Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26[edit]

Footballers by club[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason in brief: For consistency with the majority of Category:Footballers by club subcategories, so that all football player categories are of the form Category:Foo F.C. players, where Foo F.C. is exact title of the club article.

Reason in detail: This is the first chunk of moves within Category:Footballers by club. Currently, the supercategory contains 29 intermediate country categories, which in total contain 336 subcategories. Of these, 270 are named Category:Foo F.C. players, and 65 are named Category:Foo F.C. footballers (plus there is Category:Alhilal which is neither). It seems most obvious then to move the "footballers" categories to "players". An alternative would be to leave all the above categories where they are, and move all the "players" categories to "footballers". This would obviously involve a lot more moves, and be potentially more disruptive, since more people are presumably used to using the "players" categories.

After a brief discussion on WikiProject Football, it seems (to me at least) that moving all categories to "players" should not cause any serious problems of ambiguity, since in those cases where one club plays more than one sport (e.g. Barcelona), there are separate articles for the separate teams (e.g. FC Barcelona, Winterthur FCB, and FC Barcelona-Cifec), and separate categories for each sport can be named in line with the articles.

Consistency is the important thing; for example, when a new footballer article is created, the author should not have to look up each category separately to find what the correct form is. Either "players" or "footballers" would do equally well from this viewpoint.

The other point to note is that the category name should exactly match the article name, and this is not the case for several of the existing categories (I'm in the process of working out exactly how many, but it is no more than 83, and probably a lot less). The reason why I haven't yet nominated all the other "footballers" categories in other countries is that there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in club article names, and it makes no sense to move the categories now just to have to move them again if the club names change. There's a full list of categories in my Playpen.

Finally, and this is not a particularly important consideration, but several other sports that categorise players by club or team (including NHL, NFL, NBA and MLB, but not cricket) use "players" in category names.

In summary: I propose moving the above 18 categories from "footballers" to "players" for consistency. — sjorford (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Yes, please.--Mike Selinker 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; thanks for effort taken. (Alternate reason in brief: Prefer "X F.C. players" as "X F.C. footballers" implies "X Football Club footballers".) David Kernow 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - makes sense for consistency, and to avoid the tautology. —Whouk (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious support - Consistency is God, Redundancy is Satan. --Cyde Weys 03:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Qwghlm 18:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Right-wing populists to Category:Far-right politicians or Category:Right-wing politicans[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Far-left politicians but Category:Right-wing populists. Now, to my mind, deciding whether someone is "Far-left" (or "Far-right") is inherently a bit POV, but calling one sort of political extremist a "politician" and another sort a "populist" is even worse. (An old CFD debate from a year or so ago is archived on the talk page, closed with a "keep" on the basis that external sources can tell us who are extreme right-wingers.) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I have just notice the CFD nominations of Category:Far-right politicians and Category:Far-left politicians below... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as left-wing and right-wing are too vague to be useful. Second choice rename as per nom. Scranchuse 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There may be a better name for this cat, but "Far-right politicians" is not it. A clear consensus to delete Category:Far-right politicians is building up below. "Far-right" and "Far-left" are Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Valiantis 14:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I only suggested it as I noticed those categories already existed, whereas my first choice, Category:Right-wing politicans, does not. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Right-wing politicans is far too broad a group title. This could cover a third to a half of all politicians. The politicians in this group are a specific subset, generally strongly nationalist (to the point where some may argue that they are "racist") and often anti-establishment (as the article populist describes, such politicians tend to set themselves up as the voice of the "ordinary man" against the supposed position of the state). I'd be strongly opposed to a delete of this cat, as it serves to usefully group people with strong similarities to each other (and quite different positions to other "right-wing" politicians ), but agree a better name may be possible. Valiantis 13:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really, "right" and "left" seem to be less useful than "liberal" and "conservative", or something more specific. siafu 02:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Does "liberal" mean socially liberal, politically liberal or economically liberal, or some combination of the above. Does "conservative" mean wishing to minimise change or does it mean wishing to roll-back social liberalisation? "Liberal" and "Conservative" are fairly clear labels when they are used by Americans talking about US politics ("liberal" means the left-wing of the Democrats, "conservative" means the right-wing of the Republicans - who are generally economic liberals!) but this standard doesn't work internationally. Valiantis 13:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are just examples, but the point is that a more specific and accurate set of terms based on the actual political philosophies of the politicians in question is better than using the unwieldy (and very poorly-defined) terms "right-wing" and "left-wing". siafu 16:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what is the correct term for the politicians in this category? They are neither liberals nor conservatives in the way those terms are normally used in the US or Europe. If you think the cat is misnamed because it uses the term "right-wing" that would be a basis for renaming, not deleting! Valiantis 21:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I believe that the terms are inaccurate or incorrect that is absolutely a valid reason to vote delete. siafu 22:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there's a valid category here, although there needs to be a description added to the category page of what a right-wing populist is. --JeffW 17:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Imprecise and only likely to be used by opponents of people placed in it. Sumahoy 02:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Imdb and Amg templates[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Syrthiss 14:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Imdb name This was added to the imdb template, I'm not sure there is any point in having it. Arniep 16:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind - I've expanded this to include Category:Imdb title, Category:Amg name and Category:Amg movie. All of them are redundant - their use on the templates doesn't allow proper sorting, there are already film and actor categories, and "What links here" shows the template usage. Delete all. —Whouk (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of this category? (rhetorical question) Hunny467 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - pointless categories that serve no practical use to the articles. (Ibaranoff24 18:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete all We are not here to promote imdb, which is a profit making concern infested with ads. Scranchuse 01:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. - EurekaLott 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - For some reason I think that I'm going to be the only one to vote to keep this, but thats ok (but I hope I'm wrong). I believed that since everyone uses the IMDb template this would be the best effort to list every movie inside of wikipedia. There are many other templates out there to help organize movies, but not all are categorized and not all are done correctly. By using this template it would be a great way to list all movies in wikipedia. The "what links here" option is quite limited so I don't think it is a really good alternative to this. -- UKPhoenix79 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Putting all the movies in one category is a very bad idea. What makes it worse is that categories added by template appear first, even if they are not at all important. Sumahoy 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Writers who committed suicide[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


