Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22[edit]

Province of Venice[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge "communes"; there is no consensus to merge "people" to "people from Venice", so rename it along with the others. – Fayenatic London 12:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per new name and new status of the former province. This is supposed to be entirely uncontroversial. The previous nomination was closed as no consensus due to a side discussion about a new/other category, but that shouldn't have prevented the renaming of this category, imho. In addition, the previous nomination did not contain the subcategories, while they are included this time. @Le Deluge, Oculi, and Nyttend: pinging the contributors to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I closed the previous discussion as "no consensus" because after 50 days, there were only 3 responses, and they advocated different outcomes. Some overlap, but no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport except merge people -> Category:People from Venice - as I said before, I thought this one was a near-speedy. But I think it's WP:OVERCATting to try to distinguish people from the metropolitan city and the historical concept of "Venice", whose boundaries have waxed and waned with time. I'm guessing that at present there's few Venetian 3-year olds with Wikipedia articles. And to take the worst case, if one twin is born at 23.59 on 14 June 2015 and the other at 00.01 on 15 June 2015 then one is from the Province and one is from the Metropolitan City. One person may see their birthplace pass through many bureaucratic names, but Venice is Eternal... It makes perfect sense to have comunes and frazioni of MCV as they are organisational things of the same nature as the Metropolitan City - and while I wouldn't argue if buildings and rivers moved to "Venice" they are at least fixed geographically in the MCV. But I think this is one of a number of "people" categories which are depend too heavily on technical bureaucratic boundaries (which birthplace references seldom respect). I'd see Category:People from Venice as analogous to Category:People from London - technically the latter should only refer to the square mile of the City of London which has a population of <10k and is technically not even part of Greater London, which is what most people think of as "London" in WP:COMMONNAME terms. Le Deluge (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a too literal read of Metropolitan City. While it is now named like that, it is really not different from the province that it used to be. Chioggia for example was part of the province, is now part of the Metropolitan City, but still is a very different town on its own. Comparing with London is not fair, because the Metropolitan City of Venice is a largely rural area with scattered (separated) towns and villages. Greater London has a population density of 5500 inhabitants/km2, while the Metropolitan City of Venice only has 300. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2018 (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:People from Holubivka[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 00:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is reverting an undiscussed move made in 2017. There was recently a move discussion for the article on Kirovsk, Luhansk Oblast, where there was no consensus for a move to Holubivka - see Talk:Kirovsk, Luhansk Oblast. It is extremely unhelpful to have a category referring to people from Kirovsk placed under a completely different name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, under normal circumstances this would have been an uncontroversial case of WP:C2D but under the current political circumstances in this area a full discussion is necessary indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the name is not in use, and the category should not have been created to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2018 (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.

Establishments in Austria in prior to 1919[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus for merges to Austria-Hungary. There are two grounds for opposition here. (i) The nominator has made yet another partial nomination, omitting various parents and siblings, even though some support at the previous CFD was conditional on the nominator following up with a full nomination. (ii) There is no current consensus on whether "anachronistic" categories should be used, as part of the category hierarchy of a present-day entity; an RFC on the general principle at Category talk:Years by country was inconclusive. Nevertheless, I find sufficient approval here to redirect the first five nominated categories to "Austrian Empire", as a tidy-up to the previous nomination which emptied them of their former contents. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More merges
*Propose merging Category:1910s establishments in Austria to Category:1910s establishments in Austria-Hungary. Afterwards, it can be re-created to contain 1919 alone. Personally I think that it would be excessive to have a category for an entity that can only ever have a single entry.

Nominator's rationale: We don't need any individual year categories for Austria until 1919. Medieval, 16th-century and 17th-century year categories don't exist. The 18th-century categories should be renamed to Habsburg Monarchy and 18th-century establishment categories should be merged to a single century category. Only centuries should remain as a continuous series and the years will not exist. This nomination follows the success of this nomination of Feb 24th. The next job is to nominate all establishment categories pre Austrian Empire. Also prompted by @Fayenatic london: Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. The principle is fine, but if the nominator believes the principle set out, then why omit Category:1752 establishments in Austria etc? Why omit years in Austria, decades in Austria, disestablishments, etc?
These random-slice nominations are disruptive and timewasting. They create bizarre holes in the category tree which confuse readers, and they create multiple discussions of the same issue, which wastes the time of editors and disrupts consensus-formation (see WP:MULTI).
