Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 12

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. ✗plicit 06:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historic volcanic events to Category:Volcanic events by period

Nominator's rationale: I don't think there are any other categories for historic as opposed to prehistoric events. This one was holding two sub-cats and two articles. I have undeleted Category:Ancient volcanic events and moved the articles into it, with one more. IMHO that one is more useful, between prehistoric and medieval siblings, even though it currently only has three articles, and has been emptied without discussion twice in the past. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Any volcanic event in human record may be considered "historic". And I am not certain that we have articles on non-historic volvanic events. Dimadick (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: Take a look in Category:Prehistoric volcanic events and you will see there are articles on non-historic volcanic events. Volcanoguy 18:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The whole purpose of this category is to categorize articles on volcanic events that have occurred in human record. I would also like to point out what is considered "ancient" is purely subjective. The three volcanic events that are currently in Category:Ancient volcanic events may seem like ancient history, but from a geological viewpoint, they are just a blink of an eye. So having "ancient" in the title isn't neutral. Volcanoguy 18:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main topic on "ancient" is ancient history, which gives the dates as 3000 BC to AD 500. Which would cover the period from the Jemdet Nasr period to the early reign of Anastasius I Dicorus. By "history" we typically mean recorded human history, not the geological history of Earth. Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "historic" denotes different periods in different parts of the globe. In those with writing it is often equated with the advent of writing, but when a local tradition appears to recall the event even though no one can pinpoint when it happened (see Mount Mazama) is that historic? So if two volcanic events are simultaneous one may be historic the other not, and why does that define the event? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, this is an intersection with a characteristic that is not defining to the eruptions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2021 (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.

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/merge as nominated. – Fayenatic London 12:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People of Northern Han Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:American people of Northern Han Chinese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:Canadian people of Northern Han Chinese descent to Category:Canadian people of Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:Singaporean people of Northern Han Chinese descent to Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent
• Propose deleting Category:Taiwanese people of Northern Han Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, not a defining characteristic. In addition there is no article Northern Han Chinese nor a category Category:Northern Han Chinese or Category:Northern Han Chinese people. The article Northern Han is about a historic state, entirely unrelated to the above categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold fire -- we have had a series on noms from Marcocapelle, who has clearly not looked properly at Han Chinese subgroups; I suspect that the name of that article is not ideal and Chinese subgroups might be better. The Chinese people of PRC are NOT ethically homogeneous. That article tells me that there are 1300M Han Chinese, but a series of smaller ethnic/lingistic groups mostly in south-east China, some groups being as large as 120M, getting on for double UK population and well over four times that of Australia. I do not know enough to say what the correct merge target should be, possibly Category:People of Han Chinese descent. I suspect the characteristic is that they are native Mandarin speakers. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The population of China consists for 92% of Han Chinese people. It does not seem useful to categorize Chinese people as Han Chinese people. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the 8% non-Han peoples number in the hundreds of millions, which is much greater than the population of many countries. Categorization would encounter the fallacy of composition as Category:Chinese people would include both Category:Han Chinese people and all categories of ethnic minorities.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Marcocapelle should voluntarily stop themselves from nominating these categories for the moment.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you also agree with Peterkingiron that we should start a Category:People of Han Chinese descent? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of non Han Chinese among the diaspora is kind of negligible so probably not.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these "descent" categories. No one has ever explained that any descent category is defining per WP:OCEGRS. Specifically,

(1) What WP:RS demonstrate that people of "Northern Han Chinese descent" do something differently than those who aren't (i.e., why is this defining - could a non-list article be written on that? why are they distinct regardless of the points below? are there characteristics that differentiate people of that "descent" (or any, for that matter) that describe them to the exclusion of people other "descents"?) - fundamentally, these WP:RS need to explain to why two children raised in a household of "Northern Han Chinese descent" (however defined) - one a natural child the other adopted from another "descent" objectively differ and whether people who don't know that they are of such "descent" still exhibit whatever traits are defining for this category.

