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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rajputana Agency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, a British government agency is not a defining characteristic of Indian princely states that mostly existed since long before the British came. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not my area of expertise, but looking at the whole tree there appears to be a logical structure to the British administration of India (at that time). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the states existed before the arrival of the British, the fact that they were absorbed under the agency as opposed to overthrown and taken direct control of is a defining characteristic. —SpacemanSpiff 09:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Notified Wikiproject India about nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• Strong keep -- As part of their treaties with the Raj, the British established a resident in most princely states. While in theory this was a diplomatic post, in practice, the resident often played a major role in the affairs of the state. As the article makes clear the residencies in Rajputana were grouped in an agency, with one official to whom the residnets reported. For the period of the Raj, this was a major defining characteristic. When the Raj came to an end, each prince made a new treaty with the new Union of India or Republic of Pakistan, which in most cases involved the princely territory being added to one of the states or Inida or provinces of Pakistan. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gallipoli Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Order of the Crown (Prussia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of Merit (Chile) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Military Order of Maria Theresa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF, per previous discussion and many discussions before. People in these categories are notable for being politician, high military, scientist, artist etc. while the award is by no means a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I will only comment on Gallipoli Star, like other stars awarded by UK (and probably other Commonwealth countries), it is a campaign medal awarded to everyone who took part in the campaign, or at least those who survived it. Holding the Star is thus substantially identical to "military personnel serving in the Galipoli campaign". The question in that case is whether that capaign service is a notable characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on a sample of articles, I would say no. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tennis in Macau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly detailed. We don't have 'Tennis in...' categories for cities / regions with the exception of a handful of important cities (London, Paris, New York). Wolbo (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The category is part of the tree Category:Sport in Macau by sport and Macau (like Hong Kong) has many categories going back to when they were separate colonies rather than Special Administrative Areas of China. Hugo999 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose nominator is not considering sports jurisdictions. Macau has it's own National Olympic Committee, which none of your other cities have. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Like Hong Kong, Macau still competes internationally, as if it were a sovereign state, rather than as part of PRC. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of Canadian parks to Category:Lists of parks in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is a geographical location, and would follow the parent category Category:Parks in Canada. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of Canadian municipal parks to Category:Lists of municipal parks in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is a geographical location, and would follow the parent category Category:Urban public parks in Canada. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of United Kingdom parks to Category:Lists of parks in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is a geographical location, and would follow the parent category Category:Parks in the United Kingdom. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of United States parks to Category:Lists of parks in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is a geographical location, and would follow the parent category Category:Parks in the United States.Funandtrvl (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2015 (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. MER-C 13:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Matsya kingdoms‎‎

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, two articles in the category that already refer to each other. No need to upmerge, the two articles are already well-categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no room for expansion: there was only one kingdom. There is a tribe who claim to be its descendants, but thery are not part of the kingdom. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Notified Wikiproject India about nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2015 (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. MER-C 12:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Well intentioned creation, but the term 'eccentric' is too nebulous and ill-defined to support a category, and ultimately depends on personal judgement, which is the antithesis of our Wikipedia categories. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too POV. Note that we did have a Category:Eccentrics, but that was deleted long ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too subjective. I assume that the eccentric think that they are completely rational and the rest of us are strange. I have to go now, the aliens are sending me a message through my TV set. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A POV-based category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obviously subjective category, no real use. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too subjective, will be prone to POV-pushers.--216.186.185.230 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2015 (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, but use only for list articles about Masterpiece Theatre (purge of articles about individual plays/programmes). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Masterpiece Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic of the included TV series, usually British-produced, which are just broadcast under this banner on PBS in the States. