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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Parliament of Finland (2023–27) to Category:Members of the Parliament of Finland (2023–2027)
• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Parliament of Finland (2019–23) to Category:Members of the Parliament of Finland (2019–2023)
• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Parliament of Finland (2015–19) to Category:Members of the Parliament of Finland (2015–2019)
• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Parliament of Finland (2011–15) to Category:Members of the Parliament of Finland (2011–2015)

Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:DATERANGE and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_29#Category:MEPs_1952–58. The corresponding lists have the expanded format as well. Closhund/talk/ 23:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood. Thanks. Closhund/talk/ 03:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Any reason why the rest of the term categories in the Category:Members of the Parliament of Finland are not included? Respublik (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oversight. I found the categories from Category:Members_of_the_Parliament_of_Finland_(2023–27) which only has the ones I listed in the navseasoncats template. I didn't think to look at the containing category for more. I can amend this CfD or list them at speedy? Whatever is easiest. Closhund/talk/ 14:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either of these two options will do. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now included them Closhund/talk/ 18:00, 6 August 2023 (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: merge and delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:9th-century churches in Russia to Category:9th-century churches and Category:Medieval Eastern Orthodox church buildings in Russia
• Propose deleting Category:9th-century architecture in Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:9th century in Kievan Rus' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:9th century in Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:9th century in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. 1 P, 0 C. Also WP:OR; there was no "Russia" yet in the 9th century, and this Tkhaba-Yerdy Church stands in a place that wouldn't become part of "Russia" until the 19th century, and it is also far outside the 9th-century territory of Kievan Rus'. I guess we could still group it as Category:Medieval Eastern Orthodox church buildings in Russia. "9th-century architecture in Russia" can then be Deleted as an empty cat.

"9th century in Kievan Rus'" is also a Smallcat with just 1 item, Siege of Constantinople (860), and that just doesn't belong in either the category trees of Kievan Rus', Russia, or Ukraine, because these three states didn't exist yet (as far as we know, Kievan Rus' was only founded around 880), and this event didn't even happen there, but in, well, Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire. One could argue for upmerging to Category:History of Kievan Rus' if we presume Kievan Rus' to have been founded several decades earlier, but we don't need to, because it is already in its sub-sub-sub-category Category:Rus'–Byzantine wars. Soo... just Delete.

The result is that "9th century in Russia" becomes empty and can be Deleted, while "9th century in Ukraine" retains only 1 item, Great Moravia, which could be upmerged to Category:Medieval Ukraine, but is already there, so this cat can be Deleted as well. That should clean up a lot. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete as anachronistic. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete as anachronistic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:9th-century establishments in Russia to Category:9th-century establishments in Europe

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. 1 P, 0 C. Also WP:OR; there was no "Russia" yet in the 9th century. Ironically, the only item in this cat, Kievan Rus', is one of the alleged "predecessor states" of modern Russia. Vladimir-Suzdal emerged out of Kievan Rus' in the mid-12th century, Muscovy emerged out of Vladimir-Suzdal in the late 13th century, and the Tsardom of Russia emerged out of Muscovy in the mid-15th century. If anything, what would later be known as "Russia" was established "in Kievan Rus'", not the other way around. We could theoretically also merge to Category:9th century in Kievan Rus', but it wouldn't really make sense and still be a Smallcat, so let's just Upmerge to Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, as anachronistic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as anachronistic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:8th-century establishments in Russia to Category:8th-century establishments in Europe

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. 1 P, 0 C. Also WP:OR; there was no "Russia" yet in the 8th century. At the earliest, there might perhaps have been a "Rus' Khaganate" in 839, but there is great controversy and uncertainty over whether this ever existed, and if so, where it was located, with Staraya Ladoga (the only item in this cat) just being one of many possible locations. But the latter predated the former by almost a century, if the former existed at all. Let's just Upmerge to Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, as anachronistic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Canadian stage actor stubs to Category:Canadian actor stubs