(2) What WP:RS objectively define how much "Northern Han Chinese descent" makes one exhibit whatever differences described above so that they are eligible for inclusion in such a category - does someone who is only 1/2 of such "descent" qualify, how about 1/4, 1/8, ... 1/1024. Similarly, what WP:RS define how recent must that "descent" be? If you credit that our species evolved in Africa, we're all of "African descent" ultimately - so we would need to have WP:RS say it only lasts for some number of years/generations, taking into account that ethnicity changes over time so ethnicities such as Category:People of French descent spring up out of the blue; of course France didn't exist before the mid-first millennium. So, one day people weren't of French descent; the next day they were? Is there a WP:RS for that?

(3) Once we have established the above per WP:RS: what WP:RS tell us that each person (and, remember, we are categorizing people and in some cases WP:BLP that need not just sources but it has to be correct) meets the objective criteria above? Remember again, the biography's subject is not a reliable source as we have numbers of notable instances of people either falsifying their ancestry, changing it, or ignorant of it. Moreover, realistically, only the female line of descent for most is reliable - fatherhood may or may not be with the mother's spouse or partner. Of course, this circles back with the above; does any WP:RS tell us anything is innate in one's purported descent? We have several people who have learned of heritages they didn't know of; has that fundamentally changed those people in an objective way?

I still haven't seen any WP:RS address any of these issues, much less all of them. Until then, my position is that "descent" categories are wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: As far as the purpose of category is to show contrast with the pre-dominance of Southern Chinese origin of most emigrants.Given the vast diversity of the Culture of China across regions, differences in the outcomes of diasporas can. Most of what you've written is irrelevant to this particular discussion.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So there is kind of a WP:SYNTH issue that does affect this category. Notably that in many cases and individual being descended from a locale in Northern China is assumed to be Northern Han descent. There's not necessarily a source which ties this all together. However there's little hard in a small category existing for now, I will to keep without prejudice for some further nomination. However I do ask that Carlossuarez46 and Marcocapelle try to help improve categories rather than just deleting the type of content they don't understand.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: internal migrations are common but aren't defining. We wouldn't categorize people based on Okie or Arkie heritange. Nor would we categorize based on descent from participants in the Great Migration (African American) or any other internal migrations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you even know that those are invalid categories for sure? Again I have to point out that the population of China is not analogous to the US at all. In any case this category is not even one that concerns internal migration so I'm not sure why we're discussing this here.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge per nom. In the US these people are viewed primarily as of Chinese descent, and further splitting this way is just counter any logical ways to categorize these people at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge as nominated. While regional differences might arguably be defining, there's really no serious claim that it's defining for descendants. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2021 (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.

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:University departments in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now as WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. I looked for others but could not find any (apart from teaching hospitals which have a separate category). There is no need to merge, as the member page is already categorised in departments by discipline. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Ididntknowausername (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The one article is appropriately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reason to have this category for one already well categorized article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2021 (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.

