Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< September 23 September 25 >

September 24

Category:Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route

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:Historic places on the Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route. If conversion to a navbox is desired, a renomination following the creation of the navbox might not be disruptive. The Bushranger One ping only 13:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? Also in this case there are multiple routes based on the article. So if the decision is other then delete, a rename is probably needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That an army went past or through a place is not normally a
    WP:DEFINING characteristic of a place (that existed previously), nor is being on a modern trail. DexDor (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete We should have these only when we have lots of articles directly related to it, people like John R. Murdock (Mormon) and William Clayton (in the Mormon Trail case) who have notability intrinsically tied to it, and it was more than a one time use (the Mormon Trail may first be used by Brigham Young in 1847, but in one form or another it is used until 1868).John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prefer Convert to Navbox - MILHIST/AmRevWar/sometimes NRHP guy here. I think the point is being missed, in that the trail's significance is directly derived not from the historical events that took place along it, but from the US government's recognition and labeling of it as.a National Historic Trail, and the specific labeling of these sites as historic sites along that trail. "Being a modern trail" can certainly enough to define a historic site, especially one that may have been long-forgotten without the trail. That being said, I hate categories and think they're practically useless to a general reader. I would say this should be converted into a Navbox for all sites along the trail, which have been identified by the NPS as being part of the trail. Cdtew (talk)
  • Rename to Category:Historic Places on the Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route. UNlike cases where I have voted for deletion, this category is being used to link historic sites, not villages and towns through which it happends to pass. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Peterkingiron, who makes a good recommendation (but "places" should be in lower case). --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2013 (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:Rheinsteig

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) 00:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The trail was not established until 2005.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after checking that all items appear in the list in the maion article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2013 (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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 198.228.216.168

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) 00:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Runaround proper SPI investigation and dispute resolution created by an editor with serious misunderstandings of policy; see ANI. None of these dynamic IPs has ever been blocked. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2013 (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.

People by occupation from Mesa, Arizona

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 by nominator. Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example
Mike Lee (U.S. politician) should not be in the Mesa category. His parents moved away from Mesa when he was a year old. His having just been born there is not important enough to categorize him by. I know there is a guideline that explains this somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

*Comment In Wikipedia:Categorzation of people it says "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." This would indicate that in general we should not put people in categorize for a place just because they were born there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The main issue here is this question. is the instersection of Mesa and being a sportsperson defining enough to categorize by. I say no. Specific location and being a sportperson does not seem to really be defining at all, and I actually wonder if we should have it for any place. However, there are some places
    Chicago, Illinois, comes to mind, where being from that location and being a sportsperson is a notable intersection. I submit that Mesa, Arizona is not such a place. That is the issue before us. I have thus struck all comments I have made that do not go directly to that point, although I still believe they are valid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Request withdrawal (changing my !vote). Per my detailed request at CFD Sept 27: Actors from Beverly Hills, California, I ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination to allow a centralised discussion to reach a broad consensus.
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2013 (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:UK BAP habitats

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:  Relisted again at 2013 OCT 10 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 10

Nominator's rationale: That a type of habitat is mentioned in the UK's biodiversity action plan is not a
WP:DEFINING characeristic of that habitat - especially where a habitat (e.g. deep-water coral) is not specific to the UK. Note: The list (in the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan article) includes many things (e.g. Rivers) that clearly should not be in any country-specific category. Note: If kept, this category should be renamed to avoid the "BAP" acronym as it may not be familiar to many people. DexDor (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep and Populate but rename to Category:UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. -- This is a difficult one. If kept, it should be Category:UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. As I understand it, these are types of habitat that are scarce in UK, and thus require particular study and conservation. The problem is that most of the potential articles are red-linked. Others such as rivers and ponds are common in many countries and not adequately defined and for them it is a mere performance category. However Calaminarian grassland and Purple moor grass and rush pastures may well be useful to have in a priority habitats category. The fact that they are identified as priority habitats is likely to indicate that they are internationally scarce. Deep-water corals, also known as cold-water corals occur on the European Continental Shelf. The origin of the coral beaches on the west of Ireland and off Norway has only been recognised in the past 30 years: this is not the common corals of the tropics. I suspect that propulating the category better should not be too difficult, by converting some the red-links to redirects (or redirects with possibilities). For example Lowland heath is a nationally scarce habitat, but we have an article on Heath, which is a worldwide one and might be forked to provide such an article. Sorry, I cannot do this, as I am not qualified to. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2013 (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.

