Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 5



Category:Labor relations in Barbados

 * 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 Category:Labor relations in Barbados to Category:Labour relations in Barbados.  --  X damr  talk 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Labor relations in Barbados to Category:Labour relations in Barbados
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. In Barbados the word is spelled "labour". See, e.g., this government website. (And of course there is the Barbados Labour Party.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Good catch. CaribDigita (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. BTW, less of a biggie, but the category should probably be changed too, since we tend to use UK spelling for European mainland categories. There are also a couplke in the subcategory "Labor disputes by country" which need looking at - notably the Pakistan one, but also some European ones. Grutness...wha?  23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, should be a speedy. --Soman (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Labor relations in South Africa

 * 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 Category:Labor relations in South Africa to Category:Labour relations in South Africa.  --  X damr  talk 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Labor relations in South Africa to Category:Labour relations in South Africa
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word is spelled "labour" in South African English. See, e.g., this government website. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, should be a speedy. --Soman (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Moroccan millionaires

 * 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.  --  X damr  talk 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * moroccan millionaires


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Millionaires was deleted as too common and not meaningful, I don't see this as being different. Tassedethe (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Being a mere millionaire (and in what currency is this measured?) is not a defining characteristic at this point in time. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A million is arbitrary, and even if the currency were fixed at pounds, euros, etc. fluctuations in foreign exchange rates and ordinary market cycles render wealth-based categorization largely meaningless.- choster 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alansohn.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, although the hypothetical category 'Zimbabwean billionaries' could have been an interesting one to populate :), --Soman (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * hypothetical? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Buildings by former use

 * 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 Category:Buildings by former use to Category:Buildings and structures by former use.  --  X damr  talk 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings by former use to Category:Buildings and structures by former use
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match name of the parent Category:Buildings and structures as well as better reflect the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support rename per nom. Cjc13 (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Next albums

 * 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 Category:Next albums to Category:Next (group) albums.  --  X damr  talk 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Next albums to Category:Next (group) albums
 * Nominator's rationale: To disambiguate, as next is ambiguous, and match parent article, Next (group). — ξ xplicit  07:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename. Agree with the nom, 'next' is too ambiguous. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename. per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Buildings and structures in Greater St. Louis

 * 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.  --  X damr  talk 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Buildings and structures in Greater St. Louis to Category:Buildings and structures in St. Louis, Missouri
 * Nominator's rationale: Found this nomination tagged with a merge template. I would consider a reverse merge, because the article is just Greater St. Louis. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the reverse merge. Not all in St. Louis, Missouri are or would be in Greater St. Louis Mayumashu (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How come? Usually that whould be the case. Debresser (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both are valid groupings and the area is a logical parent for the city related material. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * keep both both are parts of an established pattern of sub-categories for Category:Greater St. Louis and Category:St. Louis, Missouri. No reason to merge or delete.  Hmains (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Adult contemporary albums

 * 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.  --  X damr  talk 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * adult contemporary albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I am not necessarily proposing deletion if the child categories placed in this can be better defined. Half the artists' categories I would not consider adult contemporary, even though individual songs by these artists have been adult contemporary hits. But I find it hard to call their albums "adult contemporary", which is what being placed in this category suggests. Also, the genre (and I'm not sure it really can be called a genre, rather a radio format) changes over time more than most. What wouldn't be played 10 years ago on AC may be a staple today. The point is AC seems to be more song based and cannot be defined to any particular album or artist for this to exist as is being utilized. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment: Note that there is no category for adult contemporary songs, although songs can be better defined as AC than albums. Also, in the U.S., Billboard magazine has only an AC songs chart, not an AC albums chart. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * delete. I essentially agree with what Wolfer68 has written about this not being an album genre as such, or even a very viable one for songs since "contemporary" is constantly changing. I remember that on a self-proclaimed "adult contemporary" radio station I once heard a Gun N' Roses ballad, so ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep for now, but work to find a better characterisation than "contemporary". Wikipedia should seek to be timeless.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "adult contemporary" has been used in radio for over 30 years, so the term is appropriate, just not the category. I would just have to say it is a non-defining characteristic. Most albums will not strictly contain only AC songs and definitely not an artist's span of albums. --Wolfer68 (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:CMX video albums

 * 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:
 * Category:CMX video albums to Category:CMX (band) video albums
 * Category:CMX albums to Category:CMX (band) albums
 * -- X damr  talk 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:CMX video albums to Category:CMX albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Only one member, upmerge —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:CMX (band) video albums and Category:CMX (band) albums. CMX is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, or rename per Vegaswikian. We split all the video albums out from albums in a long process involving well over a thousand category changes, starting with this successful nomination in July. No video albums should now be in album categories, as album categories are reserved for audio albums. Similarly, like with the album and song categories, all video albums should have artist video album categories. (No objection on adding the "band" parenthetical, though.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Maximals

 * 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 Category:Maximals to Category:Maximals (Transformers).  --  X damr  talk 21:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Maximals to Category:Maximals (Transformers)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match main article Maximal (Transformers). Maximals is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't change - This one seems pretty clear. I don't know of any article that needs a Maximal category that isn't Transformers related. Mathewignash (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support confusion with the magazine is readily possible. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support. My first thought was a alternative of with maxima.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Combiners

 * 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 Category:Combiners to Category:Combiners (Transformers).  --  X damr  talk 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * combiners


