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, the name of the category is "The Expulsion" and not "Die Vertreibung" - which I think reveals what you mean by "widely known", but this is the English Wikipedia. And second, no it is not precisely defined. It could be this [1] for example.radek (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category: Survivors of a Train Ride from new Poland to new Germany? What is that supposed to mean? – Please remember, by default, the English word "survivors' implies also that the majority (whoever they were) did not survive. Is that what you're getting at? --Poeticbent talk 03:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment is extremely inapppriate and offensive as over two million people were murdered during the Expulsion which is considered a genocide by scholars like Felix Ermacora. Actually, such comments demonstrate why we need this category. UweBayern (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a category by this title should be about the Explusion of the Acadians. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but rename if kept. I agree 100% with Malik Shabazz on this point. "Die Vertreibung" may have a well-known meaning in German, but in English "The Expulsion" has many possible meanings and I am unaware of any compelling case that the Germans are the most likely one to come to mind first to the majority of English speakers. If you Google the phrase "The Expulsion", on the first page you get references to Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden, the Jews (and/or the Moors) from Spain, the Jews from Jerusalem (1948), the Palestinians from Israel, the Albanians from Yugoslavia, kids from schools, and, finally, at the bottom of the page, the Sudeten Germans. (And the Armenians from Turkey also come to mind, among others.) If the category is kept, it definitely needs a clearer name in the English Wikipedia.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete If there's something "frivolous" then it's the creation of this category. There is no justification that the supposed term which is used exclusively by a small group of people in a fringe-subculture with the goal of making it seem like their own story stands on equal footing with "The Holocaust" should warrant a category on wikipedia. (As a side to non-germanophone wikipedians: don't be fooled by this junk. The only term that has some wider circulation is "Heimatvertriebene", meaning "homeland-expellees". If/when the term "Vertreibung" is used, it is always qualified by who or what has been expelled and from where, e.g. in connection with an appropriate phrase. The only instances where you can find it in isolation with a capitalized definite article are in those places where the swastika still flutters in the background.) Seb az86556 (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV and OR category. Attemp to equal expulsion of Germans to Holocaust and other German war crimes. - Darwinek (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and Category:The Expulsion, POV and OR problems. Ostap 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Germans expelled after World War II, in line with the main article. POV (on both sides) apart, there is a perfectly reasonable category here. Only the current name gives problems, and some of the comments above are very inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and per user Seb above.radek (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ostap above. Loosmark (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:SOAP. And frankly, for WP:POINT, with gems like this from the category creator, above: "If this category is deleted, similar categories (like the mentioned Category:Holocaust survivors) must be deleted as well." Oh really? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Category:Germans expelled after World War II (pr something similar). This is a legitimate category for residents of East Prussia, Sudatenland, Silesia, etc, who became "displaced persons" at the end of WWII. The present title represents a German-nationalist POV, which would wish to reconquer German lands lost under the post WWII settlement; accordingly it is highly unsatisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2009 (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:History of anti-communism in the United States[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) 05:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:History of anti-communism in the United States to Category:Anti-communism in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Simpler title. Usually category:History of XXX is a subcategory of Category:XXX. In our case I see no reason of hair splitting.- Altenmann >t 23:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nominator's rationale makes sense to me. --Martintg (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the name of this category immediately jumped out at me as needlessly long. —D. Monack talk 01:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's a simpler title. APK that's not my name 03:30, 26 August 2009 (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.

Science you can do in basement, garage, or kitchen[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 create. Fayenatic (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had this as a cat for Marchywka Effect. Think it would be a useful catagory for readers but not sure what to call it or where to put it. Really trying to get something about science outside of approved facilities. I'm not sure people appreciate how much microbiology you can do in most rooms of the house. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you requesting the creation of a new category? If so, one of the talk pages might be a better place. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have grave reservations about this proposal; whereas some science can be done in what one might call "informal surroundings", it's an issue of sourcing, and given that categories are intended to be dichotomous, in the sense of "it is or it isn't", this one seems to me to be supremely vague. If I were a billionaire, my basement, garage or kitchen would be very different from the norm, and I see no way in reconciling that with this proposition. Rodhullandemu 00:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, you are probably right on sourcing and I admit I'm pushing an agenda here but FWIW the point is any basement would work, and a damp one would probably

have more mold samples for analysis etc. You don't need a well equipped kitchen to find baking soda and vinegar etc. I guess there are ( reliable for the point to be made ) sites that make suggestions like this - popular science type things. Let me give it some thought. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - suggested category would be plagued by original research and WP:POV. There is also no justification I can see for subjectively grouping these three rooms together to the exclusion of other areas of the house. Can science that can be done in the basement not be done in the dining room or back porch as well? This also feels a bit instruction-y and the suggested name does not comport with naming guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose creation per Otto. Why just in a "basement, garage, or kitchen"? Bathrooms have an awful lot of science-y type equipment too, and quite a few interesting microbes to study, I would think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it wouldn't turn into a "how to" guide unless the article were how-to but that wouldn't happen. I'm not suggesting a catagory to drive articles, just a catagory for encyclopedia entries that happen to fall into that catagory. I think there are catagories on religion but this doesn't become a church locator. Certainly I agree to idea is questionable but wanted some thoughts. However, it shouldn't shape articles into how-to. It just turns out that a reader who reads about baking soda and vinegar may be interested in microbiology, hard to say. Certainly OR and POV would be concerns but some of these things would be "obvious" or non-controversial which is allowed to some extent. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with a category such as this is drawing its boundaries; whereas you might think such things might be "obvious", reliable sourcing should be required, and I doubt it would be forthcoming. In, short, it's a minefield. Rodhullandemu 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose creation This is a topic that might be well-suited for WikiBooks, rather than here. "Household science" varies too widely to be useful, as someone living in a high-rise apartment building will be capable of doing different things from someone in a single family home, and laws vary from place to place, for example, on substances that can legally be poured down a storm drain or flushed down a toilet.-choster (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2009 (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.

