< October 24	October 26 >

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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 2. Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary semicha recipients to Category:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary semikhah recipients

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent article for rabbinic ordination is titled semikhah and does not match the transliteration used in the existing title. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but to Category:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary smicha recipients. Though the article name is semikhah, the article should also be moved to the far more common name, "Smicha." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but to Category:Smicha recipients of Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. This is effectively an alumni category and should follow that format. No view on spelling of smicha/senikhah/semicha, as I am not Jewish. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2010 (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.

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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Eve albums to Category:Eve (entertainer) albums
Category:Eve songs to Category:Eve (entertainer) songs

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Eve (entertainer), and to disambiguate from Eve (band). — ξ ^xplicit 20:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Papa November (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! Garry says OK (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2010 (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.

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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 2. Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not defining for the individuals. Also very subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but I'm not sure to what. There are a number of people who are specifically known for their advocacy of the use of the rosary. I thin kit is useful to have them in a subcategory but I'm not sure what the best name for such a category should be. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe listify? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2010 (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.

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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 2#Category:The Powerpuff Girls characters. — ξ ^xplicit 07:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article, which is a list of all characters from PPG. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 16:38, 25 October 2010 (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.

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. — ξ ^xplicit 07:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Situation comedies to Category:Sitcoms

Nominator's rationale: Suggested to move in the opposite direction: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_7#Category:Sitcoms, then the main article and the subcats. got changed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:35, 15 October 2010 (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) 14:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match present article title at sitcom. It's too bad there's no way to "lock" certain category names to automatically match the titles of their parent articles, to avoid wasting time on this back-and-forth; this category was renamed previously when the article was renamed, and now it's back again... postdlf (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, seems uncontroversial enough. Roscelese (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2010 (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.

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. There is no consensus to delete, and also no consensus from those arguing to rename about what to name it to.. Dana boomer (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Music from Dublin to Category:Musicians from Dublin

Nominator's rationale: This category should be renamed, in keeping with other categories of "musicians from" various cities, i.e., Category:Musicians from Toronto. Music from Dublin implies that the category discusses styles of music with origins in Dublin. This is, of course, not the case. Musicians from Dublin would make more sense. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Musicians from Dublin, Ireland since Dublin is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – many of the articles are of bands, not musicians. The scheme Category:Musicians by city has not been established in general and is so far mostly restricted to N America. Category:Music by city in contrast is well-developed (and should be restricted to music having some particular connection to the place: eg Oasis is a Manchester band but is not restricted to people from Manchester AFAIK). Occuli (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Music of Dublin. If the criterion for inclusion is a connection to the city (which I support), then "of" is better than "from", since the latter implies origin. Subcategories for musicians or musical groups from Dublin can then be split out, if desired. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Neither of these arguments make sense to me. Even if you say some of these are bands rather than musicians, bands are made up of musicians. But "music from" or "music of," do not make sense because this is a categorization of people, not musical styles. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:20, 20 October 2010 (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) 14:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom (or Rename to Category:Musicians of Dublin) -- the category is for musical groups (people), not "music" (the art) as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Category:Music from Dublin was created because of the existence of the parent Category:Music by city and while it may seem slightly ambiguous at first sight, it does seem the best way to give an overview of a city's overall musical output. Category:Musicians from Dublin would not really be that appropriate as only a fraction of the articles that are now included deal with specific, individual musicians. Some of the concerns that have been raised with regard to ambiguity could easily be by eliminated by including a sentence like "Musical groups or artists associated with the city of Dublin, Ireland" at the beginning of the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teekayd25 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 November 2010 (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.

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: Speedy keep Deletion review result was keep. œ ^™ 12:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Essentially per rationale at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/test. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VeryPunny/My Custom Word Association Games, and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_25#Template:Word_Association. -- Cirt (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep until the outcome the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 25#Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game is known. If the review reinstates the pages the category can be renominated with an actual rationale ("useless" is not good enough) if desired. Otherwise WP:CSD#G8 would allow the speedy deletion of the category - but to delete it now using this would be prejudicial imo. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2010 (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.

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. — ξ ^xplicit 07:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Dublin (Roman Catholic) to Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Dublin

Nominator's rationale: Consistency Kittybrewster ☎ 11:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – the tree is Category:Roman Catholic bishops, subtree Category:Roman Catholic archbishops. Occuli (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency reasons. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2010 (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.

