Category:American football dual-threat quarterbacks
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 03:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Subjective category, can easily argue that every single starting quarterback in the NFL is a running threat. Eagles24/7(C) 23:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The story of American football, i.e. The National Football League is one built on evolution. There was a time when the
forward pass was not even a part of the game; today it is the cornerstone of every NFL offense. The old term "
end" now refers to either a
tight end(
Category:American football tight ends) or
wide receiver(
Category:American football wide receivers). Defensive linemen are now
defensive tackles or
defensive ends,
linebackers are middle(
Category:American football middle linebackers) or
outside linebackers(
Category:American football outside linebackers), each with a Wikipedia category of their own. The evolution has continued with more NFL teams looking for that quarterback who is a threat to pass or run.[1][2] Even college football programs are looking at high school players as to whether or not they can pose a dual-threat to opposing defenses. Rivals.com, one of the most prominent sites that rate high school athletes has a separate category for the dual threat quarterback.[3] While I agree with
User:Eagles247 that the term dual-threat quarterback can be subjective, I strongly disagree that one can easily argue that every single starting quarterback in the NFL is a dual threat. Read the article "
Dual-threat quarterback" and you'll find fewer than two dozen quarterbacks mentioned; and those that are considered dual-threats are supported by objective data (rushing yards, touchdowns, passer ratings etc.) that support the designation. An internet search of the term "dual-threat quarterback" turns up dozens of articles from pro football related cites[4][5][6][7][8][9] showing the growing trend in American football of interest in and the evolution towards the dual threat quarterback. Therefore providing a separate category for the dual threat quarterback will enable users to browse sets of related sports pages and probably long overdue. «
Marylandstater» «reply» 06:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Tom Brady led the Patriots in rushing for
a game in 2015. Does that make him a dual-threat QB? Categories are not meant to be subjective, and there is no clear definition of a "dual-threat quarterback". Eagles24/7(C) 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Lol! I don't think anyone would ever accuse Tom Brady of being a dual-threat quarterback. But as for a clear definition check out the article: "
Dual-threat quarterback". «
Marylandstater» «reply» 18:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The article says a dual-threat quarterback is one "who possesses the skills and physique to run with the ball if necessary". Possessing better skills than other people who play the same position is not something that can be defined in an encyclopedic setting. You admitted this category is subjective, so it fails
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Eagles24/7(C) 18:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator and
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Although the idea of a
dual-threat quarterback is clearly notable, the criteria for inclusion for individual players is inherently subjective and thus unsuitable for a category. Some sources may state that a player is a dual-threat QB, but even this is somewhat subjective analysis, as there is a clear difference between
Aaron Rodgers (threat to scramble) and
Lamar Jackson (a dedicated runner)—two examples noted in the article. An example of a more objective category would be
Category:American football quarterbacks who led their team in rushing yards for a season (note how the criteria for inclusion is objective since it is based on statistical results, whereas
Category:American football dual-threat quarterbacks relies on a subjective statement by secondary or tertiary sources because dual-threat QB has no clear definition). « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Gonzo. Categories shouldn't really be created around subjective opinions. ~
Dissident93(
talk) 11:23, 3 January 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.
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 03:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Same meanng.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:05, 31 December 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.
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 03:09, 5 January 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:Former cities in the Philippines
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.
Oppose, the proposal would create inconsistency with sibling categories containing cities in countries, in the tree of
Category:Former cities.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I see. If that's the case here, then I should close this discussion right away. Thanks by the way. —hueman1(talk) 17:45, 28 December 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:Cloud infrastructure attacks & failures
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.
MER-C 03:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: If the main article is
Cloud computing issues, then this seems to be the name, but other suggestions could be as well.
Brandmeistertalk 17:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 08:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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:Transgender non-binary people
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.
MER-C 03:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Question, many articles in the nominated category only mention non-binary but not transgender, should these articles be moved manually?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)reply
People who are not intersex but binary are by definition transgender. They identify with a gender which they were not assigned with or their body does not automatically reflect.
★Trekker (
talk) 22:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)reply
They might also identify as agender or genderfluid rather than as transgender. Though it is not clear if that applies to any of the biographies in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
While it is technically possible for someone to identify as non-binary but specifically not transgender those people seem to make up a small minority and I tried to make sure when adding that I could find reference to them being part of the trans community, (there are a few people left in the main category whom I could not be sure about).
