< August 22 August 24 >

August 23

Members of the Guild of Saint Luke

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 all to "Painters from [city]". bibliomaniac15 04:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
old nomination
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Alkmaar Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Amsterdam Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Bruges Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Brussels Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Delft Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Dordrecht Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Dublin Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Emden Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Florence Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Genoa Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Ghent Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Groningen Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Haarlem Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Hamburg Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Leiden Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Mechelen Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Middelburg Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Paris Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Rome Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Rotterdam Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Schiedam Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Strasbourg Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of The Hague Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Tournai Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Utrecht Guild of Saint Luke
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Würzburg Guild of Saint Luke
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, the defining characteristic of these articles is that they are about early modern painters, not that they are about a a member of a guild. This category tree could rather be called "Early modern painters by city", but that would still not be a good basis for a category tree. On the side, apart from the Dutch and Belgian categories, it is a category tree full of SMALLCATs. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for many artists this is a defining aspect, discussed at length in the sources. The 401(!) members of Category:Members of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke group people like Jan Pieter van Baurscheit the Elder, where this is at the moment the only "Antwerp" category, or Jasper Geeraards, where this is the only "Antwerp" category, or Dutch artist Adriaen de Grijef, where this is the only "Antwerp" category, or ... Removing this huge cat from these articles doesn't improve the articles or Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 22:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content about privileges and political influence can be included in a topic article. This discussion is about the fact that membership of the guild is not defining for individual painters. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am okay with "in" as well, but it is a misunderstanding that *from* in almost all cases is reserved for birthplace. It is supposed to be used for where people lived during the larger part(s) of their life. If someone lived in a village X and was born in a hospital in a nearby-city Y they should not be categorized as being "from Y". Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For many painters we do not know where they did their painting, and many painted in different places. If we are going to change lets stick with from, as in most occupational categories. Rathfelder (talk) 22:09, 1 September 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.

Category:The Beatles and radio

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:Radio programmes about the Beatles. bibliomaniac15 17:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no defining connection between the contents, except that each has something to do with the Beatles and something to do with radio. E.g. Hear the Beatles Tell All is an interview album edited from a radio broadcast; "Lend Me Your Comb" is a song on an album of previously unreleased songs from radio broadcasts; Brian Matthew narrated a Beatles radio documentary series. Some pages are already in other Beatles categories; for others, the Beatles connection seems insufficient for categorisation. – Fayenatic London 20:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming to Category:Radio programs about the Beatles (with re-parenting and purging) seems a reasonable compromise. I agree the category is currently a bit of a hodgepodge. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:31, 23 August 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.

Category:Eredivisie (women) navigational boxes

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) 05:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category consists solely of Category:Eredivisie (women) football club squad templates, and they both are in Category:Dutch football squad navigational boxes and Category:Netherlands football club templates Dutchy45 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, what'd you all think of Golden Boot winner Vivianne Miedema at the Olympics (+ most goals in a single Olympic tournament)? Thank you for your contributions in inspiring the next wave. I see the Netherlands has submitted their bid to host the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup along with Germany and Belgium. Can't wait if it works out - it's a lovely place to visit. Hmlarson (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:25, 23 August 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.

Category:18th-century English philosophers

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. bibliomaniac15 17:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, most British philosophers who lived in England are already in a British philosophers century category. It does not seem useful to leave a random minority of English philosophers in an English subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to go ahead with that if you wish. Personally I am not planning to do it, because I interpret the current situation as (at least) a lack of consensus that English philosophers categories since the 18th century are really needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid this is a symptom of how many English people think about their nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:24, 23 August 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.

Category:Anti-vaccination activists who died of COVID-19

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) 05:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted for a combination of WP:NONDEFINING, WP:SMALLCAT, and WP:NARROWCAT, as well as the subjective difficulty Wikipedians have in distinguishing someone with anti-vaccine or vaccine-questioning views with anti-vaccination activism. This category currently includes only 2 articles, one of which is nominated for deletion. No other articles are suggested by PetScan. Browsing current world news finds more examples of non-notable people who arguably belong in this category but will likely never have an article due to their deaths being the only significant news coverage. I realize many Wikipedians as well as most journalists are influenced by recentism due to the coronavirus pandemic, trying to convert daily news gushes into encyclopedia articles, but it often results in clumsy or transient article and categorization structure. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that news coverage of these notable peoples' deaths includes their advocacy against vaccines right up front (so it's defining), and that the people are notable for their membership in this particular overlap between the groups, not just for membership in both groups (so it's not too narrow or unnecessarily cluttering the category list). -- ke4roh (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The value of this category is similar to the value that news editors see in writing articles about this specific topic whenever someone else unfortunately falls into the category. It will be noted in obituaries for each person that they campaigned against the vaccine, and it will be valuable to scrutinize each of those people's motivations to try to avert such problems in the future. That they and their anti-vax campaign are notable identifies these people as ones who might have enough of an information trail to perform primary research on it. We haven't solved Wikipedia:Category_intersection yet, although the intersection of primary categories can be automated if one knows where to look. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is there a POV in this? Both the death and activism must be documented by non-primary sources. The category is just identifying the intersection of two categories.-- ke4roh (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there are not any cross categorizations between people who died from diseases and... well, anything really. That is because correlation does not imply causation. While being an antivaxxer probably led to their death, it can't be conclusive. Perhaps someone else in their workplace who was also unvaccinated caused their death - it's impossible to know, and therefore reckless to cross-categorize like this. Would getting a vaccination have saved his life? 99.9% most likely, but it's not 100% since breakthrough infections do exist.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Satisfying innate curiosity" is not a good reason for categorization. That is a good way to accumulate trivia cruft. Maybe I'm curious about "actors who played their own parents" after reading a BuzzFeed article. Maybe you're curious about Americans who have streets named after them in France. Both of these concepts have verifiable people that could satisfy someone's niche curiosity. This doesn't mean either is a suitable category for an encyclopedia. Please review Wikipedia:Overcategorization. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Animalparty, I hadn't mentioned innateness. But thank you for the pointer to Wikipedia:Overcategorization. I confess that I haven't fully reviewed it, but I have skimmed it. Within it, the section on "Narrow intersection" seems particularly relevant. It tells us: "If an article is in 'category A' and 'category B', it does not follow that a 'category A and B' has to be created for this article." Well said. But note that this is about the lack of an obligation to do something, not about an obligation not to do it. It also says: "In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories." Category:Anti-vaccination activists has very roughly a hundred and fifty; Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be very large. The "similar intersections"? Covid-19 is unusual in certain ways so I think this requirement could be waived. (We have Category:Anti-smoking activists; I'm surprised not to see "Category:Smokers' rights activists" or similar: if it did exist, then somebody might want to find whether "Category:Smokers' rights activists who died of heart disease" would be populated.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:55, 30 August 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.