People by occupation from Scottsdale

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 by nominator. Slightly more complex that some of the similar "People by foo" withdrawals because there was support for the upmerge from another editor. But the truncated discussion seemed otherwise heading for "no consensus", so the outcome would have been the same (effectively, that the category is presently retained) but without prejudice against a renomination if appropriate post-RfC (or without RfC if no RfC proceeds). Euryalus (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Actors from Scottsdale, Arizona to Category:Actors from Arizona and Category:People from Scottsdale, Arizona
  • Upmerge Category:Musicians from Scottsdale, Arizona to Category:People from Scottsdale, Arizona and Category:Musicians from Arizona
  • Upmerge Category:Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona to Category:Sportspeople from Arizona and Category:People from Scottsdale, Arizona
  • Upmerge Category:Writers from Scottsdale, Arizona to Category:People from Scottsdale, Arizona and Writers from Arizona
  • Nominator's rationale This has all the problems of the Modesto and Bakersfield categories, plus some more that are unique to it. Scottsdale now has approximately 220,000 residents. However in 1990 it was only about 130,000 and in 1980 it was 88,000. This means we will not find many notable people from her yet. Beyond this, Scottsdale is to some extent a retirement community. I found one person in a category who there was no evidence that they did anything but die here. At times these categories are more along to the lines of Category:Actors who retired to Scottsdale, Arizona never setting foot in the place while involved in acting. Beyond this, Scottsdale is a suburb of Phoenix. I am not sure whether we have ever figured out if Category:Musicians from Phoenix, Arizona only covers those from the city of Phoenix, or if it can stand in for anyone from Maricopa County, or is it covers just Phoenix in 1940, but in 2010 due to changes in transportation and spread of the unban sprawl it covers most of Maricopa County except maybe a few of the western parts of the county.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a bunch of people in the sports category, most of whom are golfers, who maintain current residences both in this city and in some other place, often the other place is in Australia or England. Does someone really count as from somewhere if they only have residence there part of the year, and were raised elsewhere? I don't really think so, but I will leave those for someone else to review.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "people from [Foo]" categories have always been interpreted broadly, not just to mean where someone was born and raised but also anyone who lived there. I don't think that's necessarily a problem to err on the side of inclusiveness in that respect, except when they are intersected with occupation like this the categories become especially trivial and arbitrary. postdlf (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But what about someone like Michelle Estill whose article literally only says that she was born there. The general interpretation seems to be being born in a place is not enough to make you from there on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see both sides on that. I never lived in the city (or even county) where I happened to be born, and neither has my kid yet; in both cases, our birthplaces were determined by where hospitals were located. But I'd expect a list of notable people from a given place to include everyone ever born there even if they had no other connection (and birthplace is always listed in a biographical article if known), so I'm tolerant of it in the category structure as well. Again, I think it's less of a problem if we're just dealing with the straight "People from Foo Town" categories instead of these random hybrids. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per my comments at the similar Category:People by place where they were born and/or at some time lived, and by occupation they engaged in at possibly some other place and at some other time CFDs on this log page. postdlf (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We generally avoid categorizing people by temporary things, residence seems to be something along those lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your edit[1] to Mike McCullough uncategorizing him totally from Scottsdale(either People or Sportspeople) and as a Golfer from Arizona is Horribly Wrong. At least 34 years of residence[2] in Scottsdale isn't temporary. I think its time you withdraw these nominations, which you started not long after a series of wrong edits involving People from Scottsdale or Mesa of yours were all reverted. Obviously you want to wipe out all people categories. 34 years in one town isn't enough to establish a person as from being there. So what is good enough?...William 17:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sportspeople, Upmerge rest. Sportspeople subcat big enough to be useful. Tewapack (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? How does the size alone make it a useful category? postdlf (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Size is a criteria for keeping 'People from Foo' categories all the time. Supporting the upmerge of a Sportspeople category with over 60 entries when in the past the editor{BH Girl) supported keeping a town with five entries makes these CFDs look like a case of 'I don't like it'. This should go to WP:Categorization for a more thorough debate rather than have a small handful of CFD regulars set the policy....William 01:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That there is a minimum size expected for "people from Foo" (or any category, per
          WP:SMALLCAT) has nothing to do with this nomination, nor does it mean that any category with a certain number of members should be kept regardless of other considerations. What made you think these were nominated based on size? postdlf (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • @
            WP:OC is is full of types of category which are unacceptable even if they are plenty big enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
            ]
          • @BrownHairedGirl:Your supporting JPL but as I've pointed out in Actors from CT, his rationale for the CFD and it carries over to here too. Just read what I pointed out[3] to him here involving Mike McCullough. Another troubling edit[4] of his is this one to Misty Hyman where he moved her from Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona to Sportspeople from Phoenix Arizona when there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Hyman's article to say she is from Phoenix but it does say she was born in MESA. Seriously, some of these edits can be considered vandalism and might be worth bringing to ANI....William 17:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • @WilliamJE:, it's better not to personalise the discussion. I am not "supporting JPL"; I am supporting a proposal to upmerge the categories. This discussion is not about whether any particular article is accurately categorised; it is about whether the category should exist at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • When you chimed in on this CFD you said 'Upmerge per nominator' but nowhere in this nomination does he put together a rationale for upmerging. Tell me what it is? The population increasing? That one person was wrongly categorized? That it has something to do with Musicians in Maracopa County? That he thinks its a retirement community? Mike McCullough was playing golf out of Scottsdale for decades. Playing a pro golf tour is retirement then? Grace Park played the LPGA Tour too and was a resident from scottsdale at the same. Funny thing is, she's now retired from the pro golf tours and living in Korea....William 18:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2013 (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:Beauty Pageant hosts

