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. As there is no consensus on deletion, I will redirect the nominated category for now. – Fayenatic London 22:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Counts of the Holy See to Category:Papal counts

Nominator's rationale: Merge. As far as I know, these are referring to the same thing, and they are more commonly known as "Papal counts" (or "Roman counts"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe we can also discuss deleting the two categories as it seems like this countship is not a defining characteristic of any of the persons in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not object to deletion of both if there is support for that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge Scope appears to be roughly the same. Unsure on deletion as this seems a valid aspect of Category:Nobility of the Holy See. SFB 19:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the latter, I think we should distinct between real rulers in the times that there was a Papal State of considerable size until 1870 in parentCategory:Nobility of the Holy See, versus just honorary titles as in this childCategory:Counts of the Holy See. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both categories Category:Counts of the Holy See and Category:Papal counts in accordance with mentioned above. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge -- these are clearly the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 2 August 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. No consensus on whether or not to delete, but the rationale for at least renaming the 2014 category is strong since (if I'm getting this right) the "proposed" tree is for those proposed but not yet under construction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2014 to Category:Railway stations scheduled to open in 2014

Nominator's rationale: Rename. If a station is actually scheduled to open, it basically is not proposed. While one might argue that these could be renamed to future or under construction, that is really unnecessary as scheduled says it all for the opening. This same rename could be an option for proposed for 2015, but the contents there would need to be reviewed. As you get farther out in time, say Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2022 we are probably violating WP:CRYSTAL since these projects are notorious for changes of dates or just cancellation and those categories should probably be deleted or renamed in some way. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question This proposal would require renaming one of these categories every year, wouldn't that be too much of a hassle? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear but not a given. I suspect that most of the tree will be deleted under WP:CRYSTAL. Any that are not would need to be renamed since they are under construction and no longer proposed. Maybe the best approach is to start at the back end and request deletion for those that have not begun construction and hence do not have a firm in service date. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's part of an established cat tree, see Category:Proposed railway stations by date. The normal practice with pages in a cat like Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2014 is that if the station actually opens in 2014, we move the article to Category:Railway stations opened in 2014; if the scheduled opening date is put off until another known year (e.g. 2015), we move the article to Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2015; if the proposal is dropped, we remove the cat from the article. By January 2015, the 2014 cat should be clear, and so we then give it a ((db-catempty)). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But these don't belong in the proposed tree! They belong in the Category:Buildings and structures under construction tree. The current name has multiple issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really not sure if we should separate 'proposed' from 'under construction' in this case. The separation is now mostly by country (which makes perfect sense) and this results in fairly thinly populated already. Splitting it out further may well result in too small categories so that some countries would need to be upmerged to continents (which would not be my preference at all). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you are willing to ignore the problem with proposed/scheduled and under construction, how can you support the current naming when it also included stations that were closed and are reopening? How can an existing station be proposed? Or the case of an existing station being moved? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stations that are only closed for the sake of reconstruction or stay open during reconstruction don't belong here. Stations that were closed in the past without intention to reopen (so then the station doesn't exist anymore), but proposals came after closure to reopen the station, that would count as a Proposed station. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• REname (without reparenting). If due to open this year they will undoubtedly be under construction by now. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Redrose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Redrose, this is purely a temporary category. If it was somehow defining, the category would never be removed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't !vote "delete per Redrose" when mine was a "keep". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Your logic shows that this is a temporary category, which are not permitted. You should know that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know that. Where is it written that temporary categories are not permitted? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without prejudice for dealing with entire Category:Proposed railway stations by date tree - It must have been poroposed before they started to build it. There other possible arguments (such as delays in construction may make this a CRYSTAL issue), but these apply to the whole tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With very few exceptions categories should be such that they always apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 14 August 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:  Relisted at 2014 AUG 20. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Istanbul Marathon winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The Istanbul Marathon (like the other marathons below) is not a competition that is recognised across the sport as a major race to win. Winning this race is not a defining characteristic by default (indeed, for many in the category is was just one of many races they entered and won that year). Compare this for example with Category:Boston Marathon winners – winning this competition represents reaching the pinnacle of the sport and international coverage. SFB 18:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt if we should delete. The category may not be as relevant for Wikipedia readers who are interested in top marathon running, but it may be interesting for Wikipedia readers interested in running sports in their own country / own city, so with a sports x geography interest. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Istanbul Marathon has risen to the world's best marathons "Gold Label" by IAAF (International Associations of Athletics Federations) for the third time. İstanbul Marathon, which has run in the silver label between 2008 and 2011, entitled to the Gold Label since 2012 as a result of the successful organizations. The world's top 22 marathon title of the "Gold Label" was given to the İstanbul Marathon as 22nd. Thus, İstanbul Marathon ranked among the best 22nd Marathon in the world and the best 11th Marathon in Europe. 36th İstanbul Marathon going to start third time in the Gold Label as one of the best marathons in the world.": "The İstanbul Marathon Will Be Run In The Gold Label For The Third Times!". Vodafone Istanbul Maratonu. Retrieved 2014-07-25.