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no article about Combiner (Transformers), so I don't even know if this is an actual type of Transformer or just a fan neologism. At the very least it needs to be renamed Category:Combiners (Transformers) since the current name is ambiguous and could be confused for one for electronic combiners (see diplexer). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * RENAME - The proposed name Combiners (Transformers) clairifies the category. Mathewignash (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you add any insight as to why there is no article about this and where the name "Combiners" comes from? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably hasn't been written yet. I could do one if it's requested. Combiners (sometimes called gestalts) are mentioned in supporting media for Transformers. In fact I believe Hasbro recently used Combiners in a press release about the last film they did. Mathewignash (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as it's a verifiable term I have no problem with it existing without a main article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did find a old section someone else wrote in an article on Transformers technologo, but I have to look it over to see if it's up to date. here: Transformers_technology Mathewignash (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Convoys

 * 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 Category:Convoys to Category:Convoys (Transformers).  --  X damr  talk 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Convoys to Category:Convoys (Transformers)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match Convoy (Transformers) since convoy is ambiguous and this could easily be misinterpreted as a category for convoys of the primary-usage type. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * RENAME - The proposed name clairifies the category. Mathewignash (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Headmasters
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Category:Headmasters to Category:Headmasters (Transformers).  --  X damr  talk 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Headmasters to Category:Headmasters (Transformers)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguation to match Headmaster (Transformers), since this is not the primary meaning of Headmaster (it redirects to Head teacher). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * RENAME - The proposed name clairifies the category. Mathewignash (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Primes
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Category:Primes to Category:Primes (Transformers).  --  X damr  talk 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Primes to Category:Primes (Transformers)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating to match Prime (Transformers). Primes is ambiguous, and the category name as it stands now may be confused with . Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename - The proposed name clairifies the category. Mathewignash (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Category:Seekers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Category:Seekers to Category:Seekers (Transformers).  --  X damr  talk 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Seekers to Category:Seekers (Transformers)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category was previously deleted two years ago. At minimum it needs to be disambiguated to match Seekers (Transformers), since Seekers is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename - The proposed name clairifies the category. Mathewignash (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Test categories
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Test 1/2, Keep X1/2 as an analog to Template:X1 and Template:x2.  --  X damr  talk 22:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * x1
 * x2 - Added 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * test
 * test2
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge all or delete all - I don't think we need 3 4 different test categories. Normally, I might simply G2 the latter two, but "X1" is rather obscure, so we may want to merge them all to Category:Test, although I don't have any particularly strong preference one way or another. Alternatively, do we even need to keep one of these? Is there anything one these categories existing will accomplish as a blue link vs. them simply being a redlink when people need to test? VegaDark (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see how you could not need more than one test category, since categorization of categories would selfevidently require more than one test category. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You certainly wouldn't need 3, and the parent category could be a redlink and would still show any subcategories, so at most 1 is needed. VegaDark (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you experiment with the tree function and that [+] sign thing then? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That functionality works even if the category is a redlink. See Category:Australian Air Force. VegaDark (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That still requires atleast two categories, even if it's a redlinked top category. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we can freely delete all but one to still be able to accomplish that. I'm not saying people should be prevented from using them for testing (in this particular use as a parent category) after being deleted. VegaDark (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that also exists, though it's "hard" to find, since it's currently a hard (yuk yuk) redirect to . Once a user is through testing he should delete the category they created or place a G2 speedy tag on it, so I don't see a  need to permanently keep any of these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment creating categories is an impossibility for new users and IP editors, so deleting them means that a portion of the editorship will have to experiment with live categories instead. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a convincing argument to keep one. I'm even open to keeping two for the far-fetched testing scenario proposed below. But 4? The only argument made to keep all 4 is that it is interesting to see what other users test. I think we should do away with either Test and Test2, or X1 and X2. Absolutely no reason to keep 4 test categories. VegaDark (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can understand the desire to keep 2, but I don't see a good reason to have 4. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. We need a small set a sandbox categories.  Deleting them hides the tests that created them from those who were testing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of what can be done with two test categories as opposed to one, let alone 3 or 4? VegaDark (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see what happens if test1 is inside test2, and test2 is inside test1. Does this break the server?  What about a larger loop?  Not very profound, I admit, but neither is the need to clean up a few test categories.  Also, I'd like to see what tests others try.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even that use (which is a huge stretch IMO) wouldn't require more than two categories, and we currently have 4. You can still see what tests others try in the one (or two if absolutely necessary); I don't really think "seeing what tests others try" is a very persuasive rationale to keep. What if there were 10 test categories? Where do we draw the line? VegaDark (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "seeing what tests others try" is plenty persuasive is contrast to the cost. Three or four might be enough.  I'd like to see how a hidden category works.  To see what others are playing with implies that we don't want many.  The sandbox categories could use better names.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Respectfully, Nominator's rationale is essentially that they're not useful, but that's subjective, as they may well be useful to some. They're also harmless. Disbanding them doesn't really achieve anything. • Anakin (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That same argument could be made to keep 100 test categories, but I'm pretty sure we would agree keeping that many isn't necessary. We've already established that there is no possible use for more than 2 test categories other than to "see what tests others try", which is basically a non-reason as far as I am concerned. At what point to we determine we have too many test categories? I would argue the point where we have more than is required to test all possible things, which is 2. If we don't use this standard, there is nothing stopping us from keeping 5, 6, 7 or more test categories. VegaDark (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Come to think of it, since "test page" is a speedy delete criterion, why can't these just be speedily deleted? If users need to test again, they can be re-created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.