Category:DC Comics prisons

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This may have been relevant at some point, but with changes in Wikipedia policies it's now too small of a category to be necessary. (Dual merge with Category:Fictional prisons). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:34, 23 August 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.

Category:DC Comics countries

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This may have been relevant at some point, but with changes in Wikipedia policies it's now too small of a category to be necessary. (Dual merge with Category:Fictional countries. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:32, 23 August 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.

Category:Clydebank F.C. non-playing staff

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. – Fayenatic London 13:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per recent move of the other categories relating to the 1965-2002 club, with the unsuffixed version relating to the current (2003 onwards) club. Crowsus (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:51, 24 August 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.

Latter-day Saint belief and the Bible

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: not renamed. bibliomaniac15 17:30, 4 September 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 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Native Americans

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: not renamed. bibliomaniac15 17:30, 4 September 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.

Latter-day Saint cosmology

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: not renamed. bibliomaniac15 17:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then Oppose/wrong forum, this should be a move discussion, not a category move discussion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:27, 24 August 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.

Opposition to Islam

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. – Fayenatic London 13:19, 1 September 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.

Category:Shellworlds in fiction

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Much less narrow category name would allow for more content. There is probably enough material to start to fill a category in such a case (Rendezvous with Rama, Ringworld, etc.) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:57, 23 August 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.

Category:Underground countries in fiction

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT. There is no need for a more narrow version of the same category. Note that only the actual locations should be merged, while the others should be upmerged to Category:Subterranean fiction instead. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:48, 23 August 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.

Category:Television stations in the Rio Grande Valley

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:Television stations in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. In light of the RM that moved Rio Grande Valley to Lower Rio Grande Valley, as well as the main category moving per C2D, the main objection against renaming is rendered moot. bibliomaniac15 17:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:37, 23 August 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.

Category:The Beatles and television

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:Television programmes about the Beatles. Also, purge of entries running afoul of WP:PERFCAT. bibliomaniac15 19:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:The Beatles and television to Category:The Beatles television shows
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name is parallel to the sibling Girls Aloud television shows. The category contains mainly one-off programmes, so "series" is not appropriate. – Fayenatic London 07:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is, a lot of these shows aren't about the Beatles... Grutness...wha? 00:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:32, 23 August 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.

Category:Television shows filmed in Vancouver

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#Category:Television shows filmed in Vancouver

Category:Artist groups and collectives of the Northern Netherlands

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. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, "of the Northern Netherlands" is equivalent to "Dutch". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:29, 23 August 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.

Events by city

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 Maracaibo, Podgorica, San Salvador, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Sucre, Tegucigalpa, Tianjin, Treviso, Zakopane as WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. they may be re-created if there is more content in future. Keep the rest. Note: as stated in the nomination, the content of the deleted categories is already within "Sport in <city>". – Fayenatic London 05:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, in these cities it is a redundant category layer with only one subcategory. For a few cities above that do not have a history category there is no other merge target specified, but in any case the subcategory is still preserved in a Sports in City category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what I can to them - quite a few are now savable, though there are several which still have just one subcategory and nothing else:
Keep:
Ghent - one subcat, five articles.
Jakarta - one subcat, 12 articles.
Łódź - one subcat, four articles.
Skopje - two subcats, no articles.
Tirana - two subcats, three articles.
Turin - three subcats, six articles.
Valencia - three subcats, two articles.
Weak keep:
Guayaquil - one subcat, one article.
Klagenfurt - one subcat, two articles.
La Paz - one subcat, one articles.
Port-au-Prince - one subcat, three articles.
San José, Costa Rica - one subcat, one article.
Santo Domingo - one subcat, three articles.
Tunis - one subcat, two articles.
Delete:
Maracaibo - one subcat, no articles.
Podgorica - one subcat, no articles.
San Salvador - one subcat, no articles.
Santa Cruz de la Sierra - one subcat, no articles.
Sucre - one subcat, no articles.
Tegucigalpa - one subcat, no articles.
Tianjin - one subcat, no articles.
Treviso - one subcat, no articles.
Zakopane - one subcat, no articles.
Grutness...wha? 02:10, 25 August 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.
More