See previous CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Writers who have killed themselves

  • This is not a useful navigational or classification aid
  • It's like turning the article inside out by translating every fact in the article in a category assignment. This would be a nice experiment in AI knowledge representation, but we are writing an encyclopedia
  • And it's only the tip of the iceberg, there is an entire elaborated category hierarchy below Category:Suicides
  • Delete, maybe listify.

Pjacobi 15:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely keep. The whole purpose of this category and its brethren is to break up what was a colossally overcrowded category:Suicides. Putting them all back into the main category would be terrible. Removing the entire Suicides category concept would be even worse. Leave it alone.-- Mike Selinker 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are precisely two articles in Category:Suicides at present, so no need to declare the sky is falling. siafu 02:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I got there, there were about 100. Before I got involved, there were probably 1,000, which other users put into the subcategories they created (see the entertainers subcategories alone). So I'd humbly submit that the sky is no longer falling. --Mike Selinker 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what Mike said. (Ibaranoff24 18:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong keep per Mike Selinker Scranchuse 01:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above and also as an interesting and potentially useful biographical filter. David Kernow 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. Same strong arguments as both Mike Selinker & David Kernow. Leave it alone!!
Michael David 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Golfcam 22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. Not necessarily all that helpful, but no less valid than any of the other subcats of Category:Suicides. siafu 02:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn’t know quite where to post this comment, but since the issue here is Wiki Categories, it seemed as good a place as any. [David Kernow: You might find some other interested parties at Wikipedia talk:Categorization.]

I am frustrated with the seeming cavalier attitude some of the Users in Wikipedia seem to have regarding categorization. To some it seems to be a nuisance; to a researcher it is crucial.

No matter what else it may be to some, an Encyclopedia is primarily a research tool, and the convenience of the researcher must be in mind when it is constructed and maintained.

