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:Former capital cities in India. For the record, I am pasting in a copy of the Speedy nomination which was opposed (by me). – Fayenatic London 14:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Former Indian capital cities to ?

Nominator's rationale: Current name is unclear and doesn't readily fit into Category:Capitals of former nations or Category:Former national capitals. Tim! (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Perhaps to Category:Ancient Indian capitals based on the format used for Category:Ancient Chinese capitals?. JTdale ^Talk 19:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and split. Ancient sounds like a good idea if you would then also split the category for example in Ancient, Medieval and Early modern. Currently, with so many cities in the category, a reader who is interested in the subject wouldn't know where to start reading if no other clue is provided. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Category:Former capital cities in India. I do not like ancient, because that suggests they were much older than applies here. This includes the capitals of Princely States absorbed into India in 1947 or into the Raj earlier. It appears to be a coherent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support this rename which defines the scope and clarifies it. SFB 17:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Former capital cities in India, per Peterkingiron. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Former capital cities in India, per Peterkingiron. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2014 (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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 15. – Fayenatic London 22:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Brand name poultry to Category:Brand name poultry meats

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I am proposing this renaming due to the ease of confusion on this matter. Hybrid poultry breeds, such as ISA Brown could easily be confused with this, which is brand name meats not poultry hybrids/breeds. JTdale ^Talk 16:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest Category:Poultry meat brands or Category:Poultry brands. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this naming is avoided as these categories contain both the brands themselves and their sub-products, e.g. Burger King is the brand, BK Chicken Nuggets is a product (not a brand). SFB 17:06, 19 July 2014 (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, leaning keep. Although people are still discussing this, I am closing it without waiting further, in order to stop the personal attacks. It is heading towards "keep" anyway. – Fayenatic London 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People by ethnic or national origin to Category:People by nationality and ethnic or national descent

