< April 24	April 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: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Casting (manufacturing) to Category:Casting

Nominator's rationale: Clear primary topic, no need for disambiguation, matches lead article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Casting (disambiguation) shows that the term "casting" has many other non-trivial meanings. Regardless of whether the manufacturing process is taken as the primary topic in article space, retaining the disambiguator in the category name helps to avoid miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose "casting" is what a casting director does when casting for a play, television or film. ; Casting is what a fisherman does with a fishing pole. Clearly many things can be categorized here having nothing to do with cast iron, die cast, etc. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – category names should be completely unambiguous. Oculi (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2012 (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: Merge to Category:Footbridges per main article; revisit if that's moed. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pedestrian bridges to Category:Footbridges

Nominator's rationale: Merge two duplicate categories to the obvious, recognised name. Also matches Commons Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Duplicate is pushing it for a category created today. Adding/moving categories from the former to populate the latter to show a problem is someone problematic itself. As to the nomination, I'm not sure at this time which way to go, but additional moving of articles should stop while this is being discussed. Note that the existing category contains a very well developed set of subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy rename the head article is at Footbridge. If this nom passes, you can do a speedy rename on all the subcats. Perhaps a notice should be placed at the head of each category, to ask people to stop moving things into/out of these cats pending this CfD. --KarlB (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• do not rename Instead, delete Category:Footbridges as unneeded. Change the article name to Pedestrian bridge, reversing the current re-direct. Reading the articles find the term most used is 'pedestrain bridge', not 'footbridge'. There is also the entire category structure Category:Pedestrian infrastructure of which Category:Pedestrian bridges is but one part; there is no such structure for 'footbridges'. There is no good reason to change this. 'Pedestrian bridge' seems like is it the name of art; 'footbridge' is rather informal and old-fashioned. Hmains (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment google book search and google scholar both seem to indicate a preference for footbridge. renaming the other sub-cats is not a big deal. i think given the article has been at footbridge for 7 years, that suggests consensus on that as a name. --KarlB (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- preferenably as nom; if not, reverse merge and move the parent article to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Support rename - I created the Category:Footbridges because all the images I wanted for an article I was writing on the Commons were under commons under Category Footbriges On the Commons, "Pedestrian bridge" is under "Footbridge" and bridges for bicycles, pack animals etc. are under it. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - these categories are confusing. For example Category:Pedestrian bridges in England is a subcategory under Category:Footpaths in England. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The organization of Commons does not govern what is Wikipedia. Hmains (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Hmains - My comment above: Category:Pedestrian bridges in England is a subcategory under Category:Footpaths in England does not refer to the Commons. On Wikipedia Category:Pedestrian bridges in England is a subcategory under Category:Footpaths in England. I'm having difficulty understanding how this works. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Pedestrian bridges in England is also a subcategory of Category:Bridges in England. Category:Footpaths in England should cover articles on footpaths in England. If a bridge is part of a footpath, that does not mean it should be classified as footpath since it is bridge that is used by some footpath. It could be that including all pedestrian bridges as footpaths is wrong. If any bridge happens to also be a complete footpath, then it can be categorized as both. If this is correct then just remove that extra category from Category:Pedestrian bridges in England. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also a Category:Cyclist bridges which is applied unevenly. I just discovered it. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge. If you read footbridge, cyclists, animal traffic and horse riders, rather than vehicular traffic are considered valid traffic on foot bridges. This would actually argue against either of the above names making the longstanding name the most appropriate. Clearly something needs to be done with the main article. Maybe a split into bridges that prohibit motorized vehicles and true foot bridges like a rope bridge. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:GA-Class Iron Maiden articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Such categories are usually there to help WikiProjects (or task forces) in maintaining articles. But there currently is no Iron Maiden project or task force and no Category:Iron Maiden articles by quality. Pichpich (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (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: Merge without prejudice to breaking out by country and, if needed once enough by-country categories are created, by continent. Omce there are enough. That is not now.. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fire departments of Asia to Category:Fire departments