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Beauty pageant hosts
  • Nominator's rationale This is a performer by performance category. People are not notable for hostoing beauty pageants. In general, people who have become noted for other things are brought in to host beauty pageants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Contrary to the above, Bert Parks is notable for hosting beauty pageants. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But even Parks had lots of other occupations. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this category so obviously I disagree with nominator's rationale or I wouldn't have wasted my time. "People are not notable for hosting beauty pageants... in general" is a contradictory comment, if it is "in general", and in general most who host pageants aren't primarily notable for that, then the nomination recognises that some are. As User:Orlady indicates with Bert Parks:

PAGEANT HOST, ACTOR PARKS DIES "Parks was best known as host of the Miss America pageant for 25 years" - Associated Press Obituary (syndicated)

"Bert Parks was one — he began as Saturday afternoon host in 1961 and remained with the program, off and on, for most of the '605. Parks was, at the time , best-known for hosting the Miss America pageant on television, but he also had an extensive radio career." - Dennis Hart Monitor 2003

What this source is telling us is that Parks was notable for the category under discussion and had a second fiddle in Category:American talk radio hosts. Now by the rationale of this nomination if a performer can't perform in 2 categories, then Category:American talk radio hosts should also be deleted since a lot of the bios in the category are 2nd or 3rd fiddle to other careers, such as TV hosts. Another is Bob Russell (television presenter) New York Times obituary "in 1955 when he began his 25-year-run as Mr. Miss America" or Eric Morley known equally for Miss World (which his wife owned) and as a character actor. It's probably primary notability internationally of Angela Chow also post the Morleys as face of the new sold-to-China Miss World competition, though she'd be notable in China for other things too; note that her Chinese show Good Morning China is a redlink. If this category is deleted then what about Category:Eurovision Song Contest presenters. Not a single one of these 89 bios is as notable for Eurovision as Bert Parks and Bob Russell were for Miss America, or the Morleys and Angela Chow for Miss World. Or Category:The X Factor (TV series) hosts Category:Idol (TV series) hosts Category:The Voice (TV series) hosts. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the flaw of "other stuff exists". There are lots of categories that are in Wikipedia that really should not be. I would say that those you have identified should either be deleted or upmerged. We should not be categorizing by specific show hosted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is that
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is an essay (i.e. a POV) which 8 times out of 10 cited serves to prove the exact opposite. In wikipedia, as per WP:AT title consistency "other stuff exists" is more often a valid than an invalid argument. Category:American talk radio hosts does exist, the existence of Category:American talk radio hosts does have longstanding consensus and the onus is on yourself as nominator to explain why Bert Parks, Bob Russell and Angela Chow cannot be categorized for the category they are most notable for (according to obituaries in the case of the 2 former, according to our article coverage in the case of the 3rd). A reply effectively saying "I do not have to justify consistency with established categories" is in my view not an acceptable answer to a fair question given the broader encyclopaedic issue of consistency at all levels. So if you say Category:American talk radio hosts should be deleted, then you should make a multi deletion proposal of both this category and that category, not just one. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Bert Parks was host of Miss America for 25 years, starting at the age of 40. Outside of sports, age 40 is not generally considered the end of one's career. For most of those years, his name was very widely known in the U.S. -- and he was known as the Miss America host. His earlier work as a radio announcer (not a host, but an announcer) wouldn't be remembered by very many people. He also hosted some TV game shows (and is in Category:American game show hosts), but most of the game shows were short-lived and quickly forgotten. --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – other wise; "People are not notable for being the president of the United States. In general, people who have become noted for other things are brought in to being the president of the United States" Christian75 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2013 (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.