Nominator's rationale: This is the second time, I create this proposal, the first time was on July the 9th. I take it, I don't violate any rules by relisting the proposal just one time, especially because I badly messed up the first one and it became too confusing. Category:People by ethnic or national origin is grouping categories of the format Category:Fooian People of ethnic or national origin. These subcats themselves again are holding subcats of the format Category:Fooian People of gooian descent. So overall, Category:People by ethnic or national origin has sub-sub cats that end with "by national descent", why don't also use this title in their parent category?. The "...by nationality and..." part is of course important, as the cat is adding and immediately using the attribute of nationality. -- CN1 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a single person article in Wikipedia is standing in an "ethnic or national origin" cat, they all stand in descent-cats. People with ethnic or national origin are called migrants and there is already an own category tree (made of 2 branches, Category:Immigrants and Category:Emigrants). <br\> The descent-cats should be categorized in a parent-cat that is titled "descent" as well. <br\> This rename would require the subsequent rename of all 'origin' categories into 'descent' categories. This would be around 241 categoris, judging from the amount subcats that I found. -- CN1 (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the more reason this CfD is disruptive and not constructive; and would require endless CfDs to do what you are saying and you assume perhaps they'd all be automatic in following this one, were it changed as you want. Not so, and far from it. The previous/parallel CfD has been closed as "keep"; this one was a procedural violation when it started, as the other one not yet closed; and has been closed as "keep".Skookum1 (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please write below my rationale, this is a summary. CN1 (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pffft, I replied after your "summary", which is as much nonsense as the CfD, now closed as "keep", which wasn't closed when you started this one, meaning you are out of order, as is this CfD. Throwing more word-babble at a dead duck is not going to make it into a live turkey. You launched this against procedure, I could care less where you want me to comment; I did not comment in your "summary" (=rambling babble of misconstrued terms), but after it.Skookum1 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The current category name wrongly suggests it's only a single breakdown of people (by ethnic or national origin) while the category is actually a cross-section breakdown of people (by nationality X by ethnic or national descent). The category name should reflect that, especially so to avoid confusion with its parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Support. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Better than the current wording (as my reasoning on last nomination). FYI - once this is done I will nominate the national descent tree for deletion as I believe only ethnicity, not birthplace of parents, is a defining feature. (I will not add this now to prevent this valid discussion from being derailed again). SFB 17:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The here discussed category is part of the national descent tree, as made clear by my proposed rename title. I confess that it is an arbitrary category tree but I will oppose a deletion, instead we need some guidelines for using it properly. -- CN1 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• do not change to this name This is an 'origin' category, based on country, as can be seen by the sub-cat names. It is not a 'descent' category, based on ethnic group, which has its own category tree and is different. Hmains (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt Hmains: "This is an 'origin' category...". Did you not read, the proposal, the sub-categories are origin cats, but the sub-sub-categories are not anymore. You should've looked two layers deep, not just one layer. Hmains: "...based on country...". Based on "country of citizenship", which equates to "nationality". Hmains: "It is not a 'descent' category". After maximal two steps, the "origin" cats change to "descent" cats. There are no two trees, "origin" and "descent" are one tree -- CN1 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • cmt the category trees are organized differently to reflect a different manner of navigation to the underlying articles or sub-categories. Since categories are just organizing tools, different organizations means there is a difference and that difference is reflected in different names and different stated purposes. Hmains (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hmains: Hmains, your comment showed me a new way of looking at it and it makes sense. But if I look at my proposal it makes sense too, and I feel it would be the better solution. Why? If a person migrates from Foo to Goo, it is of fooian origin and automaticly also of fooian descent. The other way round, a person of fooian descent is not automaticly also of fooian origin, e.g. the baby of the fooian immigrant, born in Goo. What I am coming at is, that there may be at this point in time a 'origin'-category tree, but not a single person article is categorized in it, they all stand in descent-cats. So de facto Wikipedia doesn't categorize people by origin, instead by descent - no distinction is made for the articles. And in my opinion the descent-cats should be categorized in a parent-cat that is titled "descent" as well. In a situation, where the above described distinction between origin and descent would be applied to the articles, I would have agreed with you, that a 'origin' tree can exist besides a 'descent' tree, but that is not the case at this point in time. -- CN1 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is even more garbled and complicated than the first nomination, despite the claim it's "simpler". It's not and is needless, the existing category is just fine and does not need over-elaboration per PRECISION and CONCISENESS. The fine line, and many ambiguities, between the meanings of all three components, particularly the duality of "nationality" and "national descent" and the the various ambiguous meanings of "nation" (e.g. per aboriginal peoples in Canada and the US) make it all the more cumbersome. "National origin" is the usual English version of "national descent", and the latter is covered by "ethnic origin"; the literalism of the nom's interpretation of all this belies all of that, and is underscored by questions in the other CfD by the nom and his main supporter by their evident second-language (mis)understanding of English terms. Trying to harmonize/homogenize cats based on what's in their subcats is going in the wrong direction, and main cats don't have to match their subcats, rather the other way around. Also, re the "national descent" (that phrase is more than a bit OR in and of itself and a neologism invented in wikipedia) subcats many items in them are wiki-interpolations and OR; but were created because "Canadians of Chinese descent" (or ancestry or whatever) is different than "Chinese Canadians"; and ethnicity is by self-identification not a wikipedian looking at someone's family tree and seeing they had a great-grandparent from Lithuania or Guyana or wherever does not make them of "national descent". "Nation" is a term with many ambiguities and connotations, especially among indigenous peoples, but in the sense intended by the nom it is no different from ethnicity; unless "national descent" is a reference to which nation-state their ancestors are from (hm, Austria-Hungary rather than Austria or Hungary if they left before 1919). "Ukrainian people of Polish ancestry of Belarussian descent of Canadian nationality" is the kind of outcome; and in reality that kind of labelling is Original Research unless the individual the article is about identifies that way. The game of ethnic politics that's all over Wikipedia is not well-served by this nomination, and the garbled English of the nom and a few supporters says to me they just don't understand English idioms. This nomination is even more complicated and unnecessary than the first one on July 2.Skookum1 (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt @Skookum1: My first proposal was on July 9, not 2 - although on July 2 you commented on another of my proposals in a similar manner as here. You say my english is garbled, but does that have anything to do with that I am saying?. My mother language is german, which is very similar to english, so I think I can understand english connotations and you and other users are explaining them to me. Now let me answer your comment, Skookum1, you write: "Trying to harmonize/homogenize cats based on what's in their subcats is going in the wrong direction, and main cats don't have to match their subcats, rather the other way around." Please show me where this is written in the Wiki rules, I am not too firm with them - could you give me a link?. I thought parent cats and subcats should match each other as much as possible. <br\> You like to tell me about the manifold possible meanings of words, but I think it is never possible to cover all meanings in one category title, instead one has to agree on the meaning which works best for the categorys purpose and discard the other meanings - maybe use them for other cats. And the vast majority if not all of the subcats in Category:People be ethnic or national origin do use the word, the concept of nationality with the connotation of "legal relationship between a person and a state" (Nationality). CN1 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where in the Wikipedia rules does it say that a parent cat has to include all possible variations in its subcats...or vice-versa? And DUH, there are no rules, which is the fifth of the all-equally-important FIVE PILLARS. And re "nationality", you are under the misapprehension it only means a relationship between a person and the state of citizenship; in Canadian English and elsewhere there are people of diverse origins, it can and often does mean "ethnic origin". The semantic and syntactical convolutions that are being employed here are contrary to reality and simplicity; "nationality and ethnic or national origin" is unwieldly, unnecessary, and picayune, as are the arguments here being made to advance it.Skookum1 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Argh! I know that already, you are 100% right with the concept of nationality but it doesn't matter in this problem. Just you read the names of the subcats: all names of countries, not of ethnicities. And read the cat description, it says "by country of citizenship". Clear case I think. <br\> In my answer to the second comment of Hmains, I said: national origin means a migration background, but all the children of this migrant born after the migration dont have the same origin as the migrant, they have the same descent however, is that right so far? How many people articles are categorized in origin-categories? None. How many people articles are categorized in descent-categories? All. Why? Because all the migrants do already have a very own category tree (made of 2 branches, the Category:Immigrants branch and the Category:Emigrants branch. -- CN1 (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave well alone -- the ethnic origin and descent category trees are very well developed. Even getting them inot a consistent format a few years ago was a major undertaking. It is important that these matters should not be too tightly defined, becasue precision is frequently impracticable. Changing the scope of any is to open a can of worms. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont see, why the proposal is opening a can of worms. The only additional work would be the renaming of all cats from "..by national or ethnic origin" to ".. by national or ethnic descent". If I look for persons with national or ethnic origin, I visit Category:Immigrants/Category:Emigrants. -- CN1 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see, by that misplaced comma (and the missing apostrophe in "dont") that, like the Marcocapelle, you are a second-language speaker of English; it's obvious at this point in this discussion, like in the other one, that you don't understand the nuances of the English lexicon and idioms, and aren't taking the "can of worms" notice by Peterkingiron with any credence at all; just as with the comment that other category and article names would have to be changed about your particularism about words you do not fully understand. Who cares what the category description says? It can be amended, easily enough; not so with hundreds of categories. Repeat after me "leave well enough alone", and don't fuss with terms you don't fully understand the scope of.Skookum1 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Skookum1: I can't stand your accusations any longer! You are really unfriendly and that with no reason at all. Be assured that I do understand all the words and idioms. Perfect grammar doesn't automaticly make a statement true and vice versa! <br\> @Peterkingiron: On topic: The easiest way is not always the best way - but is my proposed way really that hard? Category:People by ethnic or national origin has 241 subcats. Under the presumption that these are the only 'origin' categories, there are a maximum of 241 categories to rename to 'descent'. Is that your can of worm? If yes, I don't get it, so please explain to me more. CN1 (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • 241 categories??? This amounts to a bulk nomination on completely specious grounds nominated by someone who can't even write English properly; e.g. "categorys". You're messing with terms and long-standing categories whose terminology you don't even understand and are picking lexical hairs over. I reject completely your inclusion of the "Emigrants/Immigrants" categories (so make that a few hundred more "categorys"); they are spurious anyway, much like Category:Settlers. Why explain to you something you refuse to understand?? "National descent" is a neologism and not part of regular English; aside from that it's not the same as ethnicity, or "national origin". Please stop messing with the English language because of your own ethnopolitical agenda. This CfD, like its predecessor, should be closed as nonsense.Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2014 (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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 15. – Fayenatic London 23:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in China to Category:Video games by China company or Category:Video games by Chinese company
• Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in the Czech Republic by company to Category:Video games by the Czech Republic company or Category:Video games by Czech company
• Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in Japan by company to Category:Video games by Japan company or Category:Video games by British company
• Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in the United Kingdom by company to Category:Video games by the United Kingdom company or Category:Video games by British company
• Propose renaming Category:Video games developed in the United States by company to Category:Video games by the United States company or Category:Video games by American company