If you want to do this sort of huge merge, then do it properly like @Marcocapelle has done it many times: take the time to complete the set and present it in one go. That way readers do not find holes in category trees, and editors do not face multiple discussions on the same issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The above is mainly about "WhatAboutism?". Other stuff exists. That's no reason not to treat the nomination on its own merits. As was made clear at the previos nom cited, it was a test. That did not prevent that nom succeeding. At the invitation of the closing admin, also cited above, I expanded the work to those estblishments post the Austrian Empire and pre the Austrian Republic (i.e. the Austro-Hungarian Empire period). If this nom is successful, I will then complete the establishment's tree structure by dealing with the pre Austrian Empire period (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire / Habsburg Monarchy). I did not do it all in one swoop because there is rather a lot of work involved. It is a pity that BHG chooses to use her considerable talents in this area to disparage well-intentioned work instead of lifting the burden by making nominations for the establishments along the lines promised in the previous nom. I see no positive arguments from BHG above that point to a catastrophic failure of the tree structure if this proposal proceeds as nominated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: the en.wp category system is based on definingness and consistency. It seeks consistent naming and consistent structure. So "WhatAboutism", as you call it, is not some sort of bad thing to be sneered at. On the contrary, it is the one of the absolute cores of en.wp categorisation.
I appreciate that there is a lot of work, though it is not huge; with a decent text editor, the whole set would take about 20 or 30 minutes. All I am asking is that you bring your proposal to CfD when you have finished the preparatory work, rather than bringing these incomplete nominations. (And, no it is not my responsibility to do the work for you)
You say that you have already done the "test". I disapprove of test nominations in such cases, but since you say the test succeeded, why another "test"?
You have not identified any issue of principle which distinguishes this set from the wider group, e.g.
Doing it piecemeal like this has 2 bad effects, as I set out last time:
  1. it leaves readers who visit the remaining categories with no path to the merged cats: e.g. if your proposal here was implemented, a reader visiting Category:1870s in Austria would have no signpost to the establishments in that period. This is disruptive to readers, and it is wholly unnecessary.
  2. By having separate discussions on exactly the same principle on the same country, you not only waste editors time by asking them to participate in multiple discussions asking exactly the same question; you risk different outcomes on each occasion, making the where's-the-establishments problem permanent.
All I am asking is that you wait until you are ready to present the whole package. There is no deadline, so there is no rush to present incomplete chunks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the procedural issues, there is also a substantive problem. The Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary did not cease to exist in 1867. They were constituent states in a union, quite comparable to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for all of which we allow to have their own category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don't think that there's a substantive problem at all. The tree structure for the Kingdom of Hungary has only a partial overlap with the eastern entity that resulted from the division of the Austrian Empire in 1867. That eastern entity, the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, was "Pursuant to Article 1 of the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement of 1868, this territory was officially defined as "a state union of Kingdom of Hungary and Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia". The Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen disintegrated with the dissolution of Austria-Hungary. Similarly, the western entity, Cisleithania was more than the modern state of Austria. So it would be incorrect of a modern Austrian tree to appropriate to itself things that were never part of that state but which lie in other states today. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there is still the old problem that some of these establishments have nothing to do with politics so that the polity at the time of establishment is not defining for these articles. In fact, I checked a couple of them now, and it seems that in more modern times there are many more non-political establishment than in the ancient or medieval past. Meanwhile I wish we never started subcategorising establishments by year and territory, wouldn't subcategorising them by year and type of establishment have been sufficient? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I'm inclined to agree with the last point. But we are where we are. For this particular tree in this particular time period and geography, I believe that the proposals above are a more accurate reflection of the realities than the current state of things. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply fair enough. I'll strike the 1910s nom.Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am not convinced that this is a good idea. What is being proposed appears to be half-baked. It is a step in a direction. Once made, there will be calls for another step in that direction. It would surely be better to work out a scheme, and then propose it at one go. Doing it in lots of little steps creates a mess. By the way, I am not convinced that annual categories are necessarily a good idea. I am not convinced by the geographical arguments either. Surely the best thing to do is to go away and come back with a coherent scheme of categories.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Who's going to be crazy enough to nominate all affected trees in all affected countries over all establishments/disestablishments? A complete nightmare. This piecemeal solution is as good as it gets. It fixes a problem that nobody else has put their hand up to fix. Everybody would like a full and final solution but nobody is willing to put in the work to do it. I've done a lot of the heavy lifting. You can either have a partial fix or remain content with a broken / inaccurate categorisation. The choice is before you. Choose wisely. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LL, there is no need for a partial fix. In similar cases, Marcocapelle has made dozens of complete nominations over the last 6 months, each of which has presented as a single package all the steps towards the destination they identify. You chose not to present a single package, which is why this half-baked nom has 2 opposes and no supports.
