Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 22

< July 21	July 23 >

July 22

Category:Jethou

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. Limited contents and scope for growth. --Xdamr^talk 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. OCAT. Small category for a private island that is not likely to be expanded. There is a List of tenants of Jethou which should provide ample navigation and currently provides significantly more information that is not available from a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I generally agree- the island is so small as to not really warrant its own category - I have managed to expand the number of articles in the category, so part of the justification above is misleading. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Misleading only as much as the assumption that this is defining for the individuals who were added. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it, and Vegaswikian will surely keep an eye on it. In the case of a geographic entity, I feel that even a small category has a right to exist. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you know I will not watch a category for maintenance purposes. Also if I follow your argument, any settlement with, let's say a building, should have a category. I think that is overkill. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and based on the contents the list of tenants serves much of the proposed purpose of the category, drawing together the island's tenants. Otto4711 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-defined category for a geographic feature within the parent Category:Islands of the Channel Islands. There is no evidence that there will be no additional articles forthcoming and the excuse justifying deletion based on the fact that a list "serves much of the proposed purpose" is in direct conflict with WP:CLN's mandate that lists AND categories should work together in synergistic fashion, with absolutely nothing in WP:CLN stating that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." WP:CLN never states anywhere that a category should be deleted because a list is "better". Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that there will ever be another article related to this island, so that argument cuts both ways. Should a sudden rush of Jethou-related articles suddenly materialize the category can be re-created. CLN is not a mandate, despite your mischaracterization of it as such. No category is mandated by CLN and CLN clearly states that there are times when a list is superior to a category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional articles have been created recently in this category and there is no reason other than your foot stamping insistence that it is unlikely there will never be any more. WP:CLN never mandates that a category be created or deleted, but does specify that they should co-exist. It does specifically reject the disruptive deletion of any category or list with the argument that the other is better, rather clearly stating that stating that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources." If this were only followed even in spirit, so much wasted time and effort would be freed up to build this encyclopedia rather than destroy what we don't like based on arbitrary preferences. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And clearly the articles that were added could be removed since they are not defining for that individual and are a brief mention in the articles and not of any significance for the individuals. So it is not clear that these inclusions meet the guidelines of WP:COP especially the caution to limit the number of categories in people categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There are currently four articles in the category. Compton Mackenzie was created in May 2004, Peter Ogden was created in April 2008, List of tenants of Jethou was also created in April 2008 and Jethou was created way back in 2002. Care to reconsider your claim of recently-created additional articles? Or perhaps you'd just care to stamp your foot at getting caught in another falsehood? As for CLN, it most assuredly does not "specify" that categories and lists "should co-exist". It states: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." The line you quoted obviously does not mean that categories with associated lists cannot be brought up for discussion. CLN obviously does not "specifically reject" arguing against a category by claiming that a list would work better because CLN explicitly includes reasons why one navigational tool works better than another under different circumstances. Perhaps if you spent less time mischaracterizing CLN, making the same tired bad-faith accusations of disruption, arbitrariness and "you don't like it" against fellow editors, making demonstrably false claims like the ones above and acting like you're some kind of Wiki-savior barring the door from the barbarian hordes bent on its destruction whenever anyone disagrees with you, we'd all have more free time to build the encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (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.

Category:Barack Obama presidential controversies

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 as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Barack Obama presidential controversies to Category:Obama Administration controversies

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. Only one of the two needs to exist. The proposed target is the older of the two, but I have no preference on which is kept. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The merge target matches the structure of the parent Category:United States presidential administration controversies. The lone article in Category:Barack Obama presidential controversies is not even a controversy, so deletion would probably be a better choice here. Alansohn (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The presence of the article in the nominated category is suspect, so doing what you suggest would be OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alansohn. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed that sole category entry. Since nothing in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 offers any indication that this is an Obama administration "controversy", inclusion in this cat is unsubstantiated POV (the article simply states that the bill has "critics"). This category is now empty. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both merge or deletion. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2009 (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.

Remixes

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - there is no theoretical limit to the number of people who can remix a particular song. The typical CD single includes several mixes by several different producers. Categorizing songs by people who choose to remix it strikes me as overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WikiProject Electronic music and WikiProject Rave about this discussion. __meco (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2009 (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.