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. For related precedents, see Category talk:Legislators by term. – Fayenatic London 12:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Members of the 32nd Alaska State Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 19:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge up to Category:Members of the Alaska Legislature, which I would presume is not going to be nominated for deletion also. If we have a separate category for every legislative session of every U.S. state, that will be thousands of additional categories with substantial overlap (and conversely, perhaps a dozen or more categories added to the end of an article for a long-serving state legislator). BD2412 T 04:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Members of the Alaska Legislature per BD2412. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is unnecessary. The Alaska State Legislature is bicameral and the articles are already in either the House or Senate sub-categories.--User:Namiba 13:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right. Then delete instead, though BD2412's rationale for not keeping this category is still valid. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential Oppose -- We have categories for UK MPs for each Parliament; and would expect the same for other legislatures. If separate categories exist for each chamber for each election, I would not press my opposition, but I cannot see such categories, only global ones for senators and representatives. This is accordingly a destructive nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support nominating those categories, too. For a politician, it is not defining which term they serve in a legislative body, just that they served in one. Some politicians serve for decades in office, which would cause an immense glut of categories while providing no information that isn't already available in other, more applicable spaces on Wikipedia.--User:Namiba 15:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom; each legislature can be done with a template with links, as done with sports teams - we don't category people generally by the period in which the served in a role (be it team or legislature), MP's in the UK being an exception as noted by Peterkingiron. We do, however, have the Category:Members of the Cabinet of the United States by presidential administration tree which, given that the "government" of the UK comes from the MP's and not from a slew of appointments of non-MP administrators, may justify the difference, but I'll leave that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument there... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We also seem to have Category:Members of the Sejm by term for Polish legislature; two exceptions of similar nature doesn't alter my opinion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Categorizing legislators for each individual session of the legislature that they sat in is not helpful: it creates a lot of unhelpful category bloat, since a person has to be added to another new category each time there's another election in which they get reelected to the same job, and it creates a lot of overlapping categories because each election sees only a modest turnover of membership from the previous one rather than wholesale replacement, meaning each category comprises primarily the same people as the ones before and after it in sequence. Yes, the UK does it — but (a) it's a fundamentally bad idea that really shouldn't be happening there either, for the same reasons, and (b) it's especially unproductive in the United States, because a person could potentially serve in the state house and the state senate and the US House and the US Senate over the course of their political career, thus needing to be bloat-catted for their membership in four different legislative bodies, so what the UK does or doesn't do should not dictate what the US does or doesn't do. Note that the people are (or should be) already subcategorized for the question of whether they served in the state house or the state senate, so Category:Members of the Alaska Legislature is supposed to be entirely empty of individual articles — and accordingly upmerging these articles there isn't desirable (though some caution should be taken to ensure that everybody is correctly subcategorized as a representative and/or a senator.) Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mainly per Bearcat. I also think allowing the UK categories was a horrid idea, it is one of our mistakes that have lead to some people being in way too many categories. However in the US this is a really, really horrid idea. If we categorized by each congress, some members of the US senate such as Spencer Abraham who was only ever elected once would be in 3 categories, because 1 senate term goes to 3 congresses. Here in Michigan every member of the senate if they serve a full term is in 2 different legislatures. I am getting a headache at how much category clutter this would lead to. John Conyers and John Dingell are extreme cases, but the amount of category clutter this would lead to is mind boggling. This is a super, super, super bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining and open to discussing British MPs by term too. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Members of the Alaska Legislature per BD2412. --Just N. (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Much worse than British MPs. Their terms are 4 years on average and they have short category names. Theresa May has:

UK MPs 1997–2001 | UK MPs 2001–2005 | UK MPs 2005–2010 | UK MPs 2010–2015 | UK MPs 2015–2017 | UK MPs 2017–2019 | UK MPs 2019–

The next UK election is expected in 2024. The Alaska equivalent for 1997–2023 would be this monstrosity:

Members of the 20th Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 21st Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 22nd Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 23rd Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 24th Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 25th Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 26th Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 27th Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 28th Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 29th Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 30th Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 31st Alaska State Legislature | Members of the 32nd Alaska State Legislature

PrimeHunter (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2021 (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.

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. ✗plicit 01:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:All-Star Futures Game players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Participating in a minor league all-star game is inherently non-defining for the participants. User:Namiba 18:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems fairly "defining" to me. And the deletion rationale is a bit misleading. The All-Star Futures Game is an event that is part of the All-Star weekend for Major League Baseball, and is used to showcase some of the games best prospects. Each minor league has its own all star game (such as the Triple-A All-Star Game), and participating in those all star games is not the same thing as the All-Star Futures Game. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is an exhibition game for minor league players. Many of the players who participated in the game are not even notable and the game is often not mentioned in the articles of those who did play in it (see Andrew Benintendi, Marlon Byrd, Javier Cardona or José Capellán for just a few examples). There is a growing consensus that participating in a specific game is non-defining for individual players. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_18#Category:Super_Bowl_champions and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_11#Category:World_Series_champions.--User:Namiba 14:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the players are notable. Participating in the World Series is not the same thing. That's being part of a good team. ASFG is being recognized as a talented prospect. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a top prospect is not a claim to notability. Appearing in a Futures Game is a minor accomplishment at best for any player who establishes notability through appearing in a Major League Baseball game. That's why it is often not even mentioned in the articles tagged with this category.--User:Namiba 17:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is defining by Wikipedia standards, please explain how it meets Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining.--User:Namiba 14:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a career honor, not a "performance", much like Category:American League All-Stars and Category:National League All-Stars. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:PERFCAT it's defining in the same way that actors are defined by memorable roles they play; which we don't categorize on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. Even if it's part of a weekend series of events, it's still performance cat and non-defining since people play many games and the players are already well categorized. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:PERFCAT. --Just N. (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2021 (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.

