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 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category per
WP:COPDEF and
WP:NONDEFINING. While verifiable, it is almost never associated with someone's notability: mentioned perhaps in interviews or niche health websites, but not a label commonly and consistently bestowed upon people in reliable sources. See previous related deletion discussion for
Category:People with anxiety disorders (result, deleted).
--Animalparty! (
talk) 23:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not need to categorize people by every possible trait.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:29, 20 August 2021 (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-Islam political parties in Finland
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 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:option A: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one party; option B: delete as the party is more clearly anti-immigration than anti-Islam.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom's option B.--
Darwinek (
talk) 02:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This is not really a defining trait for the one party involved. We do not want to go down the road of categorizing political parties by every position they have ever advanced or held.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:31, 20 August 2021 (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-Muslim sentiment
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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, it is unclear what the difference is between anti-Islam sentiment and anti-Muslim sentiment and we do not have a similar distinction in other religion category trees.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge There is no clear distinction. Although we mainly do not have similar issues with other religions because most other religions do not have the same issue with two names for the same thing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Further comment, it occurs to me that it will be useful to leave a redirect.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - we had exactly the same discussion on the same issue twice (maybe even three times) in just two or three years (this is at least a second time), but I will try to explain again the purely linguistic dichotomy of “subject versus object”: anti-Muslim animus is directed at a person / persons / groups, and anti-Islam is attack and / or hatred directed at different aspects of that particular religion, such as practices, texts, holly places and buildings, etc. This means that the distinction cannot be more clear: anti-Muslim animus = attitudes toward a person or persons; and anti-Islam as an excessive critique of ideology, in this case religion. In practice, this means that one can express a negative attitude towards one without influencing the other, in both directions - for example, one can feel respect for the Islamic faith, but still hate members, because, just as in the case of Jews, Muslims often express their self-identification and see themselves in purely ethnic categories (culturally and in some places like the Balkans linguistically), while outsiders use this categorization even more persistently. So we have Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Muslims, Montenegrin Muslims, Bulgarian Muslims, Serbian Muslims, northern Macedonian Muslims as an ethnic category, and accordingly we have an anti-Muslim feeling expressed as pure ethnic hatred.--
౪ Santa ౪99° 23:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - If anything, then you should have proposed to merge the category "anti-Islam sentiment" with the category "Islamophobia" and leave a redirect (for anti-Islam.sent.), however we must have an anti-Muslim sentiment, not just because we do have other "anti -... use-some-ethnicity ... sentiment", but because we need this one.--
౪ Santa ౪99° 00:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I am sorry but I am not following. Either one hates a Muslim because he is part of a religious community (Islam), or one hates him for a personal reason, e.g. because he is too noisy and disturbing his neighbours. The latter is irrelevant for this discussion, the former is what makes the two categories coincide in purpose. The fact that Muslims also have a nationality is unrelated. If one hates Albanian Muslims as a group and not, say, Albanian ex-Muslims, then it is still because they are a religious group within the Albanian nationality. By the way, if some of the content in
Category:Anti-Islam sentiment more specifically belongs in
Category:Islamophobia, then it can be moved there already, per
WP:SUBCAT.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)reply
In some parts of the world, Muslims are considered ethnicity, regardless of their religiosity - Bosnian Muslim is ethnic label, for instance. You can be Marco living in the Balkans and avoid being hurt regardless of the fact that you are religious follower of Islam, and you can be Muhammad and suffer regardless of the fact that you are atheist or even devoted follower of Jesus.--
౪ Santa ౪99° 15:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
When someone's name is Muhammad and he is hurt because he is assumed to be Muslim, it is still anti-Islam sentiment despite the assumption is incorrect.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
No, Marko, either you read my comment wrong or you did not read it in its entirety - I said that Muhammad may be an atheist, and hate ed because he belongs to a Muslim ethnicity / nationality and not to the religion of Islam. This happens in places like the Balkans, where the term “Muslim” means ethnicity, in parallel with belonging to the Islamic religion, but not necessarily and not always at the same time. --
౪ Santa ౪99° 15:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)reply
This is fringe vocabulary. We would never categorize Richard Dawkins as a Christian because he labeled himself a cultural Christian once.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fringe, according to whom? Dawkins once labeled himself, but he lived his whole life as a cultural Christian - I mean how many times does it take someone to label themselves for someone else to accept their chosen identity? I wrote above about the Muslims of the Balkans, and Bosnian Muslims were primarily victims of ethnic cleansing, not religious persecution and the Crusades - hundreds of thousands died, and many others were ethnically cleansed from their homes because they were ethnic Muslims, and not necessarily believers.--
౪ Santa ౪99° 14:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong keep' - Muslims are people and Islam is a religion. There is no confusion between the two. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 19:40, 8 September 2021 (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.