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it also contains list articles, which fit into the category as is. Also Listify the individual programs into a list of programs (instead of just having episode lists) and decategorize the individual program articles, leaving only the lists and Masterpiece -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'd be on board with this approach, as long as the category is purged of the programmes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2015 (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. Users could create a separate list article from the link provided. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mystery! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic of the included TV series, usually British-produced, which are just broadcast under this banner on PBS in the States. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify into a list of programs aired by Mystery -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to already be there! :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we split that into a separate list article? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2015 (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. MER-C 12:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Talukas in Vidarbha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Vidarbha is a region (region is defined on basis of historic, social and sentimental grounds) in the Maharashtra state of India and not an administrative division. See List of districts of Maharashtra. The administrative hierarchy in India goes down like; Country--> State --> Division --> District -->Taluka --> Village. In smaller states "Division" is totally eliminated. In this context I don't see why the Talukas should be categorized under region, which is not a defining feature and is just over categorization. To maintain uniformity throughout the categories of all states in India, a sub-category based on "Division" should also not be present, let alone a sentimental thing like "region". Hence delete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: If you are going by official reasons then do read article 371 of Constitution of India. With order of President of India there are separate development boards for Marathwada and Vidarbha. See Marathwada Statutory Development Board. Same exists for Vidarbha too. You can read special functions for each region here. Indian constitution has given special status for [Marathwada] and [Vidarbha]] for development. This is I given official reason, moreover there is historic reason too, Marathwada was not part of India when India became independent on 15th August 1947, it was under rule of Nizam of Hyderabad till 1948. Both Vidarbha and Marathwada were not part of Bombay State, Vidarbha was part of Central Provinces and Berar while Marathwada was part of Hyderabad State. Anyway, strongest reason to keep is Indian constitution has made special provisions and special development boards for Marathwada and Vidarbha. So there should be one category to recognize which talukas comes under this constitutional body. --Human3015 knock knock • 11:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment: Marathwada and Vidarbha are something more than "official divisions", they are directly recognized by Constitution of India as separate or special entity. Also see this pdf format official document of Rajabhavan (Governor of Maharashtra), also see official website of Ministry of Home affairs, India. These regions are very special one. Saurashtra and Kutch region of Gujarat also needed such category, because they too have same status like Marathwada and Vidarbha. --Human3015 knock knock • 12:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the nominator. It is a bad idea and is not consistent with wikepedia category tree. Consider categorizing per divisions Category:Divisions of Maharashtra or districts.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OCAT. Talukas report into districts and should be classed in that hierarchy which the roll under divisions. We shouldn't be cross-mapping hierarchies here. —SpacemanSpiff 09:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: We can have talukas in so and so district, and districts in so and so region or state, but this category is a jumping of hierarchies. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Shyamsunder, Yogesh Khandke, and SpacemanSpiff. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2015 (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. MER-C 12:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Talukas in Marathwada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Marathwada is a region (region is defined on basis of historic, social and sentimental grounds) in the Maharashtra state of India and not an administrative division. See List of districts of Maharashtra. The administrative hierarchy in India goes down like; Country--> State --> Division --> District -->Taluka --> Village. In smaller states "Division" is totally eliminated. In this context I don't see why the Talukas should be categorized under region, which is not a defining feature and is just over categorization. To maintain uniformity throughout the categories of all states in India, a sub-category based on "Division" should also not be present, let alone a sentimental thing like "region". Hence delete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: If you are going by official reasons then do read article 371 of Constitution of India. With order of President of India there are separate development boards for Marathwada and Vidarbha. See Marathwada Statutory Development Board. Same exists for Vidarbha too. You can read special functions for each region here. Indian constitution has given special status for [Marathwada] and [Vidarbha]] for development. This is I given official reason, moreover there is historic reason too, Marathwada was not part of India when India became independent on 15th August 1947, it was under rule of Nizam of Hyderabad till 1948. Both Vidarbha and Marathwada were not part of Bombay State, Vidarbha was part of Central Provinces and Berar while Marathwada was part of Hyderabad State. Anyway, strongest reason to keep is Indian constitution has made special provisions and special development boards for Marathwada and Vidarbha. So there should be one category to recognize which talukas comes under this constitutional body. --Human3015 knock knock • 11:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment: Marathwada and Vidarbha are something more than "official divisions", they are directly recognized by Constitution of India as separate or special entity. Also see this pdf format official document of Rajabhavan (Governor of Maharashtra), also see official website of Ministry of Home affairs, India. These regions are very special one. Saurashtra and Kutch region of Gujarat also needed such category, because they too have same status like Marathwada and Vidarbha. --Human3015 knock knock • 12:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the nominator. It is a bad idea and is not consistent with wikepedia category tree. Consider categorizing per divisions Category:Divisions of Maharashtra or districts.