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Bot this category and the parent category are still very small so the continental subcategorization is more annoying than helpful. Of course I expect that at some point in the future we will be happy to create this category once again but right now, we're better off without it. Pichpich (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Another area where we do not need a by continent category breakout. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for now until the parent cat is sufficiently populated.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 26 April 2012 (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 to Category:History of Cumberland, MD-WV MSA. Revisit the whole tree if necessary Timrollpickering (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of Cumberland, MD-WV-PA to Category:History of Cumberland, MD-WV MSA

Nominator's rationale: Per main article/cat. Speedy rename denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:History of Cumberland Metro to match the lede of Category:Cumberland, MD-WV MSA. Same for all the Cumberland MD-WV categories. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2012 (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 merge - the term "judiciary" considered to be ambiguous. - jc37 06:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Court systems to Category:Judiciaries

Nominator's rationale: Propose Category:Court systems to be merged/renamed Category:Judiciaries and the contents of both Category:Judiciaries and Category:Court systems by country be included in a new Category:Judiciaries by country as a subcat for Category:Judiciaries. Reasons: (1) The article Court systems is redirected to Judiciary. (2) The article in Judiciary says that "The judiciary (also known as the judicial system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state." (3) Dictionaries also define judiciary as a system of courts and judges collectively: [1], [2], [3], [4]. (4) I can only find 1 article with multiple articles (Courts of the United Kingdom and Judiciary of the United Kingdom) which says the same thing and ought to be merged as well. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 05:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment At least one of the judiciary (Sweden) articles states "The judicial system of Sweden consists of the law of Sweden and a number of government agencies tasked with upholding security and rule of law within the country. The activities of these agencies include police and law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and prisons and other correctional services". If this is true, it is certainly not so in other countries. In the US, for example, the judiciary/court system would never be thought of as including police and law enforcement, prosecution, and prisons and other correctional services. These are part of the executive branch of the government, not the judicial. All are part of the 'justice system', as are the 'judiciary/courts'. Is there other confusion here also? Hmains (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that only a few countries (Finland & Iran) share the Swedish scenario (where they include the law enforcement/prison as part of their "judicial system". In any case, I think those articles can appropriately be categorized under one category. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merger. The term "judiciary" can be use to refer collectively either to judges, or to the whole court system (aka judicial system). The ambiguity of the term "judiciary" makes it a poor choice for a category name, but the distinction between judges and the judicial system should be retained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the issue of distinction btwn judges and judicial system arises here. There is already a separate category for judges: Category:Judges. But/And if we look at most, if not all, the related articles (judiciaries of - , judicial system of -, court system of-) you can't escape defining the role, functions, names, types, etc of the judges sitting in the courts of those countries. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a reverse merger. "Court systems" is unambiguous, but "judiciaries" has two meanings, so let's use the unambiguous terms. --11:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• merge per nom. given the category Category:Judges and what will be the contents of these categories, Judiciary is a better word. Court system implies just the relationship between courts, and does not seem inclusive of the judges or other institutions of the justice system. I disagree that the term will be ambiguous in this case. --KarlB (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  why do you say that there is no ambiguity, when the dictionary definition of judiciary gives both meanings? (i.e. a : a system of courts of law b : the judges of these courts). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  because we're using the category to cover both meanings. (even though judges are a sub-cat, they are still within) --KarlB (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. It's much better to use the term "court systems" which only has the broad meaning, rather than "judiciary" which has both the broad and the narrow meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- I would regard "judiciaries" as relating to judges, and court systems as wider, being concerned with the whole system of the courts of law. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  comment Unfortunately that doesn't mesh with the current content of the categories, the definition of the term. see Category:Judiciaries, which contain courts and judges, and Judiciary for definition, which is broad.--KarlB (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got it the other way round. The dictionaries define "judiciary" to include the system of courts: [5], [6], [7], [8]. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment see this: [9] - in the article space, these are all seen as synonyms. No reason to differentiate in the category space. merge this! --KarlB (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a reliable source. They are not synonmyms, because while "judiciary" may refer to either judges collectively (in UK usage) or court systems generally (US usage), "court systems" does not carry the narrower meaning. If categories are ambiguous, miscategorisation results, and the way to avoid ambiguity here is by using "court systems". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Wikipedia is not a reliable source"?? I've seen you cite wikipedia in numerous debates; what wikipedia is useful for here is seeing whether the consensus of other editors has decided that 'court systems' and judiciary' and 'judicial systems' are somehow different or that somehow confusion is possible. In this case, consensus says they are the same; no-one has written a separate article on 'court systems'. The lead article is at 'judiciary', so until that changes to 'court systems', we should do this merge as proposed. If you think judiciary should be renamed court systems, I'd suggest taking it up at Talk:Judiciary, rather than impeding consensus on this merge which is just bringing things in line with the article space. (just found this gem, from 2006 there: "I'm no lawyer, but the categories Category:Judiciaries and Category:Court systems by country look like a duplicated mess to me. Someone easily confused (?) might have expected to find a more logical structure, like: branches of national government; court systems; and judges. I've made a few tweaks at the moment, and I'm wondering about proposing the merger of court systems into judiciaries to help sort out the differences between the two. Any views??--Mereda 14:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)" KarlB (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold. I think we want to think through this. In the United States there is the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive Branch in the Federal government. The Court system is a different branch. Is Judiciary and court system synonymous? I am not sure, but we should be sure before we act on this idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  reply as far as I can tell, yes. For an example, see here: [10] The title of the website is 'Virginia's Judicial System'; then: "Our aim is to assure that disputes are resolved justly, promptly, and economically through a court system unified in its structures and administration." Then their annual report is called "2011 State of the Judiciary Address"; and if you read that, you will see that they use 'judiciary' to refer to the whole system. So at least for virginia, the three are synonyms; you can check other states but in my research there didn't appear to be a big difference between them. There are certainly some wp:engvar issues at stake here, but it doesn't mean that some how these are different; and if it turns out for one country that they are, they can always be re-separated.--KarlB (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The Justice Department is not part of the judiciary or court systems. As you say, they are part of the executive branch. They are basically lawyers for the government conducting civil cases for and on behalf of the government, as well as criminal prosecution and law enforcement (eg FBI, DEA, etc). There are already separate categories for this: Category:Justice ministries, Category:Prosecution. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 02:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the idea of three branches of government was invented by James Madison and maybe a few others at the Constitutional Convention. I am pretty sure it is only somewhat relevant even in previous American law. In Britain, there is at best two branches of government, yet the House of Lords is the highest judicial body, so there is not total sepearation of the courts from the judiciary. Outside the federal level in the United States, there have been times and places where the judicial and the executive was merged. Nauvoo, Illinois under Joseph Smith at least had a personal merger of all three branches of government. The executive and legislative is regularly merged on the local level. The Massachusetts General Court on the other hand was a legislative body, and Harry S. Truman was the chief executive of Jackson County when he was the county judge. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. I think we should do this merging on a case by case baiss. If we have a specific place where we have judical system and courts categories that cover the same thing, we should merge these. Then after doing that, we can consider if the two head category names are needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (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. If the various category trees need broadening/branching in the future, that can be considered at that point. - jc37 06:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SpaceX space launch vehicles to Category:Falcon (rocket family)

Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy. Constesting IP claimed that Falcon missiles could be a possible source of confusion, but per WP:COMMONNAME those are the Falcon missile family, distinct from the Falcon rockets.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really care if the category name is changed, but... this seems rather shortsighted. With the whole "crystal" idea firmly in mind, I still find it highly unlikely that the Falcon rocket is the only rocket that SpaceX will ever build. If it were an article that we were discussing I wouldn't care one whit, but categories get tough to change very quickly, so I don't think that this is such a great idea. Besides, by my thinking, "SpaceX space launch vehicles" is more consistent with our existing category conventions than any sort of "Falcon (rocket family)" would be... as an "upper level" category, at least. I could certainly see adding a "Falcon (rocket family)" category, as a child of "Category:SpaceX space launch vehicles", at some point down the road. Anyway, I'll ping Wikiproject Spaceflight with a link here. I'm quite willing to go along with whatever group consensus may be.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, all of the sister subcategories as this is currently arranged are "Foo (rocket family)" categories (just moved from "Foo rockets"), so this stands out like a sore thumb. It needs to be either renamed or, as you say, have a seperate Falcon (rocket family) created. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...not exactly. I'm not going to go changing things while this CFD is running, but the other Foo (Rocket family) categories in Category:Space launch vehicles of the United States were all subcategories of Category:NASA space vehicles, and they should be again (most of them still are, but they've had Category:Space launch vehicles of the United States directly added to them for some reason). I see that Category:Space launch vehicles of the United States itself needs to be dispursed again as well, which isn't surprising considering the last time I did it must have been two years ago now.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ouch, that SLV category is a bit of a mess, isn't it... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It didn't used to be... But, I mean, that category is what I'm basing my thinking on. The whole idea here was to have "Space launch vehicles of the United States" as a parent to "NASA space vehicles" and "SpaceX space vehicles", plus X * "<US company> space vehicles" eventually (I'm thinking of Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada Corporation, United Launch Alliance, Boeing and the others here). Then those categories could be parents to specific rocket articles and rocket family articles and categories. Parent categories tend to gather a lot of clutter (people rely on HotCat or just their memory, and so things end up categorized in Category:NASA all of the time, for example). I haven't been maintaining the NASA category tree recently though, so yea... things are a little disorganized right now.
          — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the suggested at speedy alternate names Category:Falcon (SpaceX rocket family) or Category:SpaceX Falcon (rocket family) are better names. And the missiles are rocket-powered, and are therefore rockets. In the world at large, people call missiles rockets. These SpaceX launchers are actually multiple rockets in one multi-stage vehicle, since they have multiple stages, each stage being a rocket. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they don't. "Rocket" when referring to military equipment has a very specific term; missiles, regardless of their propulsion, are never referred to as "rockets". "Rocket" means a unguided vehicle or a space launch vehicle, "missile" is a guided vehicle. Missiles may be rocket-powered but they are absoultely never called rockets. The AIR-2 Genie is a rocket, the AIM-4 Falcon is a missile; none of the Hughes Falcons were unguided, this, none are rockets. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anything rocket powered is a rocket. Military terminology relegates guided rockets to the term "missile", but then an unguided rock thrown by a catapult is also called a "missile", as are bolts from ballista, neither of which are selfpowered. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but they are more commonly referred to as missiles, and rarely as rockets. The SpaceX rockets are by far the most common use of the term "Falcon" in the context of a family of rockets. --W. D. Graham 17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as originally proposed, oppose both alternatives. The SpaceX rockets are the clear primary topic, and the missiles are not a sufficient cause of ambiguity to warrant further disambiguation, at the expense of creating a standardised system. --W. D. Graham 06:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• That's a GO for LAUNCH moving Category:SpaceX space launch vehicles to Category:Falcon (rocket family), nice things go in 'rockets' nasty things go in 'missiles'. All current articles in category SpaceX space launch vehicles belong in the moved category. AIM-4 Falcon does not belong in the moved category. Ha! men in suits playing sandcastles in Falcon Heavy, that's why the US lost the space race :) (slap) Penyulap ☏ 08:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are nasty things called rocket pods slung onto fighters and helicopters, armed with "rockets" 70.49.124.225 (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the context of weapons, "rockets" unguided and "missiles" are guided. I am yet to see another family of rockets called Falcon. --W. D. Graham 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And those nasty things called rocket pods don't launch anything called Falcon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd agree with WD that "in the context of weapons, "rockets" [are] unguided and "missiles" are guided" and you can split it further along the line, after weapons, so it becomes Falcon rocket family (weapons) and Falcon missile family (weapons) although missiles and weapons is reiteration I'd figure.

In the nice things category, a missile is an object directed at a target, a chocolate can be a missile and someones mouth can be the target, generally anything can be a missile if it is propelled towards a target. A rocket spews gas and so forth. A missile can be propelled by your hand or by a rocket, but a rocket cannot be propelled by a missile, and propelling a rocket with your hand will send you to the burns unit at the local hospital.

When readers want to know about the Falcon rocket, I'd say they are looking for their space-x related thingy, so send them to the family of rockets, not missiles, as we say it's the Soyuz, or the Soyuz (rocket), the Proton (rocket) and the lovely R-7 (rocket family). So top level category starts with most common term, as proposed, and across in the military category, you'd pop in the term military or weapon, or just Falcon (NASTY) as you please, the R-7 family illustrates that sort of thing.

In a nutshell, the original proposal is correct, but as it is a US design, further launch delays can be expected. Penyulap ☏ 00:45, 26 April 2012 (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.