Category:People associated with Bedford College

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People associated with Bedford College to Category:People associated with Bedford College (London)

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Bedford College to Category:Alumni of Bedford College (London)

Propose renaming Category:Academics of Bedford College to Category:Academics of Bedford College (London)

Nominator's rationale: Rename all Since these categories were created the institution article has been moved to Bedford College (London) due to the existence of other Bedford Colleges (including another in the UK). The categories should match this and avoid confusion. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2009 (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.

American river shipwrecks

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging and renaming Category:Shipwrecks of the Mississippi and Category:Shipwrecks in the Mississippi River to Category:Shipwrecks of the Mississippi River

Propose renaming: Category:Shipwrecks of the Ohio to Category:Shipwrecks of the Ohio River

Nominator's rationale: New names reflect the full name of each river and are less likely to be confused with potential state-only shipwreck categories. Also, the "of the" styling matches styling of many other shipwrecks categories and avoids the implication that the wrecks remain in place. (A wreck that occurred in one of the rivers but was salvaged is no longer "in the river", for example.) Both Mississippi categories, however, should be merged regardless of the final name decided, because both cover the same topic. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested names also match the style of the extant Category:Shipwrecks of the Missouri River — Bellhalla (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of the nominators nominations. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per Debresser. Plasma east (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge/Renames to match bulk of the parent Category:Shipwrecks of the United States. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support both suggestions. Maralia (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (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.

Category:XxxHolic characters

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The category only has one article. TTN (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2009 (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.

Category:VJs

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 to Category:VJs (media personalities). Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:VJs to Category:Something

Nominator's rationale: VJ means nothing to me and besides it is a disamb page. Also I am sure these are not 'Music videos' (ie it is not a subcat of Category:Music videos). Occuli (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:VJs (media personalities) to match title of parent article VJ (media personality). Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:VJs (media personalities) per parent article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2009 (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.

Category:Taxes

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 per nom. While there were points made about keeping this as is, the significant amount of overlap and the lack of parent categories that were appropriate for the content really support the merge as nominated. If anyone really thinks that we need to leave a redirect, drop a note on my talk page after the bots move the articles and I'll create it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Taxes to Category:Taxation

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Currently only contains articles that belong in Category:Taxation, there is already a Category:Taxes (biology) for the biological usage. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and leave a redirect. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and amend notes & parents to reflect repurposing. A sensible sub-cat for the Taxation category. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that until recently (and as the Category:Taxes page still says), the category was about taxes (plural of taxis) in biology. Someone has moved those articles to a new Category:Taxes (biology). I don't know if this is relevant, but it seemed worth noting. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2009 (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.

Category:Jamba!

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - discussed once previously under the name Category:Jamster ringtones, ended up renamed to the current name. Two years later I don't think a single article has been added to the category, not even Jamba! as a lead article. It's a small category with little or no growth potential. A template for the character Crazy Frog links all of this material and a link to Jamba! can certainly be added to that template. Otto4711 (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the less evidence the better of Crazy Frog. Occuli (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2009 (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.

Category:Joke characters

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - we deleted a category for fictional characters used for comic relief some time ago but I can't recall its exact name to find the old CFD. The reasons for deleting that apply to this similar category, specifically that fictional characters can serve a wide variety of roles within a given fictional narrative. Deadly serious characters sometimes crack the best jokes or are the butt of humor and one-note comedy characters are used to advance the dramatic narrative. Fictional characters frequently evolve over their history, starting out as "jokes" and later becoming integral to the dramatic story. Otto4711 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it Fictional comic-relief characters? Anyway, delete, for the reasons given by nom and the same reasons given in that discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. Forgot the hyphen. Otto4711 (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a recreation of the unanimously deleted Category:Fictional comic-relief characters with a worse name (real people could feasibly be added). Occuli (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as undefined. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2009 (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.

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 per nom. Very interesting discussion. The nomination points out that there was no standard for these categories. The one proposed did receive support and while there were some questions, nothing that I read was really an objection. So there was consensus for a rename. Having said that, there may well be a need for additional cleanup. If said cleanup affects some of these newly renamed categories, this decision should not be viewed as an impediment to renominating small subsets of these categories for rename as part of a larger consensus scheme. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video albums by artist

