Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11[edit]

Category:Greta Garbo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 19#Category:Greta Garbo

Category:Sarah Michelle Gellar[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only one other article besides main. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:14, 12 March 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:Gary Cooper[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only one other article besides main. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:14, 12 March 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:Kim Basinger[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Minimal content to justify eponymous category. Certainly doesn't add navigation over the main article itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:14, 12 March 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:Eddie Murphy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 19#Category:Eddie Murphy

Category:John Ritter[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is basically an empty category. Pichpich (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Apparently was populated simply with relatives which is overkill for an eponymous category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right, and per WP:OCEPON, we don't allow any biographical articles except the subject's in eponymous categories. --woodensuperman 16:43, 12 March 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:Don Murray (actor)[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:55, 11 March 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:Seasons in Macedonian football[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 6#Category:Seasons in Macedonian football

Fictional trans people[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:Fictional transgender and transsexual men and Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual women. There is consensus against merger, and for renaming away from the current names. As for using short or long names, opinions are evenly divided, therefore the outcome follows the current naming pattern in the parent hierarchy.
I will recreate the short (spaced) names as redirects. Note that these were previously merged in 2012. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The phrases "trans men"/"trans women" are preferred to "transmen"/"transwomen", to to avoid the implication that they are not men or women but something else. Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems reasonable.★Trekker (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters. At ~30 articles in total, there is not enough content to justify splitting the category based on declared gender. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. It's far more effective to have it this way. A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense. Merging them would do nothing but make navigation harder.★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense. That's definitely not true. The 5-article threshold is a minimum necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition to justify a category's existence. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is suggesting that we have a category for trans male characters solely because there are more than five of them, but rather because it would also be useful. This isn't a case of WP:SMALLCAT; there are obviously more of them than this, and the number is already starting to rapidly grow. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point, but I don't see the category's usefulness. I agree that WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to this category, but my focus continues to be on the necessity and utility of splitting Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters. We can disagree about utility, but with ~30 articles it is definitely not necessary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The usefulness comes from the fact that they are distinct groups, because their defining trait is their gender. Someone researching trans characters will almost always consider their gender significant. For example, a trans man looking to identify characters like himself would appreciate not having to click thru a category of mostly off-topic articles to find those. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that breaking the category down by gender is not just acceptable, but valuable, because the category is about gender. The fact that Maura Pfefferman is female isn't an incidental part of the character; it's arguably the main theme of the story she appears in. Further a question such as, "How are trans men handled in fiction?" would be a very likely topic of inquiry, which categories are meant to assist. And there's "optics": Even if it isn't intentional, lumping them together would imply they had to be put together because we weren't sure "what" they were, which is not the case. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The handling of transgenderism in fiction would be a meaningful category, but that's not what this is—this is just a bifurcation of transgender characters by their declared gender. I don't disagree that doing this could be acceptable and valuable in principle but for me it's a question of organization, and a 30-member category does not, quite simply, benefit from being split. Even if it isn't intentional, lumping them together would imply they had to be put together because we weren't sure "what" they were, which is not the case. Not so, and I don't think we should let "optics" drive the decision. Someone could potentially infer that, but in my experience people who assume the worst before asking questions tend to do so regardless of how much we try to accommodate them. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Keep Separate The rename seems clearer. I do not infer any bad intent with the suggestion to merge the categories, above. Since what is defining is the identified gender, I think it's defining whether they are trans men or trans women. As more more trans characters are created and our understanding of gender increases, no objection to reviewing how best to categorize these articles to aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal: I to think there is value in keeping these categories separate because their treatments in fiction are likely to reflect their differing treatment/reception in real life. However, neither the current names nor the proposed names are appropriate for Wiki categories.