Subcategories also include games not developed by these companies but only published.Max Payne was fr example developed in Finland but it is according to the old category name also developed in USA which is incorrect. There are other examples of this like Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis or Overlord. I already moved these categories because I didn't know that I have to discuss here first and was warned a bit late. Sorry for this mistake of mine. --Bedivere.cs (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose alternate naming in the style of Category:Video games developed by British companies. The proposed naming are not idiomatic and are overly wordy. SFB 17:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that these categories doesn't include only games developed by these companies but also published. I would better suggest style of Category:Video games by British company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedivere.cs (talk • contribs)

I think companies not involved in the development of the game in anyway are not worthy of categorisation. These should be forced out of the category structure. SFB 20:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you meant Japanese instead of British for the Japan cat? Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Some companies operate across borders, so that a game may be developed in Britain by a US or Japanese company. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2014 (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: keep. I see that it has been re-populated. – Fayenatic London 15:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Animation by studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Now that I've moved all the animated film categories that had been here to the newer Category:Animated films by studio, do we still need this? I think not, as I see nothing here that can't be grouped under the appropriate country category in Category:Animation studios. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, I see that the subcategory Category:Anime by studio‎ has a similar relationship to Category:Anime films by studio, and this one also dates back quite far. Maybe, we do need to keep it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC) ‎[reply]
• Keep as a container category, and move any pages in this category to subcategories where applicable. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2014 (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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Corporations law to Category:Corporate law
• Propose renaming Category:Corporations law by country to Category:Corporate law by country
• Propose renaming Category:Corporations case law to Category:Corporate case law
• Propose renaming Category:History of corporations law to Category:History of corporate law
• Propose renaming Category:United States corporation case law to Category:United States corporate case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the best worldwide name; the main article was moved from the UK-centric name company law to corporate law in 2007, and was stable there until a recent discussion on content (see talk page). Actually, "company law" dominates in the sub-categories of Category:Corporations law by country, but that probably reflects British colonial history. Among those, "Corporations law" seems only to be used in Category:Canadian corporations law, but that may have been following the parent category name rather than local usage, as the Canadian case Teck Corp. Ltd. v. Millar describes it as " an important Canadian corporate law decision" (cf. [1]); other sources use "Corporation law" in Canada ([2]), so I'm not leaving Canadian categories out of this nomination for further consideration. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to the proposed renaming scheme. bd2412 T 14:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support more common name. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - sounds better. Wikidea 08:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Scope is identical and corporate is probably the common name for this topic now (even in UK). SFB 17:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The current rather ungrammatical name is used nowhere it seems. A note re company law should be added. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2014 (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: split, unanimous discussion. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Louisiana Territory and Missouri Territory to Category:Louisiana Territory and Category:Missouri Territory

Nominator's rationale: Obvious reasoning but split so it matches the rest at Category:Former organized territories of the United States. Articles/categories that involve both territories would be listed in both (like Great Flood of 1862 does for all those states. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Split. The category page explains:
  • Louisiana Territory (1805–12) — established in the territory of the Louisiana Purchase.
  • Missouri Territory (1812–21) — established and renamed, in the remaining territory after Louisiana gained statehood in 1812.

Presumably they were combined as a category because of the continuity, contiguity and the short time span for both. Nevertheless, it will be a straightforward split. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Split we have separate articles, thus we should have separate categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per above. kennethaw88 • talk 03:55, 30 July 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Toyota Indy 400 to Category:MAVTV 500

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Update category name to match current name of race and associated article MAVTV 500. DH85868993 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Speedy to match main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we don't rename Bowl Games or Stadium categories based on changes in sponsorship (we have Category:Cotton Bowl Classic, not Category:AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic). We also keep old names of sports franchises that have moved Category:Los_Angeles_Raiders AND Category:Oakland_Raiders - why are we doing so here? Create a new category for things that happen in the MAVTV 500, but leave stuff that happened in prior races in the appropriate (rather than a revisionistic) category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per criterion C2D. This isn't a case like the Raiders, where a team has physically moved; it's a once-a-year event that's been at the same location since its inception in 1997. Sponsors change often in racing (and even more often in IndyCar), and considering each different sponsorship of an event as a separate event would be even more "revisionistic"; it would be like considering the (unsponsored) Sugar Bowl, USF&G Sugar Bowl, the Nokia Sugar Bowl, and the Allstate Sugar Bowl each separate events. A "sponsor-neutral" title (à la the Cotton Bowl or the Grand Prix of Long Beach instead of Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach) would be better, but in this case, I don't think there is one. This is merely updating the race's category to its most recent name. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:53, 20 July 2014 (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.