Support, not because it duplicates articles, but because the intention of the category is largely covered by another category, namely
Category:Hebrew Bible people in Islam. These are Hebrew Bible people that are considered prophets in Islam.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - if consensus is to keep, the category should be moved to agree with the title of the article
Quran.
Grutness...wha? 15:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep This is clearly defining. I am thinking the David in Islam and Solomon in Islam categories should be merged here, becasue as prophet is understood and used in the context of the Bible I do not believe that either of these individuals are identified by this moniker in that context.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I support Oculi-Marcocapelle proposal.--
౪ Santa ౪99° 19:46, 23 August 2021 (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:Thomist philosophers
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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, the two categories appear to serve the same purpose.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge the heading of the Thomists category requires that these be philosophers.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:39, 20 August 2021 (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:Burials at al-Baqi' cemetery
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, leaving a possible rename to a fresh discussion (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Both category titles refer to the same place. It is redundant to have two separate categories for the same thing. I also propose that the merged category be renamed to "Burials at the Jannat al-Baqī cemetery" because the cemetery is most widely known as "Jannat al-Baqi" instead of just "al-Baqi" -
Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-HindiTalk 07:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: The article's lede refers to it as Jannat al-Baqi' - perhaps moving the article would be a reasonable precursor to any discussion about the category?
Grutness...wha? 01:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes. It was moved the other way in
2009. There is also the question of al-Baqi' versus al-Baqi. There are many contenders for the name: with or without Jannat, with or without cemetery, with or without a ' (or ī, with a bar).
Oculi (
talk) 10:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Same scope.
Dimadick (
talk) 05:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment remains unclear. Probably true: "many contenders for the name: with or without Jannat, with or without cemetery, with or without a ' (or ī, with a bar)". Confusing unclear. Or even subject to subjective taste of language conventions? At least 'cemetery' as base word should be a must. --
Just N. (
talk) 13:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment It is NOT true AT ALL that the cemetery is most widely known as "Jannat al-Baqi'"!!! Baqi' al-Gharqad or Jannat al-Baqi', is simply better known as al-Baqi'. In my humble opinion, I think it's better to move "
Category:Burials at Jannat al-Baqī" to "
Category:Burials at al-Baqi' cemetery" because Jannat al-Baqi' is UNknown name, and me personally and seriously, have never heard of it before coming here!!! I would also suggest moving both of them to Category:Burials at al-Baqi' without cemetery. PS: the apostrophe ( ' ) is necessary because deleting it will completely change the pronunciation of the word and its meaning at the same time!--
TheEagle107 (
talk) 10:47, 14 August 2021 (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:Zamalek Presenter's from Egypt
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:procedural close, the categories have already been speedily deleted (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Category is incorrectly designed and loops to null
Whiteguru (
talk) 03:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete created by an obvious
Abdo Mitwally sock. Probably all of these various pages they keep recreating need to be salted.
