Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/February/7

Cuesport-stub &rArr; Cue-sports-stub; &rArr;

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator as largely moot; non-moot part to be sent back to SfD.

Rename proposal "just for the record", as this was already covered in more depth than probably anyone wants at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/February here, a combined proposal for a new bio stub type under this, and cleanup of the existing ones and their categories. The short version: Both this stub and its cat. are malnamed, in different ways. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 03:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Clear, near-identical precedent: Water-sports-stub;  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename template to cue-sport-stub (singular, as is standard practice with stub templates, irrespective of the names of related categories), oppose rename of category - it is currently correctly named. Stub categories use "Noun (singular) stubs" - we dont have "Schools stubs" or "Elections stubs", I don't see this situation as being any different. The name of the WikiProject dedicated to these isn't really relevant - WP Games uses T:Game-stub and Cat:Game stubs, WP Mammals uses T:mammal-stub and Cat:Mammal stubs, and so on. And yes, Water-sports-stub and its category should be renamed in the same way. Note that the parent type is Sport-stub and . Hmm...odd. One uses one form, one uses the other - no wonder there's confusion. Grutness...wha?  22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not particularly convinced by this arguments.  It sounds like a "my precedents/examples are valid because I say so, yours are invalid because I say so and because they should be renamed because I say so."  I don't have much interest in what WP:GAMES's preferences are; all sorts of WikiProjects have varying preferences on all sorts of matters.  It's neither here nor there. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Further precedents, from sports alone:, Race-sports-stub (its Wintersport-stub template isn't conformant with either preference!),  (ditto), , Air-sports-stub; also , sports-venue-stub,  (Sport-event-stub is an exception),  (Sport-team-stub another odd-sounding exception), , Sports-award-stub (in those last few, "venue", "award", etc. are singular but "sports" largely is not; the odd-sounding  is the sole cat. exception I can find so far); and ,  (perhaps the last two are iffy examples, since they are proper names; then again WPSS seems not to mind running names and words together, e.g. CommonwealthGames-stub, and otherwise mangling various text strings to the point of uselessness, cf. NI-bio-stub).  More importantly, the only exceptions, save one (already noted), to the pluralizing to "sports" in cat. names are when "sport" is preceded by a country name, including: Luxembourgian, Belgian and South African sport, and Pakistani sport biography and many more of that form (but with India sports being a pluralizing exception).  So, there is a very clear (written or not) convention on using "sports" not "sport" unless preceded by a country name (I suspect this is because regulating bodies tend to use "Sport" or the singular translated equivalent &mdash; Sportivo, etc. &mdash; in their official names.)  Your insistence on "sport" appears to be a matter of personal preference, and overextension of a recent general trend into an area that has already developed its own standards, long earlier.  Cf. also , Athletics-stub (which is too vague but still fits the pattern), , Athletics-bio-stub (ditto) (and , Africa-athletics-bio-stub, etc., etc.),  (+  and endless more; there isn't one instance of "sportsperson stubs"),  (with template gibberished in the same way as Wintersport-stub), , etc.: same thing really.  I'm not the one seeking an exception here.  Demanding "sport" or "athletic" just because a WikiProject's nascent quasi-guideline might technically prefer them, but would render the resulting categories counterintuitive and conflicting with most other categories of the same type, sounds like a mistake to me.  You end up with confusing, hard to remember and contradictory categories like  &rArr; , which was the whole point of this to begin with. :-)  Given that it's highly unlikely anyone outside of WP:CUE is going to spend any time working on these articles or putting articles into these stub cats., I think I detect a teapot tempest here when it comes to all this resistance.  Your wikiproject's nitpicking is getting in the way of our wikiproject getting work done.  (A false dichotomy anyway, since I'm also a member of WPSS in the first place and have been for some time. Heh.  As such a member I have to say that I think there's way, way too much agonizing over what this or that stub should be called as opposed to what stub types should exist; a shift of focus toward the latter would make this WPP a lot more effective, IMNERHO.)  I don't mean any of that in a harsh way, I just think tree bark texture is distracting some of us from the woodland.  WPSS's overall naming preferences are a pretty good rough guide (and I appreciate them - it's what allows me to guess at a name like turkey-stubs, vs. turkish-stubs or turk-stubs, and usually be right), but where they cause problems they should not be insisted upon with utter finality and wrought-iron rigor as to tiny particulars.  Even WP Policies and Guidelines are not generally treated that way. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Before this goes any further, I would just like to point out that the fact that this is a debate at all may simply be due to the WPSS naming conventions not acknowledging that, due to the peculiarites of the English language, certain words are almost invariably used in the plural, being singular only in very particular usages. Examples: "Pants": plural except in constructions like "the ant went up my left pant leg".  "Scissors": plural except when used descriptively or metaphorically, as in "a scissor kick", or "I scissored &#91;not*scissorsed&#93; right through that steak in no time").  Similarly, "sports": plural except when referring to a specific activity with its own unique ruleset, e.g. "the sport of curling"; or used metaphorically or in an archaic sense, as in "he's a good sport" and "that buck provided good sport"; or in a recent regulatory sense, as already noted (which isn't even universal, as singlular Sportivo in Italian is plural Depórtes in Spanish).  Trademark usages don't count for anything ("SportNet", etc. &mdash; marketing language makes mincemeat of any usage or convention it can get its hands on.)  So consider this a !vote for/proposal to Fix the WPSS docs to reflect English-language reality a little better.&mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that, since English language handles sport and sports in a different way to the simple yes/no idea you present above. The words sport and sports are both acceptable plurals of sport, but with slightly different meaning. Billiards and snooker are two different cue sports, but they are both forms of cue sport, and are thus both covered by the term cue sport, in exactly the same way that water sport covers all sorts of individual water sports. It's a similar sort of weirdness of the language that allows several different animals to be wild game or several species of fishes to all be fish.