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shyamsunder:, yes it is good idea to create category based on division like Category:Talukas in Aurangabad division, but have you read my comment, Marathwada also has its constitutional status, how one can ignore what constitution says and also there is already special board named Marathwada Statutory Development Board to oversee development of the region same way like division. --Human3015 knock knock • 23:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marathwada Statutory Development Board is not relevant for categorising. Whole Maharashtra is not covered/divided by the recognized regions.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamsunder, thats why I said you to read my comments, there are three regions recognised by Constitution of India named Vidarbha, Marathwada and Rest of Maharashtra. Each one has development boards and all divisions and districts comes under those boards. Read article 371 of Constitution of India. Also read all above mentioned references. --Human3015 knock knock • 01:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with all your reasons. On WT:INB you say that navigation is a problem within Category:Talukas in Maharashtra, well then hello, we have to make subcategories district-wise below the state-wise category. Division-wise and/or region-wise are both bad ideas. Keeping district-wise is better given the whole larger Category:Tehsils of India. Getting recognized as different boards through constitution or laws has nothing to do with how Wikipedia should arrange the articles. Btw, these boards don't completely administer their regions autonomously. In many aspects the hierarchy still runs from State-District-Taluka excluding the middle levels which aren't fully integrated in the system. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmadhyaksha, neither district governs region autonomously nor state itself governs region autonomously. So why is even need of Category:Talukas in Maharashtra? I think Category:Tehsils of India is enough. It doesn't matters if constitution recognizes Maharashtra as state, Wikipedia doesn't work on Indian constitution. What say? --Human3015 knock knock • 05:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Delete the whole Wikipedia! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha:, maybe you are now on right track, as you said it doesn't matters if constitution recognizes Marathwada, Vidarbha and "Rest of Maharashtra" as official regions of Maharashtra, so with this logic we have to delete many things if we ignore constitutional official claims. In your nomination you said Marathwada is not official region of Maharashtra, but when I gave you constitutional reference that "its official" then you changed your stand that "constitution doesn't matters". In your nomination you said "division" is official entity but somehow you changed your that stand too and now you are saying only "state">"district">"Talukas" are relevant. Why you are changing your stands? There is an Indian Administrative Service(IAS) officer appointed as commissioner on "divisional level", even commissioner of development boards like Marathwada Statutory Development Board is an IAS officer. Do you think that these IAS officers getting their salaries without doing any work? Why government should appoint top class IAS officers on such "useless" "divisional" or "development board" level? see here divisonal commissioner of Aurangabad division is IAS officer (click on 'vibhagiy prashasan'), if according to your logic these divisions don't administer region "truly" then why IAS officers need here, irony is that IAS includes word "administrative" service. also read "administrative" set up of Marathwada Statutory Development Board. --Human3015 knock knock • 07:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reread what I said first; "To maintain uniformity throughout the categories of all states in India, a sub-category based on "Division" should also not be present, let alone a sentimental thing like "region". Also read WP:WALLS and I will let others speak here from now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAT. Talukas report into districts and should be classed in that hierarchy which the roll under divisions. We shouldn't be cross-mapping hierarchies here. —SpacemanSpiff 09:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We can have talukas in so and so district, and districts in so and so region or state, but this category is a jumping of hierarchies. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Shyamsunder, Yogesh Khandke, and SpacemanSpiff. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2015 (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. MER-C 13:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Colonial Chile to Category:Captaincy General of Chile

Nominator's rationale: This better matches the name used at Commons along with the name used at the main article (Captaincy General of Chile). Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2015 (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. (But should the category be renamed to Category:FC Petržalka akadémia players, since the article is at FC Petržalka akadémia?) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Propose merging Category:FC Petržalka 1898 players to Category:MFK Petržalka players

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The incipit of both categories link to the same article. Epìdosis 07:25, 17 July 2015 (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/rename as specified. MER-C 12:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1965 establishments in Guyana to Category:1965 establishments in British Guiana
• Propose merging Category:1964 establishments in Guyana to Category:1964 establishments in British Guiana

Nominator's rationale: Guyana was still British Guiana until 1966 when it became Guyana (Commonwealth realm) and then Guyana in 1970. As described in Bank of Guyana, "1965 [was] *in advance* of the country's independence in 1966." Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. We can't support revisionism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator....William 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Categories should use the name appropriate to theri date, not anachronisitc ones. However since this was merely a change of name not of boundaries the Guyana parent should be retained for them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Tim! (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2015 (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.