Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 16 May 18 >

May 17[edit]

Category:The Purge (film series)[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. bibliomaniac15 21:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggesting to merge these and purge redirects. There are only two articles the parent category: the main one and an overview of the TV show. No reason for a container eponymous category for this media franchise made up of redirects from individual episodes or seasons and then a category for the films separately. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now Not enough non-redirect content to justify separate cats but no objection to reviewing if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there are now 5 articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category includes 6 articles, and seems large enough on its own. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the additions to the cat during this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (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:Saltwater Game fish[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: convert to List of marine game fish and delete. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also, there is no article for this cat. Fuddle (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining e.g. the Elops saurus article makes no mention of fishing. DexDor (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and merge to Category:Sport fish, the main category for game fish. It does seem like there are potentially a bunch of miscats, although I think that the human usage of these fish as a game/sport fish is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. I don't think that the intersection between "salt/freshwater" and "game fish" is defining though. Alternatively, the information in the category could be listified and then deleted afterwards. bibliomaniac15 21:10, 26 May 2020 (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:Freshwater Game fish[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: convert to List of freshwater game fish and delete. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also, there is no article for this cat. Fuddle (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and merge to Category:Sport fish, the main category for game fish. It does seem like there are potentially a bunch of miscats, although I think that the human usage of these fish as a game/sport fish is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. I don't think that the intersection between "salt/freshwater" and "game fish" is defining though. Alternatively, the information in the category could be listified and then deleted afterwards. bibliomaniac15 21:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify as non-defining and subjective. If not deleted then rename or merge as proposed above. DexDor (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2020 (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:Places of interest in Netrakona District[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. bibliomaniac15 03:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'Places of interest ... ' is not an established pattern. Fuddle (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2020 (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:Places of interest in Shimla[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. bibliomaniac15 03:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'Places of interest ... ' is not an established pattern. Fuddle (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please also delete Category:Capital of Himachal Pradesh, whose content is identical to the category under discussion. Unnecessary duplicate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2020 (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 with chronic pain[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. MER-C 09:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too generic. Difficult to populate. Fuddle (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I created this category (and live with chronic pain myself). Chronic pain can come in many forms but there are many similarities for the people that live with it. I don't think the category being difficult to populate is a reason to delete it. Moreover, it may not be easy, but it is possible. A google search comes up with many relevant hits, like this one: https://www.foxnews.com/health/famous-people-who-live-with-chronic-pain. Plus, I would guess there are hundreds of people on wikipedia who have or have had chronic pain. It is important for wikipedia to have information that is relevant to people and it is helpful for everyone to know about well known people who live with chronic pain. I created this category to bring more representation to an underrepresented issue. I think it is more constructive to try to improve it, rather than try to delete it.Lena Key (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added Category:People with chronic pain to Category:People with disabilities. It is no more relevant to wikipedia than any of the other subcategories listed on that page. See: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/chronic-pain-the-invisible-disability-2017042811360 And I would say it is a defining characteristic, just like any other disability, though people do not like to be defined by it. Lena Key (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked two articles (Dorothy Hamill and Elizabeth Taylor) and saw no evidence of it being anywhere near a defining characteristic; the LH article doesn't mention pain at all. Please also see WP:OSE and WP:RGW. DexDor (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is circular because these articles are not necessarily mature. If you mean the cart is before the horse, i.e., the wikipedia articles must be improved before such a category can exist, please say so. Samuel Coskey (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a characteristic that belongs to be mentioned as a key biographical characteristic in the header of the article. Sources do not do that either. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. @Lena Key, please read WP:DEFINING to see how it is applied to categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DexDor (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Kbdank71 22:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, logically this category is no different than numerous other approved categories. I don't see it as generic (there are many causes of chronic pain but the affect on one's achievement potential is similar). I don't see it as difficult to populate (search wikipedia, search secondary sources via the internet, search pain advocacy group magazines, etc for notable figures with chronic pain). I do see it as defining, or potentially defining (in the wiki sense, not the usual sense of the word) for many figures, and I don't see an argument for non-defining anywhere above this point (just declaration). Samuel Coskey (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. There is (afaik) no such thing as "approved categories"; just categories that haven't (yet) been deleted! Have you looked at WP:NONDEF? DexDor (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think we will find many articles about people who are notable because of their chronic pain. And though chronic pain is common we wont often find it mentioned in biographies. So this would be a category of people who publicised their problem which is an unsatisfactory basis for a category. Rathfelder (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other editors. The category was created in good faith, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not a medium for WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. Place Clichy (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2020 (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:Shrek music[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. MER-C 09:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem like a defining category of these songs, and could set an undesirable precedent (e.g. "MCU music"). DonIago (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2020 (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:Town Union Government[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. MER-C 09:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not appropriate. Fuddle (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Created by a new editor. It would not surprise me if all their edits need to be reverted. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G1. No offense to the original editor, but this just makes no sense. Place Clichy (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2020 (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:Who is who in Abbi[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. MER-C 09:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not appropriate. Fuddle (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2020 (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.