★Trekker (
talk) 09:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Ok thanks, that answers my question.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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:Fisheries
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:split selectively to
Category:Fishing.
MER-C 03:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The contents of the category are currently a mixture of individual fisheries (set category) and fishery-related concepts (topic category). The topic category part should be split into
Category:Fishery, and
Category:Fisheries should only contain entities of named fisheries. I'm not sure, though, what the difference would be between
Category:Fishery and
Category:Fishing, so an alternative suggestion would be to selectively upmerge the topic content to
Category:Fishing.
Paul_012 (
talk) 22:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Split The present category is a mess covering
Category:fishery-related topics and
Category:individual fisheries and perhaps other topics. I would prefer to leave the outcome for the present category for the moment. If a consensus emerges along those lines, encourage the nom (after a week hence) to empty the category manually into appropriate new categories. The rest of us can then judge what is left.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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.
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.
MER-C 03:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only has two members, North Korea and Soviet Union, and the
Planned economy article says that there is dispute whether the Soviet economy was planned or command. If kept it will need a C2A rename to
Category:Planned economies.
Le Deluge (
talk) 14:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep So add the missing countries - most of the WarPacs, for starters. Also, why is a command economy not also a planned economy? (it's a subset, not disjoint). The lead article is pretty poor, with much of it unsourced and a bias to it overall that's very American (an inability to tell socialism from communism, for one).
Andy Dingley (
talk) 14:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, it should only contain articles about the economy of countries that never had a non-communist regime. For example
Economy of Poland does not qualify for the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
So what about countries which did have a centrally planned economy for decades? We might well split such a country's economic history across two articles (and Poland would be a good example), but if the article is covering that planned period, it should be categorised as such.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 14:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I am not against splitting the article, but if it is not split then
Economy of Poland really does not belong here because the article is almost exclusively about the current economy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict) Keep and populate -
Command economies is a redirect to the main article here, but there should be scope for adding articles on the economy of Cuba and of Walsall Pact countries until 1989.
Category:Command economies might be a better name, but this would require the main article to be renamed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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:Bridges over the Kharkiv River
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 03:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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:American football dual-threat quarterbacks
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 03:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Subjective category, can easily argue that every single starting quarterback in the NFL is a running threat. Eagles24/7(C) 23:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The story of American football, i.e. The National Football League is one built on evolution. There was a time when the
forward pass was not even a part of the game; today it is the cornerstone of every NFL offense. The old term "
end" now refers to either a
tight end(
Category:American football tight ends) or
wide receiver(
Category:American football wide receivers). Defensive linemen are now
defensive tackles or
defensive ends,
linebackers are middle(
Category:American football middle linebackers) or
outside linebackers(
Category:American football outside linebackers), each with a Wikipedia category of their own. The evolution has continued with more NFL teams looking for that quarterback who is a threat to pass or run.[1][2] Even college football programs are looking at high school players as to whether or not they can pose a dual-threat to opposing defenses. Rivals.com, one of the most prominent sites that rate high school athletes has a separate category for the dual threat quarterback.[3] While I agree with
User:Eagles247 that the term dual-threat quarterback can be subjective, I strongly disagree that one can easily argue that every single starting quarterback in the NFL is a dual threat. Read the article "
Dual-threat quarterback" and you'll find fewer than two dozen quarterbacks mentioned; and those that are considered dual-threats are supported by objective data (rushing yards, touchdowns, passer ratings etc.) that support the designation. An internet search of the term "dual-threat quarterback" turns up dozens of articles from pro football related cites[4][5][6][7][8][9] showing the growing trend in American football of interest in and the evolution towards the dual threat quarterback. Therefore providing a separate category for the dual threat quarterback will enable users to browse sets of related sports pages and probably long overdue. «
Marylandstater» «reply» 06:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Tom Brady led the Patriots in rushing for
a game in 2015. Does that make him a dual-threat QB? Categories are not meant to be subjective, and there is no clear definition of a "dual-threat quarterback". Eagles24/7(C) 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Lol! I don't think anyone would ever accuse Tom Brady of being a dual-threat quarterback. But as for a clear definition check out the article: "
Dual-threat quarterback". «
Marylandstater» «reply» 18:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The article says a dual-threat quarterback is one "who possesses the skills and physique to run with the ball if necessary". Possessing better skills than other people who play the same position is not something that can be defined in an encyclopedic setting. You admitted this category is subjective, so it fails
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Eagles24/7(C) 18:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator and
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Although the idea of a
dual-threat quarterback is clearly notable, the criteria for inclusion for individual players is inherently subjective and thus unsuitable for a category. Some sources may state that a player is a dual-threat QB, but even this is somewhat subjective analysis, as there is a clear difference between
Aaron Rodgers (threat to scramble) and
Lamar Jackson (a dedicated runner)—two examples noted in the article. An example of a more objective category would be
Category:American football quarterbacks who led their team in rushing yards for a season (note how the criteria for inclusion is objective since it is based on statistical results, whereas
Category:American football dual-threat quarterbacks relies on a subjective statement by secondary or tertiary sources because dual-threat QB has no clear definition). « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Gonzo. Categories shouldn't really be created around subjective opinions. ~
Dissident93(
talk) 11:23, 3 January 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.