Perhaps so. But that would be a whole other, much larger, CFD discussion. So for now, these categories should just be renamed as I've suggested. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 18 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternate proposal per Anomalous+0+0 as a straightforward case of WP:C2C. Oppose keep, 2nd preference merge per Black Falcon. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the categories are kept separate, then certainly rename per nom. I have no strong opinion on whether they should be kept separate or merged as Black Falcon suggests, and I also would not oppose alternatively renaming them to incorporate the full "transgender or transsexual" phrase, as Anomalous suggests, although I would prefer if all those categories were revisited to use the now-common short form "trans". Mostly I just agree that the current outdated unspaced names should go. -sche (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to use the correct form. Do not merge; gender is the defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support for alternate proposal. I think "transgender and transsexual" is an unnecessarily kludgy and clunky phrase to use in place of the now-mainstream "trans", but it's otherwise unobjectionable, and an improvement over the status quo... as long as separate female/male categories are maintained to reflect the nature of the categories. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:55, 11 April 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:Anti-pornography movements[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: Opinion is roughly evenly split. Neither side cited any scholarly evidence, and neither had cited any edge in policy or guideline. And so, after 40 days and forty nights, there didst emerge no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was suggested on the Speedy page, but it did not fit the criteria there. I am inclined to agree with the original nominator that there is an overall anti-pornography movement. – Fayenatic London 17:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
  • Inclined to keep plural (if there's one movement, why are there so many articles, I ask myself). It seems unlikely to me, given the geographic and time ranges, that half these groups have even heard of the other half. Mary Whitehouse's lot (older British readers will recall it), now rebranded Mediawatch-UK, is not there, nor are a number of older groups, now presumably defunct. Nor is the US National Legion of Decency. As always, people should spend less time worrying about the minutiae of category names, and more about whether they contain the obvious basic contents! You know who you are. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind, there is a fundamental distinction between movements and organizations. Movements are comprised of organizations along with large numbers of individuals. This is true across the board, regardless of what particular movement you're talking about. In this case, all of those organizations are part of the Anti-pornography movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: - I should have pinged you when I posted my reply to your comment. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a single movement. For one, anti-porn feminism and anti-porn evangelicalism are quite different. feminist (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to support. The article Anti-pornography movement in the United Kingdom (singular) suggests it is one movement originated from two different perspectives (a feminist and a conservative/religious perspective). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 7 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Category:Social movements, though I'm not sure it belongs there. I notice a number of other sub-cats of that use the plural. And the Bad Sex in Fiction Award has nothing against well-written sex in books, you'll find. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anatomy of Social Movements 101" - Elaborating further on what I said above:
Social movements are large, complex, amorphous, heterogeneous social organisms, comprised of the following elements:
  • Large numbers of Individuals, ranging from sympathizers and occasional volunteers to full-blown activists.
  • An array of Organizations, ranging from small informal groups to large organizations with formal memberships, and also ranging from short-lived ad hoc groups to non-profit organizations with boards of directors.
  • Campaigns - focused efforts undertaken by activists and organizations.
As I said, social movements are complex, amorphous and heterogeneous -- which means they include a diverse range of people and organizations with differing views on all sorts of things, working toward the same general goal, but not necessarily coordinating with one another in their efforts. The Anti-pornography movement is no exception. Take the issue of anti-porn feminism versus anti-porn evangelicalism: very different people, to be sure, yet part of the same overall movement -- much like Catholic pacifists and Marxist radicals were all part of the anti-Vietnam War movement.
Lastly, as far as I'm aware, there are no categories for Campaigns; I think I've come across a few articles about campaigns, but as a rule they're just discussed within articles about the organizations that direct them or the movements that spawn them. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST, doesn't mean it's a flawed idea. However trying to categorise by something that is by your own admission "complex, amorphous, heterogeneous" sounds like the exact opposite of a good Wikipedia category.Le Deluge (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, did I offend you? I was merely pointing out that there simply aren't anywhere near enough articles about campaigns to serve as a basis for categorization. If there were enough articles it might make sense. Btw, my remarks about social movements was hardly an "admission" (LOL), just a clear-eyed and knowledgable description, by way of explaining that it's not at all unusual to find different views and tendencies co-existing in the same movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 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.