Computing by time[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 all; consider any mergers separately There was very little discussion about the suggestion to merge some categories so that is best handled in its own right. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
97 by-year & by-decade in sub-categories
Nominator's rationale: computer science is a sub-topic of the broader field of computing. Computer science is the theoretical side, but computing includes the uses of computers, the computer industry, and the societal impact of computing.
Despite their current names, these categories are in practice being used for the broader topic of computing. See e.g. Category:2019 in computer science, which includes Category:Computer companies established in 2019 and |disestablished, plus Category:Computer-related introductions in 2019 with its subcats such as Category:Internet properties established in 2019 and Category:Mobile phones introduced in 2019. The articles include 2019 Bulgarian revenue agency hack and Block of Wikipedia in Venezuela, neither of which is a good fit for computer science.
In theory, there is an Option B: keep the existing categories, but create a set of parent categories for Computing by time. However, in practice, I don't think that we have enough material to make that viable. For example, in Category:2019 in computer science, I can see in only one item which should be left in the compsci category, rather than moved to the broader computing category: that's Category:Programming languages created in 2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging: categories all tagged, in these 101 edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification: WikiProject Computer science has been notified.[1]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - indeed much of 'computing' is not 'computer science'. Oculi (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Computing as the empirically more accurate category. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but also merge all 1930s years into a single decade category; probably also 1940s, as there is not (and never will be enough content for decent categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support new name is a better description of what's in the categories. ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the approach to rename the categories rather than remap them. Making the category broader is appealing and practical. We can always go back later and create computer science sub categories, which is a much easier task compared to doing the opposite. BthompsonHV (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BthompsonHV, yes in theory we could created subcats for computer science by year. But in practice, I didn't see enough articles to populate a computer science by year series unless it is filled with articles which don't really fit, like now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 23 May 2020 (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:Moses Sumney songs[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. MER-C 09:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains no articles, only redirects which all redirect to the same target album. No benefit to readers Richhoncho (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2020 (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:Films directed by Sundaram Balachander[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The move discussion ended with the consensus to move. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2020 (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:Fictional Presidents of the United States[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 both. This is mostly keeping in line with the logic of the rationale. There's no consensus about deleting the "films about" category, and purging would be something anyone can do on their own. bibliomaniac15 03:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiWikiHigh (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. BD2412 T 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Fictional Presidents of the United States per nom, and Delete the "films about" category, which suffers the usual problems of works "about" topic: what objective criteria dictate how much about the topic must it be and what reliable sources tell us it is at least that much about the topic? What's included and what's not show precisely this problem. Take a few examples Independence Day (1996 film) and Monsters vs. Aliens which one might think were about alien invasions where the fictional POTUS plays a role but surely, these films aren't about that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge the films category, remove films that aren't primarily about a fictional president. Carlossuarez has a point, though deleting the category entirely is a bit too drastic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2020 (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.

Films by demographic audience[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Films by demographic audience

Category:American Civil War nurses[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: reverse merge. bibliomaniac15 03:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They are all female. Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support simply because of the existance of the tree of Category:Women nurses. The gender split is perhaps questionable for the entire tree but that is not at stake with this particular nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. As nurse is a predominently female profession, and was so at the time of the American Civil War it is the male nurses that should be placed in a non-diffusing gender category, per WP:GHETTO. Place Clichy (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its still true now that about 90% of nurses are female. I think before 1900 there were probably no men who would have described themselves as nurses. Rathfelder (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Male nurses were common during this period. Walt Whitman, for example, was a Civil War nurse.[2]--User:Namiba 21:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were so common why are there no articles about them? Rathfelder (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer reverse merge -- I suspect that the males employed in military hospitals were doing similar work, but called Hospital orderlies (or such like). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Place Clichy. Male nurses were and still are unusual. I dont much mind which way the merger goes, but 2 identical categories isnt helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2020 (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.

Infobox television season tracking categories[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 without the "Template" prefix and with lower-case i. bibliomaniac15 03:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These should have a consistent style. I'm ambivalent if the prefix "Template:" is needed or not. --Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we're going to talk about consistency then we should mention:
None of these are nominated for renaming. I don't see a need for the inclusion of "Template:" as it just makes the category name longer and is really redundant as "infobox" makes it clear we are referring to a template. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the 3 above as they are for a different template. Yeah I guess the template prefix isn't needed, as I said, I was ambivalent about it. What about the uppercase "I" in "Infobox", as it's a proper noun? --Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the other cats only because if we're going to rename cats, we should consistently rename all related cats. I have no real opinion on whether "i" should be capitalised although I have seen capitalised cats un-capitalised in the past. Either way is fine with me. I'm happy to go with the majority. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename without "Template:". Keep the "i" of infobox capital. I'm indifferent if we want to lump in the other cats that should be renamed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2020 (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 Gold Medal of the City of Milan (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: delete. MER-C 09:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and WP:NONDEF (WP:OCAWARD)
In 1859, French regiments were involved in the Second Italian War of Independence centering around Milan. 50 years later, the Gold Medal of the City of Milan was created as an anniversary campaign medal for those regiments. The only articles in the category are 13th Parachute Dragoon Regiment and 9th Hussar Regiment (France) neither one of which even mentions this campaign (although the medal is mentioned in passing) so this doesn't seem defining. I just listed those 2 articles here in the main article for any readers interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
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:Stardust Awards winners[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. MER-C 09:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
Stardust is an Indian film and celebrity gossip magazine that used to have annual Stardust Awards for Bollywood films. A large majority of the articles in this category don't even mention this award so it doesn't seem defining. The winners are already listified here in individual list articles for any reader interested in this former award. -
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:Oxudercinae[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Category:Oxudercinae

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_17&oldid=964155188"