Other nominations

• Category:Košice Peace Marathon winners
• Category:Leipzig Marathon winners
• Category:Polytechnic Marathon winners
• Category:Vilnius Marathon winners
• Listify (if necessary) then delete -- This is much too like an award winners category for my liking. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essentially fail the awards categories rules for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 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: upmerge, but in practice delete as the page is in both parents already. – Fayenatic London 23:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indoor College athletics (track and field) venues in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Very few notable indoor track and field venues in the United States are reserved largely for college competition. The parent categories (small in themselves) serve the needs of this intersection well enough already. SFB 18:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case Merge to parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual Upmerge to both parent categories for the single article in this category. My concern is largely WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very few notable indoor track and field venues in the United States are reserved largely for college competition is one persons opinion. There are certainly more that can added to category. Instead of deleted, add to category. spatms (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spatms: Can you give any example of indoor arenas that are used specifically for college athletics and not indoor track in general? SFB 22:00, 11 August 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Antireligious Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: See previous CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/July 2007#July 5). Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Acather96: Per the previous CFD I can see the category was created purely as a statement of opposition to religion and to express lack of belief in a deity. That is not the purpose for which I created the category; I myself believe in God, or at least a supernatural deity (I'm Pantheist), but am opposed to organised religion. Collaboration of would-be members of this category is still possible on relevant platforms such as WP:PHILOSOPHY and WP:RELIGION, and to improve the article on Antireligion. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delete. 'Being opposed to' organised religion is just an opinion that we can't verify. A defining characteristic could be 'activism against' organised religion - if that's not already covered by other categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an opinion category, which we avoid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 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: rename. – Fayenatic London 20:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fell running events to Category:Fell running competitions

Nominator's rationale: All child articles are competitions and this change will bring it in line with the parent Category:Mountain running competitions. SFB 18:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems reasonable. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:12, 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: rename all. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Decathlon Year Ranking to Category:Years in the decathlon

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the children articles has been changed following discussion at WikiProject Athletics, generally agreeing that rankings are not notable in themselves. The parent category should be renamed to reflect the new scope. SFB 17:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other nominations

• Category:Race Walking Year Ranking to Category:Years in racewalking
• Category:Hammer Throw Year Ranking‎ to Category:Years in hammer throwing
• Support to match articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 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: delete, noting support from BIL as category creator. – Fayenatic London 20:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cross border running races (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Cross-border races are sufficiently rare enough that dividing these by sport is not really helpful to navigation. (Note I have recently created and populated the new parent Category:Cross-border races) SFB 17:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category:Cross-border races should be enough. --BIL (talk) 20:40, 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: upmerge to Category:LSU Tigers and Lady Tigers sports venues. Note that Category:College track and field venues by team in the United States will become empty. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LSU Tigers and Lady Tigers track and field venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Classifying track and field venues by the college team that uses them is too narrow an intersection. A college will rarely have more than a handful of dedicated track and field venues, let alone notable ones. SFB 17:00, 24 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: upmerge to Athletics (track and field) venues in Mexico; all 7 pages are already in College sports venues in Mexico. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:College athletics (track and field) venues in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Collegiate track and field is too narrow an intersection as very few venues are reserved for just collegiate competition, rather than being a venue for the sport in general. Estadio Olímpico Universitario is a good example of this - it is plain wrong to specifically classify the 1968 Olympic stadium as a venue for college track and field, and not for track in general. Children should be upmerge to parent categories as appropriate. SFB 16:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This appears to be venues where College competitions are held: that is a performance (holding event) by performer (venue) category, contrary to OC#PERF. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 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. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:United States National Film Registry films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is an incomplete list of US National Film Registry films that is only linked from the complete US National Film Registry films article. ThunderPumpkin (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think you've misunderstood what categories are for. Being "incomplete" is not a valid reason to delete this. There are 611 entries in the category, with this article saying there are 625 entries. Maybe you could find the missing articles and add the category instead? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLT; this category is not in conflict with the list. If there is inconsistency, like Lugnuts says, updates should be made. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good, informative, valuable and notable category. There is zero rationale to delete it. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If perfect was the standard for categorization, all the ones I created would be gone. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Softlavender. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:59, 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 to match others. There is scope for a group nomination to rename again with all siblings to lowercase, or perhaps to a longer name e.g. "Independent politicians in Maine", but perhaps a central discussion should be held to include the party categories e.g. within Category:Democrats (United States) by state. – Fayenatic London 13:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Unenrolled politicians in Maine to Category:Maine Independents