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. — ξ ^xplicit 07:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Meath (Roman Catholic) to Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Meath

Nominator's rationale: Consistency Kittybrewster ☎ 11:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland has four subcategories named in this fashion, three in the suggested form. So it can't really be a matter of consistency there. There would need to be a clearer rationale, and one that took into account the Irish religious situation, in which there are parallel hierarchies with a divide at the Reformation going on centuries. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – the tree is Category:Roman Catholic bishops, subtree Category:Roman Catholic archbishops. Occuli (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency reasons. Editor Matthews mention the paralle hierarchies. This is not a valid reason to oppose asthe parallel categoru of Category:Bishops of Clonard or Kells or of Meath exists to cater for both traditions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2010 (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.

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, and add the text to Brandeem's user page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete - Not sure what this is supposed to be. I think the lone user created this with the thought it would be some sort of userspace content. VegaDark (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I hope I won't be bitey but perhaps the user wanted to create a subheading on their userpage?--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add to the user page of User:Brandeem then delete and salt. This is a new user, who is misusing category space, because he does not understand its nature, or at least so I assume. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2010 (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.

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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 2. Dana boomer (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete - "The time has come for a popular revolt against the dictatorship of en-dashes and em-dashes. The code that creates them is ugly; it litters the page with unnecessary markup whose marginal esthetic value is more than outweighed by its tendency to discourage newcomers from embarking upon their first edits." - Category doesn't benefit the encyclopedia in any way that I can see. Fits the definition of innapropriate categorization at Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories in that it is a category of users who dislikes or opposes something. At minimum needs a rename to Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites to indicate it is a user category, if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; inspiring, but violative of the guidelines on user categories. I can't see how this improves collaboration of a positive sort. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites. This use of a category is a perfectly reasonable way enable mutual recognition of wikipedians on a relative back-burner issue. In raising awareness, it promotes communication and development, and thus is for the benefit of the project. At a sub-minimum, should be listified to the essay Wikipedia:Hyphen luddites, retaining the above excellent header text and the non-trivial talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were prone to paranoia, I might say that the CfD regulars are intent on turning red every user-catergory I like, except that the CfD regular groupthink (which wrote the guidelines) finds such wording offensively labelling and divisive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love how "the CFD regulars" = users I disagree with, even when, based on edit counts at CFD, the person using the term could be regarded as a "CFD regular". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I am not particularly prone to paranoia, and would not say the above. No disrespect is intended to the regulars, but CfD regulars are a non random sample of the community. I dare say they seem more concerned with consistency, logic and order than the typical wandering editor.
This category happens to contain a proportion of high profile editors. Is it forbidden to invite them to the discussion? Should they not be invited because we assume they don't understand how CfD and categorisation works? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are a 'CFD regular'. It's hard, I know, but I'm sure you'll get through. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't in any doubt of this. Did you not notice the "listify" suggestion, tacitly accepting the CfD-regular position? CfD needs more diverse participants, I say. The least I can do is participate. Perhaps I should blue link Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, having read the nomination and the follow-up comments. I just didn't agree with it as being my "first preference". Anyone can make a list any time if they want to, so I don't even feel that it's a very important issue to express an opinion on one way or the other, so I essentially ignored it and didn't supplement my initial comment by saying "listify" or "do not listify". The central part of my opinion is that the category should be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not concerned that by deleting without first listifying, and moving the header text and talk page, valid multi-authored wikiedian project-related opinion will be lost, even "censored!"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. The information is never "lost" if anyone wants to retrieve it. If you're worried about it, then I'd suggest going ahead and making a list page right away before it's (possibly) deleted to save you the extra hassle of retrieving the information. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Membership information is effectively lost after members are removed from the deleted category, so I have copied the membership of today. I ask that if the category is deleted, that the category talk page be moved to Wikipedia talk:Hyphen luddites. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the piecemeal deletion of all of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy. I don't think it is right that CfD regulars should do this. VegaDark, do you wish to see all or most of this category structure deleted? If so, please be upfront about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of any user category that I don't see benefits the encyclopedia, usually due to it not fostering collaboration. I would have to go through each of those categories before I made a sweeping statement that everything there should be deleted. But, in general, I would say it isn't very helpful to proclaim one's editing philosophy via a category, unless there is a purpose behind it to group all such users together for some effort to improve the encyclopedia. If this category were more focused on changing the hyphen system rather than complaining about it (some of the talk page discussion seems to be focused on this, which is a good start), I could support keeping this under a different name. Something like (Category:Wikipedians working to improve Wikipeida's hyphen system. The entire opening paragraph would have to be changed as well to reflect this. VegaDark (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites or Category:Hyphen Luddite Wikipedians, but no reason for deletion. The prohibition on "like/dislike" categories traditionally has not extended to people who like or dislike things about Wikipedia, which is why we have categories for inclusionists, deletionists, pro- and anti- Pending Changes, and so on, though I admit that I'm not sure anyone's ever specifically defined the rule as excluding those things. —Soap— 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the vast majority of support/oppose categories relating to a Wikipedia issue have been deleted, see here. A few have been kept, but I would support deletion of those as well as I feel they violate the guideline on categories. and don't help the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶ OK, after a couple of years and several thousand edits here, I've finally found that I don't have the time or patience to learn, remember or keep up with all the arcana of Wikadminstration, but when I thought "if it wouldn't mean instant inaction, ineffectiveness and oblivion, shouldn't this once-robust category of lusty rebels join all the 'Associations of Wikipedians...'", why lo! and behold, I find that they're almost all categories, too. See Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy There's no point (unless, which I very much doubt, there's some malicious motive to suppress free speech and association) to deleting anything if it's just a matter of renaming it. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merely renaming would be disappointing, but keeping as is would be unacceptable. I think I made it clear that deletion was my first choice, as I don't believe this benefits the encyclopedia as a category (I'd be fine if this were a Wikipedia-space page). VegaDark (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it should be Category:Hyphen-Luddites, Category:Hyphen–Luddites or Category:Hyphen—Luddites (all done without any 'ugly code'). Occuli (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the mysterious code you just used? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh—the ugliness! You're littering this page with unnecessary markups with a marginal esthetic value. As a newcomer, I am discouraged from embarking upon my first edits ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question is serious. "((cl|Hyphen-Luddites)), ((cl|Hyphen–Luddites)) or ((cl|Hyphen—Luddites))" all look the same (in my edit window). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, -, – & — produce different things when saved, but how is it explained simply, and how many notice such subtlety, let alone care, especially regarding the first two, which look identical on close inspection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They would seem to be ascii characters 45, 150 & 151. My experience of these things is that characters above 128 are unreliable.