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. ✗plicit 01:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Executive branch of the Indian government to Category:Executive branch of the government of India

Nominator's rationale: rename using "of country" per Wikipedia:Category_names#State-based_topics and turning "government" into lowercase. This was discussed at WP:CFDS before. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi, William Allen Simpson, and Laurel Lodged: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per Government of India, Category:Government of India. C2C and C2D. Oculi (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per precedent of Republic of Artsakh. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Government of India, Category:Government of India. C2C and C2D. --Just N. (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:54, 21 March 2021 (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.

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: alt rename to Category:Heterostraci enigmatic taxa, Category:Bird enigmatic taxa and Category:Mammal enigmatic taxa. – Fayenatic London 12:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Heterostracan incertae sedis to Category:Heterostraci incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Avian incertae sedis to Category:Birds incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Mammalian incertae sedis to Category:Mammals incertae sedis

Nominator's rationale: All the other categories in the tree use a composite noun rather than an adjective. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial support — together with following nomination. However, this is mixing scientific taxa with common names. Matching Heterostraci, the class is Aves, not "Birds". Likewise, the class is Mammalia.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @William Allen Simpson Many categories in the nomination just below also use vernacular names. I think it is better to use them per WP:C2C, as the categories are called Category:Mammal taxa by rank, Category:Bird taxa by rank, and similar. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a bad idea. If you want to use vernacular names, then these should be "enigmatic taxa" which is plural. I'm withdrawing support.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt renaming Category:Heterostracan incertae sedis to Category:Heterostraci enigmatic taxa
• Alt renaming Category:Avian incertae sedis to Category:Bird enigmatic taxa
• Alt renaming Category:Mammalian incertae sedis to Category:Mammal enigmatic taxa

William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@William Allen Simpson Neutral on your proposal, but the word order does sound a bit awkward to me. Would you oppose "Enigmatic (Heterostraci, bird, mammal) taxa"? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Incertae sedis literally means of "uncertain placement", meaning that their taxonomic status is "unknown or undefined". Is this sufficiently defining for a biological category? Dimadick (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dimadick As defining as being a species, genus, family, etc. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt renaming per William Allen Simpson supported by me. --Just N. (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2021 (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.

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: alt rename as follows:

• Category:Angiosperm incertae sedis to Category:Angiosperm enigmatic taxa
• Category:Plant incertae sedis to Category:Plant enigmatic taxa
• Category:Bikont incertae sedis to Category:Bikont enigmatic taxa
• Category:Insect incertae sedis to Category:Insect enigmatic taxa
• Category:Arthropod incertae sedis to Category:Arthropod enigmatic taxa
• Category:Protostome incertae sedis to Category:Protostome enigmatic taxa
• Category:Vertebrate incertae sedis to Category:Vertebrate enigmatic taxa
• Category:Deuterostome incertae sedis to Category:Deuterostome enigmatic taxa
• Category:Animal incertae sedis to Category:Animal enigmatic taxa
• Category:Eukaryote incertae sedis to Category:Eukaryote enigmatic taxa