Polish football clubs[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: No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 13:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Wikipedia is predominantly biased pro-football. You can be sure 100% of them are footballers. After all, they were created for football purpose. - Darwinek (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2009 (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:Liverpudlian poets[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) 05:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Liverpudlian poets to Category:Poets from Liverpool
Nominator's rationale: To match existing nomenclature; it is proposed that this will become a subcategory of Category:Writers from Liverpool, itself a subcat of Category:People from Liverpool by occupation. Rodhullandemu 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator, and in the spirit of "Danes" to "Danish people" and "Poles" to "Polish people" we had here of late. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- I suspect the adjective's meaning will not be obvious to non-British users. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2009 (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:New game plus 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: No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 13:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New game plus video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Neologism that points to a prodded article sourced to a blog. L0b0t (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This category has 12 articles and a clear description on its category page. So I don't see how we could just delete this. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same way we delete categories every other time. Cat gets deleted, bot comes by and removes it from articles, happens all the time. Do you have a reason to keep this category based in policy or guideline? Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that you just added a prod tag to New Game Plus certainly isn't a valid reason for deleting this category. At least wait to see if the article is deleted before using that as a reason why you think this category should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2009 (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:Video games with historical settings[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. --Xdamrtalk 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Video games with historical settings to Category:Historical video games
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A more concise name that matches the parent Category:Historical fiction better, along with it's siblings Category:Historical films or Category:Historical anime and manga. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:15, 25 August 2009 (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:Kosovan people[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 Category:Kosovan people to Category:Kosovar people. --Xdamrtalk 13:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Kosovan people to Category:Kosovar people (or vice versa)
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Kosovar and Kosovan are interchangeable adjectives that mean "of Kosovo". The nominated category is brand new, the target has been around for a little while. The creator of the new category tried to manually merge the "Kosovar" category into the "Kosovan" category. It is true that only one of these should exist, with the other probably being a redirect. I don't really care which is kept, but we should try to reach some consensus on which it's going to be so we can rename the subcategories appropriately, since most use "Kosovar". (Note: "Kosovar" seems to be far more common in terms of google hits, by a ratio of about 20:1.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the guideline, Kosovan should be used in Wikipedia articles. So we should keep Category:Kosovan people and redirect Category:Kosovar people. --Turkish Flame ☎ 07:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that (as the header on the linked-to page says), this is not an active guideline, and there is no real consensus on which should be used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kosovar generally refers to people of Albanian descent, but Kosovan is more neutral because it refers to all people from Kosovo (Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Roma people, etc.). Also most of the articles in Wikipedia use Kosovan in their titles. Ex: Kosovan passport, Kosovan presidential election, 2008, etc. --Turkish Flame ☎ 08:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, a person from Serbia might suggest that "Kosovan" is not neutral at all, because it presupposes the existence of a nationality that is separate from that of being a citizen of Serbia. I suspect whether one supports "Kosovar" or "Kosovan" can have a lot to do with how one views the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo. In the article Kosovo, I see far more uses of "Kosovar" than "Kosovan". Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Kosovan people. It has 2 articles; both of these are adequately categorised already, and neither is about an individual person. Occuli (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion is not for deletion. And currently, the main category is Category:Kosovar people, which has several articles. If you want to participate, please express your views on Kosovo's demonym. Kosovan or Kosovar? --Turkish Flame ☎ 17:16, 25 August 2009 (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:Provinces of Cameroon[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) 05:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Provinces of Cameroon to Category:Regions of Cameroon
Nominator's rationale: The provinces of Cameroon have been renamed to become regions ([2]: 2008-11-12: Status of provinces changed to regions.) All related categories should be renamed to match the main pages. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2009 (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.

Ashanti (singer) categories[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) 05:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent article, Ashanti (entertainer). — Σxplicit 05:33, 25 August 2009 (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:Newspapering[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 as nominated. Suggest a follow-up nomination for Category:Newspaper business. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Newspapering to Category:Newspaper publishing
Nominator's rationale: Rename to something else. Perhaps Newspaper publishing Per the comment on the Talk page from 2008, I have never heard the term "newspapering." I see it does have a dictionary meaning but it seems a rather odd and obscure name. Whatever we decide here will influence, one way or another, the sub-category for newspapering by year. I've also taken the liberty of adding Category:Newspapers as a sub-cat. They had been separated from this one with the rationale that this is category not for articles about specific papers, but it seems to me that we need a top-level newspaper category where they come together somewhere. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Newspaper business, to which some articles here could be moved. But the great majority concern essentially editorial matters. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is that different from Category:Newspaper business, which we already have? Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not different enough. If a rename to Category:Newspaper publishing is the consensus choice, then I would suggest an upmerge of the meagre contents of Category:Newspaper business to the new main category as part of the clean up that'll need to be done (along with renaming the other newspapering cat). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (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:NSL players[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) 05:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: expand ambiguous abbreviation and disambiguate from National Soccer League (Canada) Mayumashu (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to disambiguate and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2009 (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/2009_August_25&oldid=1144514092"