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Is there any reason that this category should not be renamed to match the other by-state subcategories of Category:Independent politicians in the United States? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Reason for distinction for Maine is not clear. Also, the reason for capitalising "independent" in this category is not clear to me either, as this description is not a proper name or party. SFB 20:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The capitalization is just to match the other by-state categories. They could all be changed, if needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will support that move if this discussion concludes that capital i is not required. SFB 22:02, 11 August 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: merge; there is no consensus on deletion i.e. removing the pages from this tree, but consensus that this category should not be retained. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Unaffiliated state governors of the United States to Category:Independent state governors of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Appears to me to be categorizing essentially the same thing. There is a category tree for Category:Independent politicians in the United States but not one for Category:Unaffiliated politicians in the United States. Independent politician is defined in the lead of the article as one "not affiliated to any political party"—which suggests that "independent" and "unaffiliated" mean the same thing in this context. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Both categories appear to be fulfilling the role for politicians without a party affiliation. SFB 20:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom — there's no substantive difference in politics between being "unaffiliated" and being "independent", so I find it particularly weird that they were both created by the same user at virtually the same time. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @IgnorantArmies: please would you explain whether you did that intentionally, meaning to make a distinction that is eluding other editors? – Fayenatic London 20:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those categories were created as part of a (yet to be completed) attempt to fully populate Category:State governors of the United States by party, which I think previously only had Democratic and Republican subcategories. My intention was to differentiate pre-party system governors ("unaffiliated") from governors who ran as political independents within a party system ("independent"). So, the first category includes a lot of 18th-century governors, whereas the second category includes more recent governors (King, Chafee, Ventura). I think it's a distinction worth maintaining, but "unaffiliated" might not be the best term for it. IgnorantArmies 02:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, pre-party governors probably should not appear in that tree at all. For instance, there is no category for pre-party U.S. Senators in Category:United States Senators by party. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a good argument for including all state governors in that tree, just for consistency's sake. The category's members do share a relatively notable and interesting trait, even if <not being in a party> isn't really a subset of <being in a party>. (I should probably find something to quote from the category guidelines here). I would extend the same rationale to other cat trees – for instance, Category:Pro-Administration United States Senators and Category:Anti-Administration United States Senators might be useful, given those distinctions are quite well documented. IgnorantArmies 11:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might go a step too far—if part of a "by party" tree, I see it as too much like a "remainders" or "not otherwise applicable" category per WP:OCMISC. Not every article needs to be subdivided into some category of a given tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Ol’factory, given the explanation, you seem to be in favour of deletion rather than merger. What do user:Bearcat and user:Sillyfolkboy think? – Fayenatic London 13:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose deletion. Non-party affiliated politicians run as independents and this aspect is often referenced in respect of their career and candidacy. It is a defining characteristic. This tree is not simply an "other politicians" category. SFB 15:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would be in favour of deletion. Category:Independent state governors of the United States should be kept, which is what @Sillyfolkboy: seems to me to be referring to. But a category for governors who did not have a party affiliation because it was before the days of political parties in the United States is really just a "remainders" category when placed into this category tree. Being an independent is defining for those who run and govern as independents; it's not defining for those who had no party merely because parties didn't exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't buy that the specified distinction warrants a separate category. Beyond that, I don't particularly have a strong opinion about whether the "unaffiliated" ones should be simply removed from the tree or merged into the "independent" category instead, so either solution would be acceptable to me — but either way, the distinction between "unaffiliated" and "independent" that's been given here is a pretty arbitrary and obscure one that isn't obvious from the category names themselves, and putting a usage note on the category wouldn't solve that since people in my experience don't read them. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 18 August 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.