People from Modesto, California by occupation

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: result. Euryalus (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (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:Yorkshire Wolds Way

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) 00:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? There was specific support in the old discussion to delete this trail category. Note that the list in the article includes places that are near to the trail. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A trail established in 1982 by government fiat is not a defining thing. This is not like the Oregon Trail or the Mormon Trail.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A list of villages along Yorkshire Wolds Way is useful for people planning to walk this footpath, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and being on the footpath does not appear to be a defining characteristic for the villages. --Orlady (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We should not have places on paths categories, as I have said on similar noms. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Orlady. Being on the footpath is not a defining characteristic for the villages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 2 October 2013 (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.

People by occupation from Bakersfield, California

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 by nominator. Slightly more complex than some of the recent similar "People by foo" withdrawals because there was support for the upmerge from another editor. But the truncated discussion seemed otherwise heading for "keep" or "non consensus" so the outcome would have been the same (effectively, that the category is presently retained) except without prejudice against a renomination if appropriate post-RfC (or without RfC if no RfC proceeds). Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more complex that some of the similar "People by foo" withdrawals because there was support for the upmerge from another editor. But the truncated discussion seemed otherwise heading for "no consensus", so the outcome would have been the same (effectively, that the category is presently retained) but without prejudice against a renomination if appropriate post-RfC (or without RfC if no RfC proceeds).