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category of unclear utility. As always, stub categories require 60 articles before they may be created, but this only features 30 -- and although it might be possible to repopulate it by going through the parent to search for stragglers, it's not at all clear that doing so would actually be a valuable use of anybody's time.
Especially in modern times, actors rarely if ever only do stage work, but quite commonly do stage and film and television acting, so using the stub system like this would require most actors to be double-tagged for Canada-stage-actor and Canada-screen-actor at the same time as each other.
The larger issue of whether the stub category tree really needs to curate any category segregation between Category:Stage actor stubs and Category:Screen actor stubs at all is probably worth discussing at another time, but I'm not proposing it for discussion here and now -- but at the very minimum, this subcategory isn't needed for only half the minimum required number of entries. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Canadian theatre (structure) stubs to Category:Theatre (structure) stubs and Category:Canada theatre stubs

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category without evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories have a minimum bar of 60 articles before they may be created, and thus require approval from the WikiProject before their creation is permitted -- but this features just 27 articles, and there's no evidence that its creation was authorized at all. The template is fine, but should just sort its entries into the parent categories rather than having its own dedicated category. (Upmerging to Category:Canadian building and structure stubs not needed, as everything here is already in an appropriate provincial subcategory of that.) Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I created this category but its absorption into a higher category seems perfectly reasonable. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 16:44, 31 July 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Traditions by ethnic group to Category:Traditions by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other similar categories Solidest (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WP:C2C, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2023 (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: merge and purge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indo-European fairy tales to Category:European fairy tales

Nominator's rationale: merge (but purge Category:Iranian fairy tales first), trivial intersection between fairy tales and language family. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (but purge Category:Iranian fairy tales first) - it's not exactly "trivial" but another brick in Krakkos's highly dubious scheme to unite everything to do with countries where Indo-European languages are spoken. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (but purge Category:Iranian fairy tales first) per nom and Johnbod. Indeed, we've got a lot of cleaning up to do after Krakkos' 2018 language-family WP:CROSSCAT creation spree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indo-European legends to Category:Legends

Nominator's rationale: manually merge, trivial intersection between legends and language family. Subcategories which are already in Category:Legends by country do not have to be included in the merge process. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and precedents. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Potentially a useful category, but it is filled with examples of legends from specific countries which presumably speak Indo-European languages today, without clearly drawing a connection to a "Indo-European" rather than more recent history. If it were a list of Proto-Indo-European language legends or something, that might be useful, but then that would be Category:Proto-Indo-European legends or Category:Proto-Indo-European mythology or some such. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2023 (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: merge to Category:Works about Charles Maurras. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Books about Charles Maurras to Category:Charles Maurras

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - we categorise by defining characteristics and Charles Maurras, l'Action française et la question sociale has 2 pre-eminent such characteristics: the author and the subject. (It is very odd that WP:SMALLCAT does not mention the word 'defining'.) Oculi (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oculi: I guess there is very low potential for growing. Hence: obvious delete Estopedist1 (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not at all obvious. WP:CATDEF: "The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place." So Charles Maurras, l'Action française et la question sociale, a book by Bertrand Renouvin about Charles Maurras, has to be categorised under 'books by Bertrand Renouvin' and 'Books about Charles Maurras'. You can't write even a sentence about a book without mentioning the author or the subject, which in this case is even in the title of the book. (This argument does not apply to 'Swiss emigrants to Bolivia' (which is an intersection of 2 categories or maybe 3: "Swiss people" (defining, nationality), "emigrants" (not necessarily defining), "immigrants to Bolivia" (ditto) or 'People educated at Boo School', which is not defining in general. Eg this obit does not mention his school (which happens to be the one I attended).) Oculi (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the rationale of the nomination isn't WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @ Oculi what about Category:Works about Charles Maurras?4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Category:Works about Charles Maurras would be fine. (There are now 3 books.) I'm not keen on Category:Charles Maurras being populated by books (much as people should not be placed at the top level of topic categories). Oculi (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sofia Carson to Category:Works by Sofia Carson

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON we should be using the "Works by..." category tree --woodensuperman 08:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and re-parent per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minimal content already satisfactorily placed in appropriate subcategories which interlink to one another. Discography page can downmerge to the songs subcat. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The six album covers should be diffused to a new subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:31, 30 July 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Saweetie to Category:Works by Saweetie