 * Many of the examples you give are pretty odd ones, to say the least, BTW. Athletics is a singular sport - there is no more an athletic than there is a mathematic. Similarly, there is no such thing as a Commonwealth Game in exactly the same way as there is no such thing as an Olympic Game. And as for Sports venue stubs, yes, "sports venue" is a compound singular term for a venue which may be used for one or more sports, so that follows the naming guidelines perfectly, in exactly the same wat that, say "Arts organisation stubs" would be perfectly acceptable but "Arts organisations stubs" would not. Similarly, we do not have Cat:Sports awards stubs, which would be the plural - instead, the singular is used - these are awards which may be for more than one sport. I did not know about the air sport or race sport categories, or I would have proposed them here for renaming in the past, since they are incorrect as plurals rather than compound singulars.
 * So far, then, the examples given are as follows:
 * singular: Sports venue stubs, Cue sport stubs, Sports event stubs, Sports award stubs, Sports team stubs, Sport organization stubs, several national stub types
 * plural: Water sports stubs, Race sports stubs, Sports stubs, Martial arts stubs several national stub types
 * no distinction between singular and plural: Athletics stubs, Commonwealth games stubs, Southeast Asian Games stubs
 * Excluding the no distinctions and the national subtypes, I make that 6-4 using the singular form as in the naming guidelines - it is the water sport stubs, air sport stubs and the parent cat that don't follow the general pattern. Martial arts stubs don';t either, but of the four this is one that is a plausible exception - the term martial arts is often heard to cover all of these sports (unlike, I hasten to add, "cue sports" - cue sport is a perfectly common term to cover all sport that is played with a cue).
 * There is no reason why sport should use a plural where everything else uses singular. And there is a good reason for the use of the singular. What logical reason is there for talking about "X-type sports stubs' when each individual stub is to do with only one specific sport? Sure, if sports was a word never used in the singular, like pants or scissors, then sports stubs would make sense. But it isn't - tennis, for example, is an individual sport. And none of the individual stubs relate to sports, each of them relates to an individual sport, in exactly the same way that school stubs aren't "schools stubs" because each one deals with an individual school. I don't see any reason at all why this sport be different, and as such, I'm afraid I cannot support this proposal. Grutness...wha?  12:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments: I still don't buy it. :-)
 * After googling on this, I cannot find any instances, aside from one case of adjectival rather than noun usage, of "cue sport" being used in a plural sense (there are lots of hits for "cue sport", but all of them I've looked at so far refer to a specific one such as pool, not to all cue sports as a class; in that case "cue sports" is used, both in the industry (i.e. at commercial sites) and in the sports regulation/sactioning world (see original thread at Talk: Cue sport for documentary links to use by BCA and other organizations). You say "cue sport is a perfectly common term to cover all sport that is played with a cue" but a) this is no demonstrated by any evidence, unlike the inverse proposition, and b) in your wording it conflicts with what you say elsewhere, because you use "sport" as a singular, not the plural you insist you are using it as: "all sport that is played played with a cue" (emphasis added). You are in fact using "sport" in a completely different sense, like "science" or "exploration", as a term encompassing a concept that spawns activities rather than referring to the activities themselves.  That actually makes sense in a context like "science" but doesn't in a context like "cue sports".  Anyway, even if there may be a tiny handful of uses of "cue sport" out there as a plural, they would not demonstrate anything like broad usage (which I've already demonstrated clearly in the debate over the move of the main article.