– Fayenatic London 12:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Angiosperm incertae sedis to Category:Angiosperms incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Plant incertae sedis to Category:Plants incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Bikont incertae sedis to Category:Bikonts incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Insect incertae sedis to Category:Insects incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Arthropod incertae sedis to Category:Arthropods incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Protostome incertae sedis to Category:Protostomes incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Vertebrate incertae sedis to Category:Vertebrates incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Deuterostome incertae sedis to Category:Deuterostomes incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Animal incertae sedis to Category:Animals incertae sedis
• Propose renaming Category:Eukaryote incertae sedis to Category:Eukaryotes incertae sedis

Nominator's rationale: These are set categories and should be pluralised. The Category:Algae incertae sedis, Category:Fungi incertae sedis and Category:Reptilia incertae sedis trees as well as Category:Archaeplastida incertae sedis, Category:Vetulicolia incertae sedis and others already use the plural. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename without 's', followed by "enigmatic taxa". If vernacular, the whole phrase should be vernacular. Arguably, "taxa" is vernacular.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt rename per William Allen Simpson. --Just N. (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Note to closing user: If this is the result of the discussion, the other "incertae sedis" categories which are not nominated here should be moved, too (although they could also be nominated to WP:CFDS with a link to this discussion). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:20, 19 March 2021 (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.

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/merge as nominated. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People of Hunanese descent
• Propose merging Category:American people of Hunanese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, we do not categorize people by the region or city where their ancestors have been living, like in this case the province Hunan, per WP:COPHERITAGE. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait -- Hunan indicates that the people there are Han Chinese or assimilated other ethnicities. Possibly Category:American people of Han Chinese descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The population of China consists for 92% of Han Chinese people. It does not seem useful to categorize Chinese people as Han Chinese people. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " we do not categorize people by the region or city where their ancestors have been living" was unilaterally added by a user and was since been removed (by me).--Prisencolin (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There was broad consensus about not categorizing people by region or city of their ancestors in the discussions that we earlier had, but in any case the following in WP:COPHERITAGE still applies: "Categories that intersect heritage with occupation, residence, or other such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Broad concensus" from just 5 discussions which are only tangentially related to this discussion? I'd like to point back to what a guideline even is "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. "--Prisencolin (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course exceptions may occur, but this is not one of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it most certainly is because the Hunanese people and culture (including the diaspora) is the subject of study by Professor Qin Xueqing.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "descent" for the same reasons as my comments on the category above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: please spell out your specific objections to this specific discussion. The issues are rather different--Prisencolin (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are at least some sources which tie the Hunanese diaspora together, such as remarks from Qin Xueqing professor at Hunan Normal University. [1] A book written about Hunanese people and it discusses emigres in Taiwan [2]--Prisencolin (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge per nom. When a population is over 90% something categorizing by it is non-defining. We do not have Category:English people of English descent and categorically reject having such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While there are regional differences within China, there is no real claim that this geography is defining to descendants. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RevelationDirect: There is in fact Chinese language sources which link political involvement to Taiwan of those of Hunanese origin like the ones I listed above.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have a category for Taiwanese people of Hunanese origin (although that is what the parent category contains in practice). - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • There actually is Category:Taiwanese people from Hunan. In the Chinese Wikipedia versions of this category tree, it appears to include the second generation, although in English Wikpedia the tree does not.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Justus Nussbaum: Please note that the supposed guideline that the nomination refers to has not been adopted WP:COPHERITAGE, it was added by a single user and later removed (by myself). There is a talk page discussion concerning it and some other issues.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2021 (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.

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. ✗plicit 01:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Constantiner Photography Award for an Israeli Artist recipients

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and maybe WP:PERFCAT)

The Tel Aviv Museum of Art gives out the Constantiner Photography Award for an Israeli Artist, often coinciding with a photographer's exhibit. The 4 biographies in this category tend to mention the award in passing so it's not not defining to them.