PohranicniStraze (
talk) 04:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment, I will tag and list the subcategories as well:
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:delete. bibliomaniac15 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category per
WP:COPDEF and
WP:NONDEFINING. While verifiable, it is almost never associated with someone's notability: mentioned perhaps in interviews or niche health websites, but not a label commonly and consistently bestowed upon people in reliable sources. See previous related deletion discussion for
Category:People with anxiety disorders (result, deleted).
--Animalparty! (
talk) 23:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not need to categorize people by every possible trait.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:29, 20 August 2021 (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-Islam political parties in Finland
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 04:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:option A: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one party; option B: delete as the party is more clearly anti-immigration than anti-Islam.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom's option B.--
Darwinek (
talk) 02:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This is not really a defining trait for the one party involved. We do not want to go down the road of categorizing political parties by every position they have ever advanced or held.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:31, 20 August 2021 (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-Muslim sentiment
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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, it is unclear what the difference is between anti-Islam sentiment and anti-Muslim sentiment and we do not have a similar distinction in other religion category trees.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge There is no clear distinction. Although we mainly do not have similar issues with other religions because most other religions do not have the same issue with two names for the same thing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Further comment, it occurs to me that it will be useful to leave a redirect.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - we had exactly the same discussion on the same issue twice (maybe even three times) in just two or three years (this is at least a second time), but I will try to explain again the purely linguistic dichotomy of “subject versus object”: anti-Muslim animus is directed at a person / persons / groups, and anti-Islam is attack and / or hatred directed at different aspects of that particular religion, such as practices, texts, holly places and buildings, etc. This means that the distinction cannot be more clear: anti-Muslim animus = attitudes toward a person or persons; and anti-Islam as an excessive critique of ideology, in this case religion. In practice, this means that one can express a negative attitude towards one without influencing the other, in both directions - for example, one can feel respect for the Islamic faith, but still hate members, because, just as in the case of Jews, Muslims often express their self-identification and see themselves in purely ethnic categories (culturally and in some places like the Balkans linguistically), while outsiders use this categorization even more persistently. So we have Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Muslims, Montenegrin Muslims, Bulgarian Muslims, Serbian Muslims, northern Macedonian Muslims as an ethnic category, and accordingly we have an anti-Muslim feeling expressed as pure ethnic hatred.--
౪ Santa ౪99° 23:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - If anything, then you should have proposed to merge the category "anti-Islam sentiment" with the category "Islamophobia" and leave a redirect (for anti-Islam.sent.), however we must have an anti-Muslim sentiment, not just because we do have other "anti -... use-some-ethnicity ... sentiment", but because we need this one.--
౪ Santa ౪99° 00:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I am sorry but I am not following. Either one hates a Muslim because he is part of a religious community (Islam), or one hates him for a personal reason, e.g. because he is too noisy and disturbing his neighbours. The latter is irrelevant for this discussion, the former is what makes the two categories coincide in purpose. The fact that Muslims also have a nationality is unrelated. If one hates Albanian Muslims as a group and not, say, Albanian ex-Muslims, then it is still because they are a religious group within the Albanian nationality. By the way, if some of the content in
Category:Anti-Islam sentiment more specifically belongs in
Category:Islamophobia, then it can be moved there already, per
WP:SUBCAT.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)reply
In some parts of the world, Muslims are considered ethnicity, regardless of their religiosity - Bosnian Muslim is ethnic label, for instance. You can be Marco living in the Balkans and avoid being hurt regardless of the fact that you are religious follower of Islam, and you can be Muhammad and suffer regardless of the fact that you are atheist or even devoted follower of Jesus.--
౪ Santa ౪99° 15:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)reply
When someone's name is Muhammad and he is hurt because he is assumed to be Muslim, it is still anti-Islam sentiment despite the assumption is incorrect.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)reply
No, Marko, either you read my comment wrong or you did not read it in its entirety - I said that Muhammad may be an atheist, and hate ed because he belongs to a Muslim ethnicity / nationality and not to the religion of Islam. This happens in places like the Balkans, where the term “Muslim” means ethnicity, in parallel with belonging to the Islamic religion, but not necessarily and not always at the same time. --
౪ Santa ౪99° 15:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)reply
This is fringe vocabulary. We would never categorize Richard Dawkins as a Christian because he labeled himself a cultural Christian once.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fringe, according to whom? Dawkins once labeled himself, but he lived his whole life as a cultural Christian - I mean how many times does it take someone to label themselves for someone else to accept their chosen identity? I wrote above about the Muslims of the Balkans, and Bosnian Muslims were primarily victims of ethnic cleansing, not religious persecution and the Crusades - hundreds of thousands died, and many others were ethnically cleansed from their homes because they were ethnic Muslims, and not necessarily believers.--
౪ Santa ౪99° 14:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Strong keep' - Muslims are people and Islam is a religion. There is no confusion between the two. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 19:40, 8 September 2021 (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.