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON we should be using the "Works by..." category tree --woodensuperman 08:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and re-parent per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Enough linkage between existing subcategories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:31, 30 July 2023 (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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Phoebe Bridgers to Category:Works by Phoebe Bridgers

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON we should be using the "Works by..." category tree. --woodensuperman 08:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - these are not necessarily works. Concert tours are not works. Oculi (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The concert tours probably do not count as works. We can solve that by interlinking tours and works in a "see also" note on both pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 30 July 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ingrid Andress to Category:Works by Ingrid Andress

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEPON we should be using the "Works by..." category tree. --woodensuperman 08:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and re-parent per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Enough interlinking through the existing subcategories to not warrant any type of parent. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 30 July 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Video games related to anime and manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems to have been created with some confusion about what the categorization guidelines are, as it fails WP:NONDEF. Games that have anime characters or cutscenes, i.e. that are simply influenced by the anime art style, are not major enough to categorize compared to ones that have been directly based on a specific show or manga. The creator has also been indef blocked for disruption. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Category:Video games based on anime and manga suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per Marcocapelle - jc37 00:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; scope is too vague and a category with a more specific scope already exists. Link20XX (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:College of Brown University Alumni to Category:College of Brown University alumni

Nominator's rationale: "Alumni" should be lowercased per our normal style rules. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Query- is this the same as Category:Brown University alumni? Oculi (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oculi, nope, it's for the undergraduate college of the university. It's very underpopulated, but a few similar categories exist for e.g. Category:Harvard College alumni under Harvard University alumni, so it seems a reasonable creation. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WP:C2B, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, thanks for the pointer, @Marcocapelle; I'll use that next time. The Twinkle XfD dialogue defaulted to here rather than CFD/S; if editors coming here for issues that could be speedied is a common issue, then you should request an improvement to the interface (e.g. an instruction line at the CfD renaming Twinkle dialogue saying "Please also consider speedy renaming options") at WT:Twinkle. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Twinkle does give the speedy option as non-default, but it does not give any kind of warning. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2023 (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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sports strategy and tactics to Category:Sports systems

Nominator's rationale: Rename to broaden scope; move Role-playing game systems and Tournament systems into it from the parent; also add Chess notation, Chess rating systems and Go ranks and ratings which are rightly within other siblings. – Fayenatic London 16:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, generally calling "strategy" and "tactics" systems is a matter of WP:OR. Of course, within tactics (and perhaps within strategy) you can have systems, but that is a different issue. It would call for a subCategory:Tactical systems in sport. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:02, 30 July 2023 (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 to Category:Witnesses to the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Witnesses in the Nuremberg Trials to Category:Witnesses to the International Military Tribunal