  • Upmerge Category:Actors from Bakersfield, California to Category:People from Bakersfield, California (don't merge to Category:Actors from California, since so many are already in gender-specific sub-cats)
  • Upmerge Category:Musicians from Bakersfield, California to Category:People from Bakersfield, California and Category:Musicians from California
  • Upmerge Category:Sportspeople from Bakersfield, California to Category:People from Bakersfield, California (we can manually upmerge to Category:Sportspeople from California, but many are already in sport-specific sub-cats)
  • Upmerge Category:Writers from Bakersfield, California to Category:People from Bakersfield, California and Category:Writers from California
  • Nominator's rationale To begin with, this is largely a trivial intersection of place and occupation. Actors from Bakersfield are not cast differently, virtually all of these people are known for acting in other places, most are film and television actors, which means that their being from Bakersfield has nothing to do with their roles even if they appear in something filmed in Bakersfield, for example even if Diane Lane had grown up in Plano, Illinois (Which I don't think she did, but my point works), this would not be enough to make Category:Actors from Plano, Illinois a notable part of her background even though her role in Man of Steel (film) was mostly filmed in Plano, Illinois. Next, this leads to lots of small categories. Bakersfield overall if we combined all these, and assuming no overlap, would still end up with only abut 130 article in Category:People from Bakersfield, California. That is a small enough number that people can deal with it, so size alone does not compel division. I can see having Category:Musicians from Detroit, Michigan at least in theory because there is a clear idea that there is a set of forms of music (such as Motown) that come from Detroit, but I do not think we have Music of Bakerfield, California as an article. I think that also illustrates another problem with these categories. Is this for people from the city of Bakersfield, or do we put in anyone from Kern County, California on the argument that it is all the Bakersfield cultural zone, or do we use some complex time-space contour changing formula, so if someone born in 1880 in an outlying area who was raised there until they went to Hollywood to act would not show up, but someone born in 1980 in the same place who also did not start acting till they got to Hollywood would be in this category because we decide the place was Bakersfield in 1985 but not in 1885. On another note, I am not even sure how many of these people really belong. Too often articles list a place of birth, and then people categorize based on that. However, my older brother was born in Oakland, California, but he was raised in Macomb County, Michigan, so he clearly would not fit in Category:People from Oakland, California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per my comments at the below CFD. Note that these are also all the relatively recent creation of the same editor. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to show how off some of the placements in this category are, Brandon Cruz was in 2 categories. As an actor who made his big break at age 5 in The Courtship of Eddie's Father where he was the title character, you would think where he is from might be notable. The problem is, his family moved out of Bakersfield when he was 2 months old. I am not even sure Liza Minnelli would be worth categorizing as an actor from a place that she was gone from at age 2 months, and she was very young when she appeared in In the Good Old Summertime, although in that case her role was so minor, that if she had died just after filming it she would not have an article, well, maybe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue here is not whether we should have any such categories. There are probably compelling arguments to have some, but I am not convinced such arguments work in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all. The number of people by occupation and place category has gotten right out of control, and needs a major purge. These categories are a particularly poor example, because Bakersfield is not a particularly big city: its population is only ~350,000, and it is only the 52nd-largets city in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sixty seven sportspeople isn't sufficient enough for a category of its own?...William 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply.
        WP:SMALLCAT. However, there are many other factors in determining whether to keep a category, so merely big enough is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.
        The problem in these cases is that these are a set of irrelevant intersections. In nearly all cases the achieved professional achievements of these people is unrelated to the fact that they are from Scottsdale rather than somewhere nearby. This applies to sportspeople as much as to the others, because a sportsperson can easily drive 30 miles to participate in a team somewhere other than where they live. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • BrownHairedGirlWe don't categorize Athletes as being from cities just because they play on that city's sports team. They are a sportspeople from somewhere then. Can't have it both ways....William 17:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply. I'm not trying to have anything both ways. I am just pointing out that occupation categories are an irrelevant intersection with very small areas, because the activity in question is not tied to that area. There is a significant difference between people pursuing an occupation when they live 1000 miles apart, which is why we sub-categorise occupations by country and by US state; there is not much inherent difference between folks who live 30 miles apart. They can get to the same places and can share the same local culture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bakersfield is hardly a very small area. Its population is around 350,000. You support upmerging into Hartford Connecticut in another CFD. Hartford happens to be the state capitol. Let me point out again, Zumbrota MN population under 4,000 is good enough in your opinion for a people from category but Bakersfield at population 350,000 isn't good enough for a Sportspeople. If irrelevant intersection was applied, then Zumbrota would be folded into its county people category. Its a small intersection of a much larger picture.
            • Also "there is not much inherent difference between folks who live 30 miles apart. They can get to the same places and can share the same local culture." Japanese and Koreans, Palestinians and Israelis would beg to differ. In the United States, people on opposite sides of the Ohio River would have begged to differ 150 years ago....William 18:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • William, if you have evidence that there is a wall or international boundary around Bakersfield, please cite your source. Otherwise, please stop being silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Can't explain JPL's nominating rationale or why you support it but call me silly instead. That says alot....William 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • William, I have done so already. Please read the first line of the nomination: "this is largely a trivial intersection of place and occupation". Then read my comments above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sportspeople, Upmerge rest. Sportspeople subcat big enough to be useful. Tewapack (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sportspeople. I haven't looked at the rest....William 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or delete all city based occupation cats. See my argument below as to the actors by city cats. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So either we do not allow Category:Actors from New York City or we have to allow Category:Actors from Provo, Utah. That is not a good argument. This is a discussion of the merits of the specific category, not these categories in general. They works in some cases, they do not for Bakersfield.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, that seems to be your argument as well. How can you seriously argue that all of these smaller city cats violate the rules you state apply throughout this page, but somehow do not as to NYC or LA? Think about that. The absolute only reason would be SMALLCAT, which others on your team here like to say does not really apply as to the rationale for the nomination. As in, if we allow this at all, it has to be allowed for all, as long as it then meets SMALLCAT. Otherwise setting arbitrary rules as to which cities can and cannot have which is a serious problem. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In
    Wikipedia:Categorization of people it says "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." This would indicate that in general we should not put people in categorize for a place just because they were born there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Request withdrawal (changing my !vote). Per my detailed request at CFD Sept 27: Actors from Beverly Hills, California, I ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination to allow a centralised discussion to reach a broad consensus.
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (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.