Normally I always listify these award recipients but I don't have a place to do that because there's not a main article and the museum article makes no reference to the award so I'm not sure if the underlying topic is notable. I copied the current category contents right here so no work is lost if anyone else wants to find reliable sources in order to create that list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more overcat by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:OCAWARD. --Just N. (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2021 (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.

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. ✗plicit 01:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Friedrich-August-Kreuz

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Friedrich-August-Kreuz, 1st class
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Friedrich-August-Kreuz, 2nd class

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)

The Friedrich-August-Kreuz was an award from the German Grand Duchy of Oldenburg to both military and civilian contributions made in WWI, few of whom were actually from Oldenburg. It's unclear if this was an automatic campaign medal or had other criteria. Either way, the articles treat it as non-defining and generally don't mention the award at all, although a few list it with other honours. There wasn't a list so I created one here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:OCAWARD. --Just N. (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (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.

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. ✗plicit 01:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Roud Folk Song Index songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Although the Roud Folk Song Index is an important tool for music studies, I don't think being indexed there, or not, is defining for the individual song; there are almost 25,000 songs in the index, many of which are already listed at List of folk songs by Roud number. (Child Ballads is a more select group which is probably defining). (t · c) buidhe 00:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see why inclusion in a closed database (Child) is defining but inclusion in the one which superseded it (Roud) is not. Scholarship didn't stop in 1898.

This category is poorly populated from a mixture of underreferencing, undercategorisation, and unwritten articles. I've added another four without thinking hard ("The Minstrel Boy", "Old Folks at Home", "The Quartermaster's Store" and "She Was Poor but She Was Honest"). The information is easy to find; it's in the Vaughan Williams Memorial Library, link. Not every song in Roud will pass WP:GNG; but those that do will be there. Narky Blert (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being in an index is not generally defining. I'm sure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but this is the category before CFD right now. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NONDEF. 25,000 indexed songs that's enormous and would eventually burst the cat. --Just N. (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2021 (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.