 * Athletics, as that term is used here, is emphatically not a single sport at all; it's quite a number of them, from pole vaulting to sprinting and hurdles to the long jump. And it does not exclusively refer to the sports that college and high school sports administrators have lumped into that category, having broader meanings in other contexts; cf the Oakland Athletics, who do baseball, not track-and-field activities. And it isn't even used that way uniformly in the scholastic world; my high school's athletic's department included football, etc., and it's "athletics" team was called the "track and field team".  A stub template name like cue-sport-stubs doesn't make any more sense than athletic-stubs (or martial-art-stubs, or water-sport-stubs; they would blindly follow the general WPSS naming preferences but end up being hard to remember because we don't actually use terms like "athletic", "martial art" or "cue sports" in an encompassing way like this.  And again, we're not even getting out of sports yet.  There are plenty of non-sports examples, too.
 * Re: sports-venue-stubs - you're missing my point. It's not that sports-venue-stubs isn't a valid name; it is, and it uses sports.  Only one category of that sort uses "sport" instead of "sports" there, and that one is arguably misnamed.  I.e., This is supportive of the notion that "sport" with no "s" as a plural of "sport" is an oddball usage, and thus to be avoided.  This is not the case with art and arts both being plural for art; if anything, the reverse is true, and most people say "art", while "arts" is largely used by/in academics.  I'm not arguing for sports-venues-stubs, because there is no venues/venue usage conflict or ambiguity.  Compare billiard/billiards, by the way.  It is usually used in the plural, and the categories were (probably still are, I have not check CfD today) Billiards, Billiards players, etc., not "Billiard".
 * Re: "&#91;why use&#93;'X-type sports stubs' when each individual stub is to do with only one specific sport?" But that's not the case, as is precisely the point with cue-sports-stubs, which is for all cue-sports (other than snooker, which has its own wikiproject that pre-dates this one).  There are no eight-ball-stubs, carom-billiards-stubs, bumper-pool-stubs, etc., and almost certainly never will be.
 * Re: "the term martial arts is often heard to cover all of these sports" - which is precisely the case with "cue sports".
 * Your stats don't make any sense to me, since they are intentionally ignoring examples, while counting examples that you yourself considered invalid, and counting plural uses of "sports" as singular uses because other words in them are singular, which doesn't address a point anyone was making.
 * Summary: "water-sports-stubs", etc., plus "martial-arts-stubs" strongly suggest "cue-sports-stubs", and again the WPSS docs need to be updated to better reflect actual English usage, however helpful they may generally be when the don't run into exceptions like these. Rather than fight about whether there should be exceptions, just accept that there are, and document them.  Very easy!
 * &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems the only thing we can agree on is that we disagree :) Let's have a look at your points: Grutness...wha?  00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If cue sport is usually a singular but occqasionally plural (which is what I was actually pointing out, albeit badly by the looks of it), then surely that is even more reason for that to be the name of the template and category, since they are meant to use the singular not the plural.
 * 2) If athletics is the plural, what is an athletic? There is no such thing. Athletics is both the singular and the plural - athletic is only the adjective. It is for this reason that it is the only possible name for the template and category.
 * Re: sports-venue-stubs - you miss my point. The template name is sungular - it isn't sports-venues-stub. It conforms to the idea of using a singular, and so should sport-stub since - by your own admission - sports is the usual plural. Sports isn't a singular.
 * 1) Point taken on the multiple sports, but it still makes the category name a plural, unlike standard stub category naming.
 * 2) Perhaps it's simply a language difference thing - cue sport is the plural here as often as cue sports. But again, that's not really relevant. I mentioned martial arts as a vaguely plausible exception, but not one I'd actually agree with.
 * 3) The stats. Well, if I hadn't ignored the ones I saw as irrelevant, then it would be even further weighted in favour of the singular. The issue of sports or sport when those two terms are used as adjectives or qualifiers is irrelevant - the point is whether the category name is X stubs or Xs stubs - which is why I have ignored that in the stats except in those cases where the word is the noun. The point that should be addressed - the point I am addressing but you don't seem to be - is that categories are in the form, and whether the term sport or sports is used when they are describing that singular noun makes no difference. the only problem occurs where sports is the noun, turning the category name (or template name) into.
 * 4) Summary: "water-sports-stubs", etc., plus "martial-arts-stubs" gho against the naming guidelines, since they use the form plural-stub. As such, they should be changed to the singular, where Cue sport stubs should also be. Even easier!


