Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 31 June 2 >

June 1[edit]

Category:Prison governors by country[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. MER-C 09:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Different terms are used in different countries. Parent is Category:Prison administrators Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course we do, but we only have an intermediate layer when multiple diffusion criteria are being applied. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2019 (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 Larry Sanders Show[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content (note that the two episodes in the subcategory have been tagged PROD). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - still has 5 articles which won't have any shared container to hold them if you delete this. I see no added value in this deletion. --Gonnym (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2019 (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:Prison officials[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not clear what the distinction between the two categories is intended to be. I'd be happy with a reverse merge. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the distinction is that officials includes lesser ranks than administrators. Oculi (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is accepted then we need Category:Prison officials by country rather than Category:Prison administrators by country. Rathfelder (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prison officials includes everyone who works in prisons, including prison officers; prison administrators only includes senior ranks, including governors and the like. The latter should be a subcat of the former, as it currently is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are not enough articles about prison people to justify multiple levels as far as the country division is concerned. Rathfelder (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2019 (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:Adaptations of works by Philip Wylie[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these only contains 1 sub-cat for "Films based on works by X". These are already within Category:Films based on works by American writers, so there is no need to upmerge the nominated categories. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 1 June 2019 (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:Abandoned country portals[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: keep for now. It may be helpful to create a template that populates this category, or incorporate it via a new parameter in {{Portal maintenance status}}. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An arbitrary category that has no clear criteria for what should or should not be listed here, other than "abandoned in poor condition". From spot checking entries listed in the category, some have been edited relatively recently, in 2019, which illustrates that it is being applied inaccurately, likely due to its entirely subjective, open-ended criteria. Furthermore, no criteria is provided for what constitutes supposed "poor condition". There are already more than enough new portal tracking category pages that have been created; this one adds no value to the encyclopedia, and is based upon subjective ambiguity. North America1000 10:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is not a category for readers; it is hidden tracking category. As such, its purpose is to assist editors, rather than to add value for the readers of the encyclopedia.
The criteria by which I added portals to this category were that the portal had:
  1. less than ten subpages
  2. few or no subpages added in the last few years
For multi-page portals, the fact that the main portal page has been edited relatively recently is little guide to the degree to which editors are working on the actual content of the portal. Nearly all main portal pages have had dozens of formatting edits in the last year, often driveby edits, including the hundreds which have deleted in recent weeks because they are abandoned. It is sad but entirely predictable that NA1K, as one of the most vocal defenders of portals regardless of their quality, prefers to call for deletion of a category which identifies poor-quality unmaintained portals, rather than setting out to improve the portals so that they come at least pretend to be trying to meet the core principle of WP:PORTAL, vaz"Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pages are normally placed in a maintenance category by a template (rather than putting a category tag directly on the page as is being done here). Categorizing of portals by status is mostly done on the portal's talk page. If the number of portals is kept to around a thousand or lower then it's hard to justify a categorization scheme intersecting topic (e.g. country) with status (e.g. abandoned); a category for abandoned portals (of any topic) would suffice. This category does not, afaics, have any processes that refer to it (something I expect maintenance categories to have). I suggest (as a minimum) renaming this category to just Category:Abandoned portals (unless there's a good reason for treating portals about countries differently to portals about, for example, continents). DexDor (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor, the reason for the intersection is that most portals identified as abandoned are being deleted at MFD, but there is usually a strong lobby arguing to keep country portals regardless of their condition. No other set of portal topics so regularly gets keep results at MFD. So this category is effectively "Crap portals which there is little chance of deleting at MFD".
The problem with the usual talk page categories is that they are not maintained. Category:All portals currently contains 1089 pages, but 849 of those are categorised via the project banner in Category:Unassessed Portal pages ... and there has never been any documented standards by which portals can be assessed, nor even agreement on what standards portals should meet.
Because of the long-term neglect of portals by the WikiProject Portals, in the last two to three months a dozen or so editors have been examining portals one-by-one and bringing to MFD those which are abandoned, broken, or on on excessively narrow topics. This has led to deletion of ~450 portals, with a further about 100 portals currently under discussion at MFD. This category is one of the tools which assists in that cleanup process.