" ¬ !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~?€‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜™š›œžŸ ¡¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬®¯°±²³´µ¶•¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâãäåæçèéêëìíîïðñòóôõö÷øùúûüýþÿ" Where is more information on this string? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some browser fonts don't differentiate, especially on PCs. It is possible to change that if you care enough so that they do appear differently—it just depends on the font, mostly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather remain a luddite, using words like from, to, between, and symbols like the old comma and hyphen, for which no training is required. I've got pretty far relying mostly on the standard keyboard, with the occasionally necessary use of a Greek character, which causes problems when it doesn't print or upload properly. Why would I bother with special characters that don't look, or even when they do look, read, differently to me and many readers? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you would—perhaps you could care about those readers that do know the difference and do recognize the difference and read them differently. You'll be fine; just don't apply for any professional editorial jobs, especially at—God forbid—the New Yorker. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if kept, Rename as a WP user category. No views on merits, assuming it is not an attack category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I do think that Wikipedians by Wikipedia-related philosophy categories may be useful in certain situations (although, as VegaDark noted above, facilitating expression of a philosophy—e.g., via a userbox or an essay page—is not the same as creating a grouping of users), I don't think that this extends to Wikipedians by opinion on Wikipedia-related issue #235,622-type categories. Categories such as Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies reflect broad philosophies or editing styles, respectively, affecting much of what a user does on Wikipedia. To be honest, this category strikes me as being more similar to Category:Wikipedians who add two spaces before stub templates... I support SmokeyJoe's suggestion to listify, and I see that it has already been done at Wikipedia:Hyphen luddites-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:34, 31 October 2010 (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.

October 25

Category:Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary semicha recipients

Eve

Category:Promoters of the Rosary

Category:The Powerpuff Girls characters

Category:Situation comedies

Category:Music from Dublin

Category:Wikipedia Word Association

Category:Archbishops of Dublin (Roman Catholic)

Category:Bishops of Meath (Roman Catholic)

Category:My Inspiration

Category:Hyphen Luddites