 * You seem to be contradicting yourself in simultaneously saying that martial arts is at least "a vaguely plausible exception" yet also "should be changed to the singular". I don't really have any other response, since I've already been over all of this, and I don't think Alai or anyone else will appreciate me repeating myself at length to go over all the points you've re-raised.  While I do not think you are wikilawyering, I think that something at that document is quite relevant here - you are pushing for a to-the-letter interpretation of a (not-quite) guideline rather than understanding and working with its spirit - namely of helpfully guiding the naming of categories and stub templates.  When adherence to the letter of the WPSS docs results in unhelpful, highly non-intuitive conclusions like martial-art-stub, water-sport-stub and cue-sport-stub, and similarly malnamed stubcats, I strongly feel that a mistake is being made. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit boggled that McC, having argued (at considerable length) for the article on "sports, plural, played with a cue" to be at cue sport (no, really!) is now arguing (at increasingly corresponding length) that a stub article, very likely to be particular to one such sport, should be at the "double plural" (or to be somewhat fairer, plural-style collective). But it has to be said that there is a case that can be made made here: not all these articles are about a single cue sport, and some aren't even just related to a single cue sport (such as American CueSports Alliance, which despite the confusing use of "billiards" and "cue sports" in the article, actually is concerned with different varieties of pool), so this isn't a clear-cut example of an "Xs" category where each article therein is on an "X", and thus where the stub cat should be at "X stubs". This is closer to the territory of "what's the correct collective?", to which the answer is, "on what side of the Atlantic (or other applicable ocean, Grutness!) are you sitting?". See Sport. It does appear that the other "sports stubs" are buying into the US-style collective, whether by accident (since there are other "plural stubs" that exist just through oversight or error), or design. I'll attempt to firm up to a bold-faced option either way just as soon as this debate settles down to more manageable proportions. Alai 04:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alai, please read the article naming conventions. The article is required to be Cue sport, singular, because of the conventions, just like cats, dogs and flowers (plural) are covered at Cat, Dog, and Flower.  As noted to you already, the Cue sport article's text is in fact written in terms of cue sports, plural, and Cue sports does of course redirect there.  I also cannot accept your apparent suggestion that the word "sports" (plural) does not exist in British English.  The stub is already not "particular to one such sport", and is used to stub-tag articles on pool, English billiards, carom billiards games of various sorts, etc., etc.  The only relevant thing it is not presently used for is snooker, because it already has its own custom stub template. I know you are upset with me about the naming of the English billiards article, but I honestly don't know how to satisfy you with regard to that.  Re-raising the issue out-of-context from talk page to talk page with factually incorrect arguments (at least two, above, on the template's self-evident usage and on WP article naming) isn't going to fix that, or anything else.  I want you to be happy with that and other articles, but I'm not the only one resisting your particular suggesions.  Sorry.  I'm not sure quite where to go from there, other than maybe you can raise the issue at the Village Pump and other eyes and brains will come to a consensus everyone can live with? Or at WP:CUE's talk page if you don't want an audience that large? &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggest we move the discussion to the stub naming guidelines talk page. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the larger issue raised should definitely be discussed there, but given that only two have opposed this nomination (actually only one, technically), and I believe I have addressed their concerns to the extent that they can be addressed in this context or that they belong here at all, is there any particular reason this proposal can't move forward, as proposed, since it does not conflict in any way with actual, long-standing practice as cited in detail above? If the eventual outcome of the much larger debate is that all something-sports-stub, something-arts-stub, etc. templates and their related categories must be renamed, having done this one won't add any particular burden to resolving the issue, won't hurt anyone, and will get me back to stub sorting in an area where no one else is even bothering. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Request : Please close this nomination in favor of the renames; it seems rather overdue. A related WSS/P that also proposed these renames was closed in favor of the creation of the proposed stub and without opposition (including to the category names) after it was revised to address hyphenation and to match the proposal here.  Related category renames were completed at CfR here.  The present SfD appears to have rationally addressed its opposition, has not been further opposed or had its justification rebutted in 6 days.  The opposition to it has largely just raised off-topic concerns about other articles, relied on incorrect facts and assumptions (e.g. about WP Article Naming Conventions), relied on "evidence" not supported by citation but directly contradicted by cited usage facts, and been marred by borderline WP:AGF transgressions.  This proposal is in concert with longstandng Wikipedia consensus practices when it comes to non-geographical sports stubcat names, and is not even contradicted by WP:WSS/NG at all (I've read every word of it quite carefully).  