If and when the portals ever proposes a set of standards by which portals can be assessed, and if there is community consensus to endorse such standards, then specific categories such as this will probably become redundant. But there is no sign of any such proposal, let alone consensus for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the argument of the author, User:BrownHairedGirl. These are portals which would reasonably be deleted if the Wikipedia community were determining a posteriori what is a broad subject area that will attract readers and maintainers. But the portals in this category may need a third look because of the a priori myth that countries will attract portal maintainers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As of this post, the page continues to lack any criteria for what constitutes a country portal that is "abandoned in poor condition". It continues to exist in an entirely ambiguous, wholly subjective state. North America1000 03:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear what the final purpose is of a category of "crap portals which there is little chance of deleting at MFD". Aren't they nominated for deletion and if not, what should happen next? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above. Maintenance categories should be associated with an actual maintenance process and afaics (e.g. by looking at what-links-here) this category isn't. DexDor (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a maintenance process involving this category that is available to portal skeptics, and that is nominating the portals for deletion. That process may not be available to portal defenders who think that particular classes of entities are a priori broad subject areas that will attract readers and maintainers. However, that is a maintenance process. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are still (afaics) no links in to this category from any process documented in en wp - that should be required of any maintenance category, but especially one that doesn't follow usual maintenance category conventions (e.g. by being added as a category rather than as a template). DexDor (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is no different than many other subjective, yet very helpful tracking categories like Category:Inactive WikiProjects: there is no barrier to an interested editor or editors "un-abandoning" them by doing the ongoing necessary work, and this category serves a great value in helping to attract such editors (as I have attempted to do here, here, other times). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are several differences - e.g. that category is populated by a template (Template:WikiProject status). DexDor (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that difference is one of form over substance. It would be trivial effort to create {{abandoned country portal}} to populate this category, and then put it on each page insted of the category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2019 (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:Tenali Rama[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: keep, matching main article after RM. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Be consistent with the parent article Tenali Ramakrishna. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it may be a better idea to have an RM on the article name first. Most sources listed in the article seem to use "Tenali Rama". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (not that I really know anything about this). I assume the target is his full name and the present version is a shorter common name. If so, Tenali Rama should exist as a redirect to the full name. We did something similar with sports stars, whose names when properly spelt had a diacritical, but the press commonly referred to without one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Krishna is the name of a Hindu god, it seems more likely that 'krishna' was added to Tenali Rama's name in a later stage either by himself or by his followers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite obvious that Tenali Rama (Tenali is the place, Rama is his given name) is a hypocorism of Tenali Ramakrishna, hence we should move the article to match his actual name. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:43, 1 June 2019 (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:Buildings and structures in Comayagua[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. MER-C 09:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, only two articles in the category and the article Comayagua does not suggest much room for expansion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- That is why I did not comment before, but perhaps with a merge to a wider Buildings and structures category too. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2019 (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:Buildings and structures in Chełm[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. MER-C 09:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, two articles in the category and the main article Chełm does not suggest much room for expansion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- That is why I did not comment before, but perhaps with a merge to a wider Buildings and structures category too. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2019 (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:New Zealand portal[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 Category:New Zealand portals to Category:New Zealand portal. MER-C 09:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge requested for category with parent. Category:New Zealand portals has no other members within it besides Category:New Zealand portal. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an 's' missing from one of the links in the proposal? It seems to be proposing to merge something to itself! Nurg (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nurg: fixed; thank you! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:16, 1 June 2019 (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:5th century in France[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:5th century in sub-Roman Gaul. MER-C 09:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, follow-up on this earlier discussion which is still open. This is a separate nomination because in the 5th century there may be some discussion about certain articles that do not fit the proposed target, while Rome gradually lost control over Gaul. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not totally happy with this coming forward while the other is still live and problems have been acknowledged in that discussion about its chronological extension. We simply don't know what to call "France" in the Dark Ages while it was cris-crossed with Germanic & Hunnic tribes. A simple "Roman Gaul", while it might fit much of the 5th century, is a fudge too far for later centuries. A fuler discussion is necessary I think. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:16, 1 June 2019 (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:Ambazonia stubs[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, merging to Cameroon stubs by replacing Ambazonia-stub template with two new regional stub templates. – Fayenatic London 06:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and unproposed. Previous discussion is at WPSS. Her Pegship (speak) 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First of all, I proposed it after I created it in good faith - not doing so in advance was an honest mistake. Second, I would argue that this category is necessary; I created it because I saw no other fitting stub category for the articles in question. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that it was created in good faith. The issue is not whether Ambazonia as an entity merits a specific stub type. The issue is that the threshold for a stub type being necessary is 60+ articles: "at the moment the issue is quantity. As the Category:Ambazonia and its sub-cats currently hold only 10 articles, it doesn't seem as though it will reach the usual threshold of 60+ articles to merit a stub category, and indeed I don't think that's anough to merit an upmerged stub template either." (from the WPSS discussion) Reasons for this threshold are described on the project page. Her Pegship (speak) 03:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My main issue here isn't keeping the stub category at all cost, but rather the lack of a NPOV alternative. If someone can come up with another option, I have zero problems with this category getting deleted. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Africa stubs is the parent category and sounds like a good target. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See, I thought about that before I created the category, but reckoned it was too general. But if there's a consensus that Africa stubs is the most suitable category, I won't make a stink about it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with equivalent Southern Cameroons category. Ambazonia is an unrecognised secessionist state. The rebel government members are currently under arrest and being tried, so that I presume that the secessionist government is not in control of its territory. It is probably appropriate to have one category on Ambazonia, but the tree we currently have would be more appropriate to a whole country than a rebel province. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Southern Cameroons stub category? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't, though the Category:Cameroon geography stubs is oversized at 421 articles. Her Pegship (speak) 21:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is a good idea, it is quite a stretch to combine Southern Cameroons (existing until 1961) and Ambazonia (existing since 2017). Then you would need Category:Southern Cameroons and Ambazonia stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that may be a good idea anyway, it does not immediately solve the problem raised here because Ambazonia covers two official regions (Northwest and Southwest). Possibly the Ambazonia stubs can then be put in both new regional stub categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I read the articles Ambazonia is not an existing polity, but an area seeking to rebel, a rebellion that failed. I would support a split of Cameroon by region. If Ambazonia straddles to regions, it can go into both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: - It's a bit prophetic to state that the rebellion failed, as Ambazonia is effectively a proto-state in an ongoing guerilla war. Furthermore, I'm not fundamentally opposed to the deletion of this stub category, provided someone comes up with a suitable alternative. I created this one purely because I could not find an existing one that was not either too general or (in my opinion) challenges the neutrality of the articles in question. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Southern Cameroons was the name of a British Protectorate which in 1961 became part of the Republic of Cameroon; as it has been split into the Northwest and Southwest Regions, it's more appropriate to sort stubs into those two regions.) I return to my original concern, which is that there are not enough stub articles to justify Category:Ambazonia stubs regardless of its perceived or legal status. I went through and assigned regional categories to the articles in Category:Cameroon geography stubs, and it turns out that Centre Region is the only region with enough qualifying articles to justify a stub category (73). The rest of the regions don't even come close to 60, ranging from 15 to 49 articles in each regional category. I will be proposing upmerged templates and one stub category for Category:Cameroon geography stubs at WPSS, which should not affect this discussion, but I thought I should mention it here. Her Pegship (really?) 16:38, 8 July 2019 (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:Businesspeople in advertising by nationality[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 06:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 sub categories: American advertising businesspeople‎ and Indian advertising people. There are a couple of hundred articles about advertising people and they could do with being sorted by nationality, but it seems more sensible to sort all of them, not just those subcategorised as businesspeople. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, per nom, however this should obviously be renamed in conjunction with its American subcat which I have now added to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:13, 1 June 2019 (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:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) participants[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: speedily deleted. – Fayenatic London 12:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, recreation of an earlier deleted category, see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a repost (G4). MER-C 09:18, 1 June 2019 (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:Games Workshop Worldwide Campaigns[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only three articles in the category. (If kept, rename to Category:Games Workshop online campaigns in order to align with the names of the articles.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2019 (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:Accademia Musicale Chigiana International Prize winners[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 29#Category:Accademia Musicale Chigiana International Prize winners

Category:Mandopop artists templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 30#Category:Mandopop artists templates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_1&oldid=908973465"