Take your time, and come back with a full loaf whenever you are ready. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine that the question may rise how complete a nomination must be. In my case, usually I did not nominate multiple countries together (and if I did, it failed) so a complete nomination did not need to contain all countries. However, a complete nomination should at least have, what I would call, internal consistency. The examples that User:BrownHairedGirl mentioned earlier, about Category:1752 establishments in Austria and Category:1873 in Austria, were examples of a lack of internal consistency of this proposal indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I question where categories by year are warranted when they are not particularly full. If we take Category:1873 in Austria, this contains two articles 1873 Vienna World's Fair and Vienna 1873 chess tournament and a subcategory Category:1873 establishments in Austria - the latter has one article Café Landtmann.
The matching Category:18** in Austria and Category:18** establishments in Austria structure is good. But would it not be better to do it by decade than by year?
Bearing in mind the actual content of these categories, the geographical argument to move from in Austria to in Austria-Hungary looks doubtful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddy1: a category such as "1873 in Austria" is an intersection of a unit of time with a unit of geography. We can vary the size of either unit if categories are getting too big or too small, but to avoid confusion it is best to take one type of unit at a time.
In this case, @Laurel Lodged's proposal is to use a bigger geographical unit. LL's reason is not the size of the categories, but to remedy a perceived anachronism. However, one of the effects of this will be to make the categories larger, because in each case 2 existing categories will be merged.
@Marcocapelle has made several mass nominations which have tackled the small category issue by using bigger slices of time, by merging years to decades or centuries for geographical units where years produce too many smallcats. That approach has its merits too, but it is different to what is being proposed here, and I don't think it helps to conflate them.
So I suggest that your reasonable point about category size should be left aside for now, because it is not what we need to decide here.
I see two questions to be asked of this nomination:
  1. is LL right to say that there is an anachronism which should be resolved as proposed?
  2. if so, does this proposal address that problem consistently and coherently?
Personally, I am undecided about the anachronism issue. In general, I don't share the view that anachronism is wrong, because there are many good historical reasons to ask "what was happening in YYYY in the area which is now FooCountry", and that question is no less valid if the geographical divisions used in YYYY were different to those used now. Yes, there is the difficulty that the meaning of the geographical label may have changed, but that applies to many (maybe even most) countries. "1800 in Denmark" doesn't cover the same area as "1900 in Denmark"; same with "1800 in the United States"/"1900 in the United States", in Mexico, etc. I haven't made up my mind on Austria vs Austria-Hungary; I can see a case both ways.
So my main concern with this proposal is whether the logic is being applied with what Marcocapelle helpfully called "internal consistency": does this nomination apply a coherent solution to the perceived problem, or does it leave us with a messy hybrid of old logic and new logic?
In this case even the nominator agrees that the proposed solution is incomplete, and leaves an incoherent aftermath ... which is why I say "come back when you have a coherent solution". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to oppose The dual state of the Austro-Hungarian Empire consisted of an agglomeration of polities, including Bohemia, Austria and Hungary. It is fine to have a parent Austro-Hungarian Empire parent for these, but we should not throw out categories related to individual provinces. I am not sure Denmark is a good analogy: there has continuously been a country of that name, but its extent had waned and waxed at different periods. Holstein as a possession of the Danish crown might be included, but not after it was taken over by GErmany from 1860s to c.1920. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Peterkingiron: Austria was not really a province of the Empire. Austria is the modern state. It includes things that were in the Archduchy of Austria (the nearest thing to an Austrian "province" in the Empire). It includes things that were not in the Archduchy (e.g. Vorarlberg). It excludes things that were in the Archduchy. Today, the Archduchy is part of Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Slovenia. It's more accurate to view Austria as one of the many successor states of the Empire. Why should one of many such states get dual-ownership of the two trees (its own and the Empire's)? Couldn't Slovenia claim similar rights? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - same as the case of Turkey/Ottoman Empire categories issue already concluded in 2013, as well as other anachronistic cases.GreyShark (dibra) 09:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The problem is that Austria was most often used synonymously with The Austrian Empire. After 1867 it was at times used to refer to all of the Empire clearly not in Hungary. This just leads to sub-categorization too much by modern instead of contemporary location.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2018 (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:Otello Corporation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category was incorrectly moved without consensus, these (Opera and Otello) are two distinct companies. See User talk:Fayenatic london#CFD results: Opera Software, User talk:Onel5969#Otello Corporation Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment. The category was moved to its current title per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 18#Category:Opera_Software. That discussion was open for 17 days, and no responses were posted. Since silence=assent, the closer @Fayenatic london closed it correctly. Maybe it was a substantively incorrect move, but the procedures were all fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fayenatic themself later request for a reversal of similar changes on the main page for the category Otello Corporation (the talk above) which were approved. I am not questioning procedure but maybe a bit more due diligence was required in this case. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I took the liberty to merge the two discussions (about each of the two nominated categories) to one discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, see also this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just closed that discussion in favor of this. There wasn't much participation there either — Legacypac said to just write the article, and AngusWOOF said it should be discussed on the article talkpage — but as this has CfD history and this discussion was created first, I think this locale should be given deference. We've still seen near-utter silence from nearly everyone, which as BHG reminds us, at some point means something. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Amorymeltzer: Then shouldn't this have been decided first before taking action there? Also, if this goes through should the same be enacted for the redirect? Gotitbro (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm implying that the result of this would likely dictate whether there should be a redirect or an article as you propose. If, for example, this was closed in agreement with your proposal for the reasons you propose, then I'd think it reasonable to write the article. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see. That redirect discussion was more important IMO but looks like proposal dates are favored in deletion discussions (per your closure). If this proposal is accepted should the redirect be listed for Rfd again or should the closer here reinstate the article in the redirect? Gotitbro (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Getting off topic/meta, but I think the redirect discussion is pointless if the category rename is decided in the opposite way. RfD doesn't stop you from turning a redirect into a valid article. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Koavf:@Fayenatic london:@Francis Schonken: [previous participants] Please provide your comments as well, thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping but I have no perspective to add. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, and do not keep Otello as a redirect; but this should be without prejudice to re-creating categories for Otello if there is sufficient content. There should be two separate articles for the two companies, see Talk:Opera Software and Talk:Otello Corporation. – Fayenatic London 07:19, 9 May 2018 (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:Scottish people of Norman descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 07:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. On the category talk page the creator of the category explains that this category is different from Category:Scoto-Normans because (in my own words) this category is meant for all Scottish people with Norman or Scoto-Norman ancestors. But people aren't defined by their ancestors of many centuries back. There is only one article in the category, and it does not even mention Norman descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there are many articles in 2 large subcats so the rationale fails. Oculi (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom states that there is only one article in the category, which is manifestly false. I expect all the Fitzroys are of Norman descent. Oculi (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the problem now. There is only one article on its own, but again numbers do not matter here. Also the issue is not whether the Fitzroys are of Norman descent, the issue is just that descent from a medieval people is an utterly minor characteristic, illustrated by the fact that it does not even occur in these articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should be restricted to a container category for the various clans. Oculi (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - in general terms you're right, Macrocapelle, that "descent from a medieval people is an utterly minor characteristic", however it becomes important when talking of royal or noble houses, which one of the subcategories is, and the other contains articles relating to. In the case of House of Stuart, the Norman links are mentioned in the second sentence of the lede; see also the "Origins" sections of several of the Clan articles (Kerr, Menzies, Jardine). Grutness...wha? 00:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A royal family is an obvious exception, but we shouldn't have descent categories just for the sake of royal families while in general the descent characteristic is minor (and unlikely to be verifiable over the centuries). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: Category:House of Stuart is not a proper subset; for example, Anne was born in London, and when it comes to that, George I traces back to the same Scottish ancestry, but nobody is going to call him anything except a German (well, Hanover, anyway). Might as well call me a Scot through one man who came over back in the early 1700s, or a Dutchman from one of my great-grandfathers. And as for the other subcat, clans are not people per se. After that we run out of members. When it comes down to it, descent, after a few generations, is so diffuse as to be meaningless. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "descent" is virtually always non-defining; how far back do we go to look for the one-drop of Norman in the modern Scot? and what do Scots who have a drop of Norman blood in them do differently than those who don't? And for someone unaccustomed to British royalty isn't Prince Charles both a Scot (as Duke of Rothesay) and of Norman descent (having ancestors back to William the Conqueror and his group)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- while we do allow descent categories, a category for this kind of remote ancestry is going too far: it is usually not defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this connects people back too many centuries to be defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_22&oldid=871694948"