Nominator's rationale: Per main article List of witnesses to the International Military Tribunal. Also, the contents of this category are exclusively witnesses to the IMT, not the other Nuremberg trials. (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the IMT category not be created as a subcat of this one? After all, as you noted in the list article, that logic doesn't apply to Loesener (who witnessed at Nuremberg but at the Ministers' trial, not the IMT), and there are lots more known witnesses to the other trials (see the list in German wiki) who would belong in 'Nuremberg Trials' but not 'IMT'. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  UndercoverClassicist while it would be possible to create an umbrella category, I'm not sure it would comply with categorization rules as it's less likely that being a witness at one of the subsequent Nuremberg trials would be a defining characteristic. In the meantime, there definitely should be a category for IMT witnesses. I'm not sure what German article you are referring to; the de:Liste der Zeugen im Nürnberger Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher exclusively lists IMT witnesses. (t · c) buidhe 17:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Appreciate the correction on the German list; you are quite right there. However, they then have de:Kategorie:Zeuge in den Nürnberger Prozessen, which is resolutely plural: are all the witnesses there IMT witnesses? It may be that the IMT has so completely eclipsed the other Nuremberg trials in the scholarly record that participation in those trials would not be a major reason for notability - as very much a non-expert, that sounds surprising to me, but I'll defer to people more experienced in the subject if they disagree. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The RS coverage of the IMT is at least as much as the twelve subsequent Nuremberg trials combined. You're correct that the German category combines the IMT and NMT witnesses but if you check the bios from the dewiki category it does not seem that the NMT witnesses are a defining characteristic as we would consider it on enwiki (they are notable for something else, no lead mention, just a passing mention in the article, etc.) (t · c) buidhe 23:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe: category members Ludwig Grauert, Albert Hoffmann (Nazi) and Bernhard Lösener are not on List of witnesses to the International Military Tribunal; their articles refer more generally to the Nuremberg Trials. Given this, do you want to create a sub-cat instead? – Fayenatic London 10:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of these three, Hoffmann testified at the IMT and for the other two it does not seem that their testimony was a defining characteristic, reinforcing my hypothesis that testifying as a witness at the subsequent trials was non-defining and thus unsuitable for categorization. (t · c) buidhe 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe: this is not being processed, so you'd better take it to full CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(discussion moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy) (t · c) buidhe 14:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, normally I would have said, just create a subcategory, but in this case that would only leave two articles in the (parent) category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I added links to the marginal cases at List_of_witnesses_to_the_International_Military_Tribunal#See_also, so navigation will still be available if they are removed from the renamed category. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename per WP:C2D as nominated. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Witnesses to the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg to match sibling subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on alt rename proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt rename to Category:Witnesses to the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg per LaundryPizza and to avoid confusion with Category:International Military Tribunal for the Far East (in Tokyo). Otherwise Keep to keep it simple. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to the alt rename. (t · c) buidhe 17:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alt rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:00, 30 July 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bandy World Championship-winning countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: unique category tree. Redundant in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh... Not a big fan of this category, but we do have the equivalent for other competitions such as Category:FIFA World Cup-winning countries. Pichpich (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:SMALLCAT and potentially WP:NOTDEFINING. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2023 (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: merge and delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of aviation safety to Category:Aviation safety
• Propose deleting Category:Safety history (added 31 July)

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added a parent, as it would be emptied by the nomination. – Fayenatic London 07:15, 31 July 2023 (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 to Category:Adolf Hitler's rise to power. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Early Nazism (–1933) to Category:Early Nazism (until 1933)

Nominator's rationale: More natural. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Adolf Hitler's rise to power per Adolf Hitler's rise to power, and make that the main article instead of Early timeline of Nazism. The latter, Early timeline of Nazism, is largely a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Adolf Hitler's rise to power plus a whole lot of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH with arguable "19th-century influences" going back to 1841, and one could argue for even earlier "background" stuff. All of that is WP:ARBITRARYCAT. On the other hand, Adolf Hitler's rise to power gives us a pretty concrete historical scope from 1919 to 1934 to work with. I think we should follow that rather than some self-invented made-up periodisation of "early" Nazism stretching all the way back to 1841. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename to Category:Adolf Hitler's rise to power per Nederlandse Leeuw. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lords of Wavrans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Lords of Wavre-Notre-Dame

Nominator's rationale: delete, a single article put in multiple Lords categories, this does not aid navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2023 (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. Uncontested nomination. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lords of Sint-Aldegonde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic for the one article in the category, the info box mentions he became lord in 1558 but the body text does not even bother to mention it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose manually merging Category:20th century in Czechoslovakia to Category:History of Czechoslovakia
• Propose manually merging Category:20th-century disestablishments in Czechoslovakia to Category:Disestablishments in Czechoslovakia
• Propose manually merging Category:20th-century Czechoslovak television series endings to Category:Czechoslovak television series endings
• Propose manually merging Category:20th-century elections in Czechoslovakia to Category:Elections in Czechoslovakia
• Propose manually merging Category:20th-century establishments in Czechoslovakia to Category:Establishments in Czechoslovakia
• Propose manually merging Category:20th-century Czechoslovak television series debuts to Category:Czechoslovak television series debuts
• Propose manually merging Category:20th century in Czechoslovak television to Category:Television in Czechoslovakia
• Propose manually merging Category:20th-century Czechoslovak television series to Category:Czechoslovak television series