Actors by city in Connecticut

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 by nominator. Slightly more complex than some of the recent similar "People by foo" withdrawals because there was support for the upmerge from another editor. But the truncated discussion seemed otherwise heading for "keep" or "non consensus" so the outcome would have been the same (effectively, that the category is presently retained) except without prejudice against a renomination if appropriate post-RfC (or without RfC if no RfC proceeds). Euryalus (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"narrow as individual towns intersected with occupation". Do you understand that Hartford is the state capital? That Bridgeport is nearly 150,000 people. They aren't towns but cities. A state capital and one of the biggest cities in a region can't have occupation categories? Then you might as well argue no city can of any size.
Another thing- The nominator of this CFD started uncategorizing people such as Mike McCullough, Billy Mayfair, Mina Harigae. He didn't just remove the sportspeople category from, but uncategorized them totally as being from Scottsdale, Mesa, or Arizona, even though those are the places these people live in. To quote his McCullough edit 'Not from Arizona enough to be put in that states's golfers cat. His PGATour web profile gives his residence as Scottsdale Arizona. He's been living in Scottsdale Arizona for at least 34 years[6] but he is not from Arizona enough according to the nominator. The nominator wants to strip the state categories also of people who live in the state or even town. These CFDs are flawed because the nominator's flawed rationale and recent edits that are troublesome....William 16:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with his outright removals and I and others have already raised the issue during CFDs. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that User:WilliamJE is engaging in what amounts to an unjustified personal attack. He is bringing up things that have nothing to do with either actors or Connecticut. If being a state capital justified these categories, we should have Category:Actors from Lansing, Michigan, Category:Actors from Bismark, North Dakota and so on. The fact of the matter is that we don't need to subdivide these categories in this way. On the other matter, just being born somewhere does not make someone from there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of and from are used interchanably in English and are the same word in many other languages. The claimed difference between "actors of Connecticut" and "actors of Connecticut" is marginal. How is the Stamford/Greenwich line going to be defining to actors. We are breaking up categories based on very small areas. What next Category:Actors from Warren, Michigan, Category:Actors from Sterling Heights, Michigan. Also, there are so many people who are actors and musicians, and who were raised in two or more locations in the same state, do we really want to go the route this could take us?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claim that people are not categorized by where they practiced their occupation is not born out by actual use. A-we have
    Madonna (entertainer) would not be in New York City cateogries. Does it really make sense to exclude from Category:Actors from St. Louis, Missour someone who was born and raised in Memphis, Tennessee but did all their acting in plays performing in New York City. Also, are you going to tell me that there aren't people in Category:Musicians from Nashville, Tennessee who only ever lived there to perform in Country Music?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Fairfield, Connecticut is a town, not a city. So yes, some of these are towns. I still think that the size of Category:Actors from Connecticut does not justify subdivision at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you take a look at Category:Male actors from Cleveland, you will find Mike Polk in that category. If you look at his biography you will see he was neither born nor raised in Cleveland. He is connected with Cleveland because most of his acting career has occurred there. As I said before of/from are essentially the same word, and acting like a category that says "actors from x" will not include people notable for acting in that location is just not going to work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Wikipedia:Categorzation of people it says "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." This would indicate that in general we should not put people in categorize for a place just because they were born there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With articles like James Jewell it is clear that in the case of some radio actors they are being categorized by the radio market in which they did most of their acting. This would argue against too specific by city categories and in favor of more regional categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request withdrawal (changing my !vote). Per my detailed request at CFD Sept 27: Actors from Beverly Hills, California, I ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination to allow a centralised discussion to reach a broad consensus.
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It seems to me that these are well enough populated to keep, but we need to avoid very small occupational categories for places. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2013 (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:Pokémon trainers

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) 23:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is currently redundant after the reduction of character articles. TTN (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2013 (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:George Gershwin

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; users seem fine for there to be discussion regarding whether all the current contents are appropriately categorized in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 24 September 2013 (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:Fitz and The Tantrums

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:  Relisted at 2013 OCT 10 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--subcats can be interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as the most elegant way of interlinking its 3 subcats.
    Oculi (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2013 (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:WDL error