And, concerning Subcategories, I keep running into a particular issue. This was recently included in a message to me regarding an edit I had made to an Article. I had included both the Main Category and it’s appropriate - to the Article – Subcategory : “Normally articles that are in subcategories should not be in the parent category as well.”

It shouldn’t matter how many Categories are included in a given Article, if they are relevant to the subject so be it. Again, an Encyclopedia is primarily a research tool. I do not see where it matters how many Categories are included in a particular Article - if each is relevant to that Article - each needs to be included for it to be complete.

If all of the entries in a given Subcategory fed into the main Category, and this main Category could be viewed as a separate and complete list – this would be fine. But without this, if, for example, I wanted to have a list of all persons who were the victims of firearm deaths I would have to locate all of the subcategories, view each as a separate list and collate them myself. This seems rather foolish when this could be accomplished for me by including all of the relevant Articles into a main Category and its appropriate Subcategory in the first place. In this way I could view all of them, or just a subset.

Wikipedia has come to be a valuable first-level research tool for me; and I am trying to encourage my colleagues to use it as well.

Frustrated,

Michael David 12:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your advanced query capabilties for categories are provided on the tools server: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php
I stand by my above statement, that for everyday use there is sensible upper limit how many categories should be attached to a page and what to categorify.
Pjacobi 15:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When articles become exceptionally large, there is a warning presented at the top when editting them. For categories, this does not happen. Given that there is a point at which categories, as lists, become relatively difficult to use (e.g., truncation, load times on slow connections, etc. etc. etc.) it's necessary to create subcategories to make them more manageable. The complaint your are putting forward seems to be primarily a software issue, that is that there is no quick tool for producing a complete list built-in to the current version. This, however, is not a fundamental problem with the categorization philosophy on wikipedia. siafu 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; my comments did stray from the original issue. But I didn’t know where else to go with my problem. As it turns out I’m very glad I did ventilate my frustrations (which in Psych is highly encouraged). By doing so I learned, thanks to Pjacobi, of ‘Cat Scan’. Problem solved!!
I still believe the Category:Writers…Suicide should be kept. By the way, why aren’t we looking at such absurd Categories as “Eccentrics”, or “People diagnosed with clinical depression” – they are both minefields. Michael David 17:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The number of categories on each article needs to be kept under control precisely so that the category system remains useful as a research tool. Sumahoy 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the number of Categories that is at issue here. It is which specific, relevant, appropriate and helpful Categories are included in a given Article that is at issue here. How could 'too many' Categories be a negative thing for a researcher when all they have to do is choose which ones they want to explore.
Michael David 11:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from issues people might have with "category overload" when categories are listed at the bottoms of pages etc, I believe a compromise has to be made between the (understandable) desire to multiply categories and the demands this makes on the MediaWiki software and on those folk trying to administer them. This is an area where, for example, I believe the "notability" criterion outranks the "potentially useful/interesting" criterion (whether intentional or by evolution), leading to decisions such as the exclusion of categories such as "Famous people's relatives who have committed suicide" but (I hope) the retention of categories such as "Writers who have committed suicide". Regards, David Kernow 12:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. —Whouk (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Literary critics of English to Category:Literary academics of English and sub-cats (are no direct sub-cats)[edit]

Rename. the point was made that not all "English Professors" are critics but that some are writers or poets. (another point is that having literary academics and linguists together seems to me not to reflect accurately on how university departments are generally arranged) Mayumashu 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The proposed name reflects a purely contemporary perspective. Some of the greatest literary critics of all time never held an academic position. Scranchuse 01:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scranchuse. David Kernow 01:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i failed to mention, i meant to base the nomination on the pages presently populating the page, and these articles are of English professors. it s true isn t it that a cat page with this name should exist; i ll take a look at purging non- literary critics from the page and creating a new cat page. the question remains then though what should we call academics who are your typical English profs (if indeed they are academics)Mayumashu 01:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Apologies Mayumashu 02:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cougar Women[edit]

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

The result of the debate was del. Syrthiss 15:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main article is being considered for deletion. Category not really useful. Possible POV. Joelito 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Modern American air-to-ground rockets[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category that will never get more than one or two articles. Currently the only article that should go here is Hydra 70