Nominator's rationale: manually merge and re-parent targets as duplicates, since Czechoslovakia was wholly in the 20th century. The merge should be done manually because quite some content is already deeper in the tree of every target. But, the 20th-century parent categories should be added to the targets, so that the Czechoslovak categories still remain part of the tree of the 20th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Manual merge all per nom. Yet another example of "by century" categorisation run amok. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2023 (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: merge. Uncontested and uncontroversial nomination. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Coaching associations based in Australia to Category:Coaching associations and Category:Professional associations based in Australia

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2023 (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. Uncontested and uncontroversial nomination. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Suwa Taisha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, only two articles and they are already in the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2023 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sources of Indo-European religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, follow-up on this discussion which is still open. Zoroastrism and Germanic paganism have virtually nothing in common apart from being a religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have closed the prior discussion as delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:32, 8 August 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Stand-up comedy controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Obscenity controversies in stand-up comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Race-related controversies in stand-up comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Religious controversies in stand-up comedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Please see WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:CATDEFINING. These categories do not contain any stand-alone articles about instances of controversy. Most of the included pages are biographies of comedians deemed controversial; the only non-biographies are Jay Hind!, The Closer (2021 film) and Seven dirty words. gnu57 01:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Missed one. gnu57 10:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I might add WP:OPINIONCAT; after all, what counts as "controversial" is always someone's opinion. A good example of this is Shabana Rehman Gaarder, who published a fiction book about a Pakistani girl and a Norwegian boy having a sexual relationship, which some journalists deemed "controversial". At the 21 August 2005 book presentation, she made her own thoughts known:

Moreover, she thought it was utter nonsense that a relationship between a Norwegian boy and a Pakistani girl would still be "controversial" in 2005 after Pakistanis and Norwegians had been living together in the same country for over 30 years and there had been numerous cross-cultural romantic relationships.[11]:13:19 To reinforce her point, she kissed the then female Culture Minister present, Valgerd Svarstad Haugland, on the mouth (Haugland (Christian People's Party) had been campaigning for gay rights for years);[12] then she showed her bare bottom in front of the entire audience and then said, "Now that's controversial!"[9] She added, "I want to show that in Norway you can do such things without being lynched or arrested."[3]

So, according to stand-up comedian/author Shabana herself, her act of mooning the crowd was "controversial" (and would have fitted in Category:Obscenity controversies in stand-up comedy), but she didn't think there was anything "controversial" (whether "obscene / race-related / religious") about a Pakistani girl and a Norwegian boy having sex in her book, although some critics did. Whether it was "controversial" for her to publicly kiss the Culture Minister on the mouth (Shabana and Valgerd both being women) is yet another matter of opinion. It might have been controversial back in 2005, in Norway, according to some people in the audience, but not necessarily other people, elsewhere, at other times. Moreover, times change. How do we account for that in categorisation? I don't think we can. Therefore, we should delete all these categories per WP:NPOV. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think WP:OPINIONCAT is mainly about categorizing biographies by a certain opinion, i.e. advocates of opinion X, opponents of opinion Y. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2023 (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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Temples in Anga Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Villages in Anga Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added 23 July

Nominator's rationale: "Anga Region" is not a region of India. The category page describes the page as a list and links to Anga, which was an ancient Indo-Aryan tribe of eastern India whose existence is attested during the Iron Age. No mention of "Anga Region" or "Anga" in the articles. The temples do not have any connection to the Iron Age tribe. —Alalch E. 11:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Perhaps it refers to the region where Angika is spoken. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added the villages category to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The villages category was inappropriately and improperly de-tagged by its creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bad precedent. We cannot create such categories based on ancient regions. Orientls (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The creator of the category continues to remove the CfD tag from the villages category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-per nom.—Mikeanand (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:22nd-century solar eclipses to Category:22nd-century natural events

Nominator's rationale: No longer contains anything except List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. This article is already in the other parents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Funny that this is one of those things which are exempt from WP:CRYSTAL; we can scientifically predict that they will happen with great precision. I love it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Still doesn't seem like a good reason to have a list article for them 100 years before they happen.... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Maybe in 2123 there will be enough dedicated articles for this, but there won't be any time in the next 70 years. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2023 (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.