Comment - I closed a single nomination for the Ricky Martin video category to join it here. My concern with "video albums" is that I'm uncertain that a concert video constitutes a "video album". We have no video album article and Album doesn't talk about the concept. "videos and DVDs" matches the category Category:Music videos and DVDs in which at least some of these are currently parented. I'm not going to weep bitter tears if his ends up at "video albums" though. Otto4711 (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "live album" suggests "video album" is reasonable for concert videos. To me, anyway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support all - 'video album' seems a reasonable shorthand for the material collected here (something with images in some format that would be called an album if recorded on an audio CD). This is assuming that all the listed ones are albums as opposed to 'video songs', which might be the best corresponding name for individual pieces such as Thriller: cf Category:Albums which disregards the medium (cylinder, 78, 45, cassette, 8-track, CD, ...) and Category:Songs. (There is however an interesting article Music video which relates to individual songs, and supports Category:Music videos.) Occuli (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At 14 minutes in length, I'd argue that Thriller (music video) could make the leap to a video album category. I can think of no other articles that are solely about an individual hit song's video, though I haven't done much of a search.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - After a 10-minute search I too have not found any other articles solely about a video for a particular song, but there are plenty of substantial subsections (eg in Scream/Childhood) about videos which were notable for one reason or another (expensive, banned, controversial etc). Occuli (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If such an article is in an "(artist) songs" category, then I don't think it needs an "(artist) videos" category. Seems redundant to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, just putting Scream/Childhood in the songs category is not entirely satisfactory as it is not one song (but 2) and ignores the fact that 2 music videos are comprehensively covered in the article. Putting Scream/Childhood in a 'music video' category is not satisfactory either as it is not a music video. The neatest solution is to create and categorise some redirects, one per song, one per music video; see WP:Categorizing redirects, subtopic categorization. I might do this. (I don't think a song should be put in a music video category unless the song article contains at least a stub, a sentence or 2, about the video.) Occuli (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I suggest holding off on creating redirects for the videos section pending a discussion on the category talk page. Category:Music videos is currently swamped with song articles, causing the handful of legitimate articles to be lost in the morass. Starting in on redirects is just exchanging one problem for another. Otto4711 (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except redirects are italicised in categories, and would be something like 'Scream (music video)'. However my appetite for creating redirects which might be promptly deleted or recategorised is limited, and I shall take this sage advice. Occuli (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The term "video albums" doesn't make sense to me, but I'm tired at the moment. Take Category:Yanni videos, these are actually live concert films? I'm sure there are more that are concert videos. So where does something like this fit in? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my rationale above, I say that concert videos are video albums, in the same way that the audio recordings of the same concerts are called live albums. So concert videos would go in the video albums categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Video releases" be a better term ? It would cover video compilations, concert videos and Michael Jackson's Thriller video. Cjc13 (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that term. Because what if all live concert videos weren't made into albums. And another example is that this one, Yanni One on One, is a video release, but neither a live concert nor album, more of a documentary, but a release nonetheless. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that possibility, but it seemed to me that "video releases" covers individual song videos, which this nomination is trying to prevent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does one tell whether a 'live concert video' is or is not an album? The Yanni template lists the concert videos under 'live albums' which I would accept without a second thought (until now). Occuli (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that eventually we would give all of these "video albums" (or whatever) categories. That would take a while, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Category:Foo home videos? Otto4711 (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have trouble picturing a collection of MTV-style videos as a home video. Some more possible names: long-form videos (per Grammy_Award_for_Best_Long_Form_Music_Video), full-length video (per "full-length album"). Let's find something we can agree on so that we don't end up with a "no consensus" result.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggest use the term "Long-form Video releases". Cjc13 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2009 (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.

Category:Video covers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Images of video covers. Consensus was to rename. The target was open to discussion. Since the result is a rename, nothing is really lost by selecting among the options. This decision does not prevent someone from renominating if they feel that the chosen target is unacceptable. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video covers to Category:Video cover images

Nominator's rationale: Rename - current name is ambiguous, as it could refer to music videos for cover songs. Otto4711 (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – there is also Category:Album covers which could perhaps be considered at the same time. It would seem reasonable to include the word 'images' in any category comprising only images, regardless of ambiguity. Eg there is Category:Book covers which is less ambiguous but would still benefit from 'images'. Occuli (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest Category:Images of video covers as an alternative? There are many such categories - see PrefixIndex page. Occuli (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to more accurately reflect content of category. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (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.

Category:Glossary of German terms

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Glossary of German terms to Category:German words and phrases

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No way a category can be named "glossary". The inthention of the creator was to distinguish German loanwords from German words used in English texts, but still "alien" to English language. - Altenmann >t 00:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge to more accurately reflect the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge I made my point earlier at Talk:Gesamtkunstwerk#Loanword?. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2009 (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.