The languishing of this proposal is getting in the way of real work being done, and should not be held up any longer by the possibility (not certainty) that the larger issues raised by it may be discussed in more depth at WSS/NG's talk page (though I hope that they will be, and am working on some consensus-building and non-confrontational ways to address them). "Wikipedia is not a fillibuster" as someone wise said to me recently. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum to request: A clincher, when it comes to the category name &mdash; the only salient thing that WP:WSS/NG has to say about stub category names is 'The general form of category names is "Noun stubs" (e.g., ). Preferably, these should be in a similar form to their non-stub parent categories, although this is not always the case. The format "Adjectival stubs" (e.g., ) is not to be used.' "Cue sports" is a noun, and the proposed name closely follows that of the non-stub parent cat.  So, we needn't argue any further at all about that half of the proposal; I'm not the one asking for a variance! &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Closure is 'overdue', yes, but 'in favour of the renames'? On what basis?  Looks like a "strong no censensus" from where I'm sitting, which in itself is reason to keep it open somewhat longer.  (Though I have to declare an interest in that I've been planning to reply to McC's above "rational address of the opposition", at some hypothetical time when I'm less vexed thereby.)  Would you care to expand on who you consider to have been failing to assume good faith, and in what way?  I'll reply to your rather sweeping "incorrect and off-topic" assertions in detail when I'm a bit more awake (and ideally, less vexed).  (For now just pencil me in as considerably swayed towards 'oppose' by the nature of the (self-)supporting comments.)  I really don't see what "real work" is being held up by any delay in this closure, and nor do I see why the closure of the CFD is material, given that it addressed entirely different issues.  Alai 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On all of the bases already detailed (the original version was actually twice as detailed, but I figured one condensed paragraph would suffice). You've had six days + to become "less vexed"; if it takes you a week to calm down enough after being disagreed with and having your arguments challenged here, then perhaps you need some other wikihobby than SfD.  It doesn't seem fair to assert that others cannot move on just because you are not in the mood, indefinitely.  I don't understand your "swayed towards 'oppose'" comment, since it was already clear that you were from your initial post, and have opposed other related changes.  I have to say it sure sounds like you are implying "I'm changing my mind, or saying that I am, because I don't like your style", which is not exactly a valid argument in any XfD process, whether Policy-based or not.  The real work being held up is that the ultimate name of the category for the cue-sports-bio-stub template already approved at WSS/P is logically dependent on the outcome of this proposal, and ergo until it is resolved there is no bio stub sorting happening in WP:CUE.  I remind you that the very purpose of WSS is the performing, and enabling, of stub sorting, not "vexed" argument for its own sake over nitpicky "rules" (mis)interpreting that fillibuster progress.  The fact that the two prosals were linked was made explicitly plain in both nominations, so I have no idea where you are coming from with these "I really don't see..." and "entirely different issues"  statements.  If you really want to argue further, OK.  If you really want me to detail the arguments again point-by-point and annotate why they are off-point, off-topic, unsupported by evidence, unsupported by policy, non-AGF, etc., etc., OK.  You were the one who said you were tiring of the length of this discussion.  I'd much rather not have to go there, and I think other readers would as well.  And it isn't necessary:
 * The proposal is not in fact in conflict with WP:WSS/NG, WP:NC, WP:NCCAT generally, WP:NCCAT (which only applies to by-country subcategories, and doesn't mandate the singular anyway) to the extent it could be considered relevant, or any Policy/Guideline, or any actual-practice consensus convention that applies to this topic area even within stub sorting. It only conflicts with a few participants' personal, subjective interpretations of WSS/NG.  Issue resolved.  Let's move on.  If you want to take issue with something I've said about your arguments that did not address relevant policy/guidelines, let's take it up in user talk instead of subjecting everyone else here to another round of point-by-point debate that would be of questionable relevance to SfD anyway.  Please.  This is really getting tiresome, and further arguments based on personal preferences and "vexation" rather than actual policy/guideline bases are a waste of all of our time.
 * &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I quasi-retract the AGF complaint; it actually referred (now that I think of it) to the closely related discussion at WSS/P, not the one immediately above, in which the sole opposer (you) accused me of WP:NEO (by reference) and WP:OWN (directly, by that very shortcut), in the same post. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS: Rather than subject SfD to a rehash of the old arguments, I've listed the oppose rationales here (as direct quotes not rephasals, with trimming of recycled parts), and responded to them again more succinctly than original, point-by-point, one after the other, in chron. order: User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox/CueSfd. I'm really not interested in re-arguing any of them here. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 06:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Striking closure request. Leave open; convinced further discussion needed. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.