  • Delete per nom. Josh 01:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Programming language dialects to Category:Programming language families[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 15:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge was suggested on the dialects talk page (here). No vote. SeventyThree(Talk) 09:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. "Language families" seems more sensical, especially to non-experts. siafu 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge These are basically the same thing. --JeffW 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Categories without descriptions[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, and not linked to according to What Links Here. According to the talk page, empty as of July 2005. I doubt it's been used in the meantime. If the project/template which populated this category is resurrected, it'll be easy enough to recreate, so we might as well delete. SeventyThree(Talk) 08:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was not a good idea. Anyone who might add the tag would be better advised to start a description, as you don't need to be an expert to at least link to a relevant article. Bhoeble 14:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bhoeble. Cat descriptions are usually just fine with a single sentence or wikilink (when they're not completely obvious from the title), so the effort of populating and managing the category is much greater than adding the actual descriptions. siafu 02:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Major Cities in India[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Major" is a vague term for cities. This category has got places like Cuttack and Guwahati which are really small places. There is already another proper category called Category:Cities_and_towns_in_India, which has got entries for big cities like Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore. I'd suggest moving the entries from "Major Cities in India" to "Cities and towns in India". We can of course sub-categorize the cities category later, but we need to give a specific title for area or population. I can't think of a proper title though. Jay 05:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Northern States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category purports to group together "Northern States" of the U.S. The category is altogether vague. In the first place, it is unclear from the name what country the grouped items are states of; moreover, it is unclear as to what these states are "north" of. The category is populated arbitrarily. Many citizens of Delaware and Maryland, for example, would be surprised to learn they are in "northern states"; and why have Montana, Idaho, Washington, etc. been excluded? It makes no sense. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, i agree with premise of your idea, the major question would be is how to define what state is in what region, use a personal opinion, as is currently, or use a official def as provided by census, even so their are going to be "split states", like Maryland and Delaware which could easily fit into both a Northern and Southern region for a variety. Basically though the category was created by a suer who does not like the idea of Maryland having any inclusion as a "Southern State", some comments that he has made can be seen on the article and talk page for Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (i.e. Delete or Rename to Northern States of the United States, or similar.) Ian Cairns 10:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficiently well defined region. Bhoeble 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename Category:Northern states of the United States. Thinking about it, if I was a non-Confederate sympathiser in Maryland, I would feel demeaned by having my state, and hence myself, defined only as a Southerner, so this category is needed for balance. And include all states which anyone would consider northern, which is how Maryland comes to be classified as Southern.
  • Support (delete). The OR intent is clear given the description "This category includes those U.S. states considered to be Northern in both culture and climate. Some states, such as Montana, have been excluded despite the fact that some would consider them Northern." This category does not correspond to any understanding of U.S. regions you would find in a modern geography textbook. And "Southern" is not a pejorative.-choster 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rfrisbietalk 02:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and also as it is wholly americocentric: Northern states of what? Valiantis 01:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and KEEP Now, honestly! This is a legitimate category, being as it is a region of the United States. To those like Valantis who are trying to make a statement by deleting something that they see as embodying "Amerocentrism," I would ask that you please set aside the politics. Thank you very much. Joan53
  • Not an issue of politics. This is an issue of clarity and the effects of lazy naming - all cats should be named so that it is clear what is being categorised from the titles alone. The fact that the creator of this cat failed to follow this basic rule is in itself enough to mean the cat must as a minimum be renamed. The cat may have been named "Northern States" due to Americocentrism or it might just be due to dumbness; I am making no assumptions about the motives of the cat creator. The result of the naming decision is however Americocentric i.e. it implies that no other country in the world might have Northern States. As to your comment that "Northern States" is "a region of the United States" can you provide some evidence of this? I was under the impression that the US was divided into states not regions. (I believe for government statistical purposes states are sometimes grouped together; I am not aware that they are ever grouped into a "region" called "Northern States" which contains all the states in this cat). If by region you mean "ill-defined arbitrary area that no two people will agree on" then you may be correct, but that is not much of a basis for a category. Valiantis 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_26&oldid=1136464077"