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. To tell you the truth, I can't make heads or tails of this and I can't tell if the issue discussed has been fixed yet or not. Feel free to nominate again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have several users on the talk page requesting this page be a red links so errors with this template are readily visible, and yet the page exists. The explanation provided is useful and the category would be baffling without it. Should there be a page here or not? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep until {{WDL}} and {{WDLtot}} are modified to show an error when the total does not equal the sum of WDL. why would you remove a tracking category before the problem is fixed? cart goes after the horse. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would accept that as an option is someone changes the template by the end of this discussion. If the editors that care about this problem don't have the time to edit the template, then we don't need the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally see the category as useful, provided that the template documentation explicitly says that errors go in this category. (I'll make that edit now) However, my nomination is mostly procedural, and I myself don't wish to place a vote on it, not being knowledgable enough. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2013 (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:Biathlon venues

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) 00:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles currently in this category are about places (e.g. villages, military camp) where a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of the place. DexDor (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2013 (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:Cities and towns on State highway 115

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) 00:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being on a particular road is not normally considered to be a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of a place and this form of categorization could lead to horrendous category clutter. For info: the category creator appears not to understand the difference between a category and a list. DexDor (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2013 (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:Women & the Silk Road

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) 00:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the two articles currently in this category the Silk Road is not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic and they are in plenty of other categories (e.g. Category:Women leaders of China). For info: The edit summary when this category was created was "New category, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_the_Silk_Road -- which is pending deletion". DexDor (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment We could in theory add Katarina Vilioni to this category. Except, I am not sure she is really notable enough to have an article. We know virtually nothing about her, and the article itself seems to be using her existence as a coatrack to hang a larger discussion of Italians in Medieval China on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this category. I did so because I saw a page of the same title being nominated for deletion. I assume it was deleted. The theme of the deletion was that there was no definitive way to cover the topic. I thought the author put good work into it, and I thought it was interesting. I disagree with DexDor that Category:Women leaders of China is the same. Women of the silk road is not getting in anyone's way, could be expanded with time, and is an interesting way for readers to associate women. I have zero vested interest in this, but this category as it is is more useful than it is a liability. BTW when I originally set this up, there were 3 women, as I recall. Dunno why it's down to 2 now. Wxidea (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creating categories is not the way to preserve articles from deletion. The way to do that is to gather more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per JPL. OR essay masquerading as category, and even if the topic was notable it still would not be appropriate to categorize that association in this manner. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is essentially an article in category space. If the (potential) main article has bene deleted, it is all the more reason to get rid of this. I am deliberately not voting to convert it to an article, as it is not worth having as that either. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2013 (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:Mexican super hero films: Mil Mascaras, El Santo, Demonio Azul

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) 17:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly named and unnecessary category which currently contains articles about a variety of subjects (e.g. people and
a type of film). DexDor (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

There is a difference between "Lucha films" & super hero films: 1st Lucha films indicate wrestling or fighting to win a bout. On the other hand, super hero films are films about heroes who protect & serve, such as in the Mexican film "Enigma de muerte" Mil Mascaras fights the evil Nazi played by John Carradine; I don't mean that Carradine is wearing tights & is bare-chested, like a wrestler, Carradine is playing the part of a Nazi who wants to take over the government. How does that relate to a "Lucha films"? Answer: It does not. Lucha films are about wrestling, not about saving a country or a beautiful woman as in the case with the "Blue Demon." Here, there is a werewolf who is murdering beautiful women such as Altia Michel The Blue Demon kills the werewolf to protect other females. 2nd: Super hero films were made during an era in Mexico when the Regent of Mexico City was attempting to "clean up" or moralize films. The Regent would not allow films to be shown in cinemas in Mexico City that were objectionable, immoral, or displayed sexual content. The reason I feel it is necessary to differentiate between Lucha films & super hero films is because Mexican culture HAS HEROES & American culture has heores, such as Iron Man, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern & so on, & Americans have wrestlers like Gorgeous George, & others, Americans are able to distinguish between wrestlers & super heroes, why then can't Mexicans have the same privilege? Chaos4tu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC) FYI The film producer

Aaron Rodriguez was NOT a wrestler, he was a martial arts enthusiast who turned wrestler after the death of Luis Enrique Vergara. Chaos4tu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 24 September 2013 (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/2013_September_24&oldid=1197940593"