Support, not because it duplicates articles, but because the intention of the category is largely covered by another category, namely
Category:Hebrew Bible people in Islam. These are Hebrew Bible people that are considered prophets in Islam.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - if consensus is to keep, the category should be moved to agree with the title of the article
Quran.
Grutness...wha? 15:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep This is clearly defining. I am thinking the David in Islam and Solomon in Islam categories should be merged here, becasue as prophet is understood and used in the context of the Bible I do not believe that either of these individuals are identified by this moniker in that context.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I support Oculi-Marcocapelle proposal.--
౪ Santa ౪99° 19:46, 23 August 2021 (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:Thomist philosophers
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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, the two categories appear to serve the same purpose.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge the heading of the Thomists category requires that these be philosophers.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:39, 20 August 2021 (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:Burials at al-Baqi' cemetery
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, leaving a possible rename to a fresh discussion (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Both category titles refer to the same place. It is redundant to have two separate categories for the same thing. I also propose that the merged category be renamed to "Burials at the Jannat al-Baqī cemetery" because the cemetery is most widely known as "Jannat al-Baqi" instead of just "al-Baqi" -
Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-HindiTalk 07:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: The article's lede refers to it as Jannat al-Baqi' - perhaps moving the article would be a reasonable precursor to any discussion about the category?
Grutness...wha? 01:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes. It was moved the other way in
2009. There is also the question of al-Baqi' versus al-Baqi. There are many contenders for the name: with or without Jannat, with or without cemetery, with or without a ' (or ī, with a bar).
Oculi (
talk) 10:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Same scope.
Dimadick (
talk) 05:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment remains unclear. Probably true: "many contenders for the name: with or without Jannat, with or without cemetery, with or without a ' (or ī, with a bar)". Confusing unclear. Or even subject to subjective taste of language conventions? At least 'cemetery' as base word should be a must. --
Just N. (
talk) 13:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment It is NOT true AT ALL that the cemetery is most widely known as "Jannat al-Baqi'"!!! Baqi' al-Gharqad or Jannat al-Baqi', is simply better known as al-Baqi'. In my humble opinion, I think it's better to move "
Category:Burials at Jannat al-Baqī" to "
Category:Burials at al-Baqi' cemetery" because Jannat al-Baqi' is UNknown name, and me personally and seriously, have never heard of it before coming here!!! I would also suggest moving both of them to Category:Burials at al-Baqi' without cemetery. PS: the apostrophe ( ' ) is necessary because deleting it will completely change the pronunciation of the word and its meaning at the same time!--
TheEagle107 (
talk) 10:47, 14 August 2021 (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:Zamalek Presenter's from Egypt
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:procedural close, the categories have already been speedily deleted (
non-admin closure)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Category is incorrectly designed and loops to null
Whiteguru (
talk) 03:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete created by an obvious
Abdo Mitwally sock. Probably all of these various pages they keep recreating need to be salted.
PohranicniStraze (
talk) 04:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment, I will tag and list the subcategories as well:
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.