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: Procedural close. There is consensus among the CFD participants here for a dual merge of the year categories to decades and natural disasters, but to keep the decades and centuries categories. However, no action will be taken, because none of the category pages were tagged, so only CFD regulars will have seen this discussion, not editors/readers of the categories. @LaundryPizza03: try asking at WP:BOTREQ or user talk:DannyS712 if you need help tagging categories for a discussion. If relisting, I suggest you copy from this revision.[3] – Fayenatic London 11:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1st-century BC earthquakes to Category:1st-millennium BC earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1st-century earthquakes to Category:1st-millennium earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:2nd-century earthquakes to Category:1st-millennium earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:3rd-century earthquakes to Category:1st-millennium earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:4th-century earthquakes to Category:1st-millennium earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:5th-century earthquakes to Category:1st-millennium earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:7th-century earthquakes to Category:1st-millennium earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:11th-century earthquakes to Category:2nd-millennium earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1600s earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1605 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1610s earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1611 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1615 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1620 earthquakes to Category:1620s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1621 earthquakes to Category:1620s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1622 earthquakes to Category:1620s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1625 earthquakes to Category:1620s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1626 earthquakes to Category:1620s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1627 earthquakes to Category:1620s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1628 earthquakes to Category:1620s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1629 earthquakes to Category:1620s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1630s earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1630 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1638 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1639 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1640s earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1641 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1645 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1647 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1650s earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1653 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1663 earthquakes to Category:1660s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1667 earthquakes to Category:1660s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1668 earthquakes to Category:1660s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1670s earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1677 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1679 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1680s earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1687 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1688 earthquakes to Category:17th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1692 earthquakes to Category:1690s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1693 earthquakes to Category:1690s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1694 earthquakes to Category:1690s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1700 earthquakes to Category:1700s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1703 earthquakes to Category:1700s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1707 earthquakes to Category:1700s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1710s earthquakes to Category:18th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1717 earthquakes to Category:18th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1720s earthquakes to Category:18th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1721 earthquakes to Category:18th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1727 earthquakes to Category:18th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1730 earthquakes to Category:1730s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1732 earthquakes to Category:1730s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1737 earthquakes to Category:1730s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1738 earthquakes to Category:1730s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1740s earthquakes to Category:18th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1746 earthquakes to Category:18th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1751 earthquakes to Category:1750s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1755 earthquakes to Category:1750s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1759 earthquakes to Category:1750s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1762 earthquakes to Category:1760s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1763 earthquakes to Category:1760s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1770 earthquakes to Category:1770s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1771 earthquakes to Category:1770s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1773 earthquakes to Category:1770s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1782 earthquakes to Category:1780s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1783 earthquakes to Category:1780s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1786 earthquakes to Category:1780s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1787 earthquakes to Category:1780s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1792 earthquakes to Category:1790s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1797 earthquakes to Category:1790s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1800s earthquakes to Category:19th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1802 earthquakes to Category:19th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1805 earthquakes to Category:19th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1810 earthquakes to Category:1810s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1811 earthquakes to Category:1810s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1816 earthquakes to Category:1810s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1817 earthquakes to Category:1810s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1819 earthquakes to Category:1810s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1820s earthquakes to Category:19th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1829 earthquakes to Category:19th-century earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1833 earthquakes to Category:1830s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1834 earthquakes to Category:1830s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1835 earthquakes to Category:1830s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1837 earthquakes to Category:1830s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1838 earthquakes to Category:1830s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1842 earthquakes to Category:1840s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1843 earthquakes to Category:1840s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1847 earthquakes to Category:1840s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1848 earthquakes to Category:1840s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1856 earthquakes to Category:1850s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1857 earthquakes to Category:1850s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1858 earthquakes to Category:1850s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1859 earthquakes to Category:1850s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1861 earthquakes to Category:1860s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1863 earthquakes to Category:1860s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1865 earthquakes to Category:1860s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1867 earthquakes to Category:1860s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1869 earthquakes to Category:1860s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1872 earthquakes to Category:1870s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1873 earthquakes to Category:1870s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1875 earthquakes to Category:1870s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1877 earthquakes to Category:1870s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1879 earthquakes to Category:1870s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1880 earthquakes to Category:1880s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1881 earthquakes to Category:1880s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1884 earthquakes to Category:1880s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1886 earthquakes to Category:1880s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1887 earthquakes to Category:1880s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1888 earthquakes to Category:1880s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1889 earthquakes to Category:1880s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1891 earthquakes to Category:1890s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1892 earthquakes to Category:1890s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1893 earthquakes to Category:1890s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1895 earthquakes to Category:1890s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1896 earthquakes to Category:1890s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1897 earthquakes to Category:1890s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1898 earthquakes to Category:1890s earthquakes
• Propose merging Category:1899 earthquakes to Category:1890s earthquakes

Nominator's rationale: Various WP:SMALLCATs, many with only 1 or 2 articles. Our coverage of earthquakes before 1902, when the Mercalli intensity scale was introduced, is rather sparse. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Natural disasters parent category. Also I would advocate a more consistent setup, starting with Ancient earthquakes, then 6th to 18th century and finally 1800s to 1890s by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per Marcocapelle.--User:Namiba 18:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Removing the century categories, and removing these articles from the relevant century's category tree. Support the mergers to decades articles. Dimadick (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The intention of the dual merge is also to keep the articles in the relevant century's category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge of years but Keep all decades and centuries (unless single article decades). Any millennia categories should be containers, but better deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don’t think this even needs to he brought up at CFD. For consolidating or upmerging small categories you can just be WP:BOLD and do it yourself.—-Prisencolin (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BOLD does not apply to renaming, merger or deletion of categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BOLD says "Consider the guidelines on categorization and overcategorization, and if what you're doing might be considered controversial. There's also the CFD Speedy renaming and merging option.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SMALLCAT nominations are not handled by the Speedy process, they are (apparently) not uncontroversial enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Removing the century categories, and removing these articles from the relevant century's category tree. Support the mergers to decades articles. --Just N. (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2021 (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.