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 03:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Same meanng.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:05, 31 December 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.
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 03:09, 5 January 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:Former cities in the Philippines
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.
Oppose, the proposal would create inconsistency with sibling categories containing cities in countries, in the tree of
Category:Former cities.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I see. If that's the case here, then I should close this discussion right away. Thanks by the way. —hueman1(talk) 17:45, 28 December 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:Cloud infrastructure attacks & failures
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.
MER-C 03:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: If the main article is
Cloud computing issues, then this seems to be the name, but other suggestions could be as well.
Brandmeistertalk 17:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 08:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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:Transgender non-binary people
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.
MER-C 03:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Question, many articles in the nominated category only mention non-binary but not transgender, should these articles be moved manually?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)reply
People who are not intersex but binary are by definition transgender. They identify with a gender which they were not assigned with or their body does not automatically reflect.
★Trekker (
talk) 22:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)reply
They might also identify as agender or genderfluid rather than as transgender. Though it is not clear if that applies to any of the biographies in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
While it is technically possible for someone to identify as non-binary but specifically not transgender those people seem to make up a small minority and I tried to make sure when adding that I could find reference to them being part of the trans community, (there are a few people left in the main category whom I could not be sure about).
★Trekker (
talk) 09:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Ok thanks, that answers my question.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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:Fisheries
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:split selectively to
Category:Fishing.
MER-C 03:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The contents of the category are currently a mixture of individual fisheries (set category) and fishery-related concepts (topic category). The topic category part should be split into
Category:Fishery, and
Category:Fisheries should only contain entities of named fisheries. I'm not sure, though, what the difference would be between
Category:Fishery and
Category:Fishing, so an alternative suggestion would be to selectively upmerge the topic content to
Category:Fishing.
Paul_012 (
talk) 22:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Split The present category is a mess covering
Category:fishery-related topics and
Category:individual fisheries and perhaps other topics. I would prefer to leave the outcome for the present category for the moment. If a consensus emerges along those lines, encourage the nom (after a week hence) to empty the category manually into appropriate new categories. The rest of us can then judge what is left.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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.
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.
MER-C 03:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only has two members, North Korea and Soviet Union, and the
Planned economy article says that there is dispute whether the Soviet economy was planned or command. If kept it will need a C2A rename to
Category:Planned economies.
Le Deluge (
talk) 14:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep So add the missing countries - most of the WarPacs, for starters. Also, why is a command economy not also a planned economy? (it's a subset, not disjoint). The lead article is pretty poor, with much of it unsourced and a bias to it overall that's very American (an inability to tell socialism from communism, for one).
Andy Dingley (
talk) 14:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, it should only contain articles about the economy of countries that never had a non-communist regime. For example
Economy of Poland does not qualify for the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
So what about countries which did have a centrally planned economy for decades? We might well split such a country's economic history across two articles (and Poland would be a good example), but if the article is covering that planned period, it should be categorised as such.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 14:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I am not against splitting the article, but if it is not split then
Economy of Poland really does not belong here because the article is almost exclusively about the current economy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict) Keep and populate -
Command economies is a redirect to the main article here, but there should be scope for adding articles on the economy of Cuba and of Walsall Pact countries until 1989.
Category:Command economies might be a better name, but this would require the main article to be renamed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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:Bridges over the Kharkiv River
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 03:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 03:24, 28 December 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.