Scandinavian royalty[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 1 / rename 3 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: more consistent with Category:Scandinavian royal houses, siblings in Category:Burial sites of European royal families, and the contents of these categories which use "House" rather than "family" or "dynasty". – Fayenatic London 13:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
  • Oppose - more people will find these categories more quickly if their names begin with "Royal families of ...". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, only for consistency reasons. The form "Royal houses of Norway" is actually more to the point than "Norwegian royal houses" which may imply "Royal houses from Norway", so a wider nomination with a reverse rename would be appreciated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 7 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:16, 11 March 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:Right-Wing Militia[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 Category:Right-Wing Militia to Category:Right-wing militia organizations in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination following suggestion at Speedy page, matching article Militia organizations in the United States. – Fayenatic London 10:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 7 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any objections so far to "Category:Right-wing militia organizations in the United States" - Anomalous+0 hasn't commented on it, but everyone else seems ok with it, as I am. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is, usefully, part of several "Right-wing" parent hierarchies. Just because there is no lead article specific to right-wing hierarchies does not mean it should be named in such a way that should take it out of those parents. By all means create an additional parent Category:Militia organizations in the United States to hold both left and right, if that would aid navigation. – Fayenatic London 12:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While not my first choice, the proposed rename is still much better than the current category name that doesn't mention a country. Mild Support for the nom. (Note this is my second/clarifying vote.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom as a better alternative. Separately, the article should be similarly renamed as it only discusses right wing militias in the US Hmains (talk) 01:57, 14 March 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:Caucus[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 Category:Caucus to Category:Caucuses in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is excessively vague; the category contains articles about caucuses used in selecting US presidential candidates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or that. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 February 7 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki, Grutness, and RevelationDirect: please can you clarify which you prefer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was simply following the name in the original proposal. Perhaps the other option, (Category:Caucuses in the United States) would be preferable, however, given that we already have Category:Caucuses of the United States Congress. Grutness...wha? 13:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Category:Caucuses in the United States, but am not going to bother checking if there's policy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 11 March 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:List of DAV schools in India[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 to Category:Schools affiliated with the Arya Samaj. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New category created by editor with competency issues. It is nothing more than an uncategorised list with no links in the categorisation tree and I'm not sure what to do with it. With this editor, deletion is the normal direction we've been heading but if somebody can work out what to do with it... AussieLegend (✉) 04:13, 11 March 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:Amazon oil[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, with selected upmerging per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCLOCATION
This category groups both plant articles are that are indigenous to the Amazon rainforest if they can produce cooking oil and actual cooking oil articles if they are made from plants from the Amazon. (Some of these are endemic and grew naturally only in the Amazon basin while others had a broader distribution in the Americas.) The plant articles are already well categorized under the Category:Flora of Brazil tee and I added the the cooking oil articles to the Category:Crops originating from South America tree. I can't picture a Wikipedia reader that wants to know crops from the Amazon but only if they are cooking oils (or vice versa). Alternatively, if kept, we should rename to make it clear it is not petroleum related. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with both the proposed deletion and the upmerging based on the rationale given. "Amazon oil" is more of a marketing term than anything else anyway. Deli nk (talk) 14:07, 11 March 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:Recipients of the Carlsberg Architectural Prize[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. If anyone wants to make a list, the 4 pages currently in the category are: Carlsberg Architectural Prize, Tadao Ando, Juha Leiviskä, Peter Zumthor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
This was a short-lived Danish architectural award given out 3 times between 1992-1998. All three of the recipients are non-Danish (Tadao Ando, Juha Leiviskä, Peter Zumthor) and were already prominent before receiving the award so it's mentioned only in passing in each article along with other honors. Since the award is discontinued, there is no room for growth nor any likelihood that its prestige will increase with time. The recipients are already listified here within the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - we have the list already. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- as usual for OCAWARD. Lists do the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 17 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_11&oldid=936470654"