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: This category was previously deleted year ago in
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 14#Category:Public domain characters. Part of one argument is that this content should be listified rather than having a separate category for what could be a huge category. Since it was deleted before, I thought I'd bring it back to CFD to see if this decision should be overturned or carried out as a CSD G4-type of deletion. LizRead!Talk! 22:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Public domain varies by country, so this category is too confusing and may lead to inaccurate beliefs about what characters are public domain. A list is indeed better, as it specifies where the character is public domain.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 23:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I started a draft page for character sin the public domain in the USA.
Delete varies by country and over time so it's not defining. No objection to a list but that can be outside of CFD. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:47, 22 January 2024 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to have a page and a single category (which also only has one page)
Mason (
talk) 21:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The contents were not interlinked by "see also" templates, but they are now. –
FayenaticLondon 21:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per above --
Lenticel(
talk) 07:12, 19 January 2024 (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:Israeli social commentators
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: broaden the category because there isn't a "social commentators" parent category
Mason (
talk) 21:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. "Social" is also too subjective.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:23, 17 January 2024 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between "pre-Confederation Canada" era and occupation.
Mason (
talk) 21:26, 16 January 2024 (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.
Bowling stubs
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: No template, unproposed, unnecessary, as are the following sub-cats, none of which contain more than 1 article. Her Pegship (?) 20:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete categories and templates per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:06, 16 January 2024 (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 characters by age and medium
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: Extreme
WP:NARROWCAT with only two categories. Leads to clutter, should be dual upmerged.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:45, 16 January 2024 (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 characters by owner
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: "Owner" is vague and can mean a lot of things, leading to
WP:SURPRISE. If this category is to stay here, it needs a more specific name.
Category:Fictional characters by creator already exists, so the current name is also redundant, as a creator can also be an owner of the character. Company likely makes the most sense.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Is "owner" really a vague term? Isn't it very much a legal issue?
★Trekker (
talk) 20:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If so, maybe it needs to be more specified, like "IP owner". The first thing I thought was that it was a category for fictional pets.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I guess that is a fair point.
★Trekker (
talk) 20:58, 16 January 2024 (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:Countesses of Urgell
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 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:Female characters in fairy tales
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 to merge these two categories in isolation, without prejudice against a broader nomination of the entire tree.
* Pppery *it has begun... 00:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Nearly all fairy tales have female characters. As currently (under)populated, it is far too broad, hence meaningless. If not deleted, then maybe it should be restricted to those characters who are not solely confined to a single tale, e.g.
Baba Yaga.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 06:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm relisting mostly so this can be discussed alongside the discussion below. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep on gender issue; Keep as sub-category of “Literary characters by genre”. On the first issue, I agree with Zxcvbnm that it’s not appropriate to delete this category based on gender, as a one-off. Need to review all of the literature categories that use gender, for consistency, and treat them all the same. On the fairy-tale issue, I would say that
fairy tales are a distinct sub-category of literature, as an aspect of
folklore and therefore should remain as a separate sub-category of literature. As the fairy tale article notes: "all these together form the literature of preliterate societies". They are a special type of literature, preceding modern literature, and therefore should have separate sub-categories, for example, within the sub-cat of “Literary characters by genre”. That is an appropriate location for this category.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 13:55, 19 January 2024 (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:Male characters in fairy tales
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 to merge these two categories in isolation, without prejudice against a broader nomination of the entire tree.
* Pppery *it has begun... 00:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep this category. I agree with AHI-3000.
Dimadick (
talk) 11:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Opposers should provide arguments why
WP:EGRS does not apply in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep on gender issue; Keep as a literary genre, for same reasons as I gave above for the female category.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 14:07, 19 January 2024 (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:20th-century executions by Singapore
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.
They may be accurate, but they're confusing. I spent a good five minutes trying to figure out if the category was incorrectly parented. If no change is made, I think that a very clear explanation in the category would be helpful.
Mason (
talk) 01:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:30, 16 January 2024 (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:Finnic peoples
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 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:Rocket launches
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 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:Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras players
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 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:Religious places of the indigenous peoples of North America
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: Per
WP:INDIGENOUS when describing people the word "Indigenous" should be capitalized.
ARoseWolf 15:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, "Indigenous" is capitalized when referring to citizenship (i.e. a proper name) but there is no North American citizenship, this is merely descriptive.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Indigenous people are defined by their citizenship with Native American or Indigenous tribal nations. It is naming convention policy. Lowercase 'indigenous' would be reserved for contexts in which the term does not apply to Indigenous people in any sense—for example, indigenous plant and animal species. If you don't like policy then there are ways to challenge the policy. --
ARoseWolf 19:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC) --edited 19:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support as per
MOS:RACECAPS/
MOS:CITIZEN (both links are poorly named but that's beside the current point). Capitalizing Indigenous when referring to people is a well-established practice, in keeping with all major style guides.
Yuchitown (
talk) 14:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitownreply
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:Lawyers from the Province of Canada
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: Recently created category, which overlaps with other recently created categories, and is not technically accurate.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 12:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Shortly after the decision to delete the "British North America lawyers" category, and to create sub-categories for "Lawyers in Lower Canada/Canada East" and "Lawyers in Upper Canada/Canada West", John Pack Lambert left a message on my Talk page, suggesting the creation of a new category: "Lawyers from the Province of Canada". He suggested that the divisions of Canada East and Canada West were "just conventional" and the real factor was the Province of Canada. I replied that I did not think the proposed category was needed, in light of the decision to create the two sub-categories, and was not technically accurate. Mr Lambert has now created the category. My reasons on my Talk page for not creating it were:
"Hi John Pack Lambert, I’ve thought about your suggestion but I don’t think it would work. There was no single bar for the Province of Canada, because the legal and court systems were different. Lawyers in Lower Canada / Canada East were members of the Law Society of Lower Canada, trained in the civil law. Lawyers from Upper Canada / Canada West were members of the law Society of Upper Canada, trained in the common law. Neither set of lawyers had right of audience in the courts of the other section. There was clear continuity in the lawyers from Lower Canada / Canada East / Quebec, and a separate continuity in the lawyers from Upper Canada / Canada West / Ontario. That’s why I’ve suggested putting a sub-category of Lower Canada lawyers in the existing category of « Lawyers in Quebec », and a sub-category of Upper Canada lawyers in the existing category of « Lawyers in Ontario ». I would also say that if a lawyer was called to either bar prior to Confederation, but continued into Confederation, they should just be catégorised as a Quebec lawyer or an Ontario lawyer. If they ceased practice before 1867, then I’d put them in the sub-categories."
"The reason I suggest this approach is that the division of the province of Canada into Canada East and Canada West wasn’t just conventional. The Province of Canada was a quasi-federation, and the separate court systems and legal systems, with separate bars, was one of the strongest markers of the quasi-federal nature."
For the same reasons, I suggest that the new category should be deleted.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 13:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not familiar enough with the history of Canada to comment on this. If I understood correctly, Mr Lambert is not allowed to participate in deletion discussions, but I think an exception should be made here because this case is entirely unrelated to the reason of his topic ban (if that is what it is).
User:Fayenatic london what would be good procedure here?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think that it is a good idea to temporarily lift the ban.
[1] The reason of the ban was because of how they reacted to deletion discussions.
Mason (
talk) 19:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for asking, but I was not aware of the ban at the time, and although I once tried to look for it to check what was decided, I did not find it. –
FayenaticLondon 22:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and per precedent.@
Johnpacklambert, please listen to other people's wisdom here. There is no need to distinguish Canadian people intersections by occupation and colony.
Mason (
talk) 19:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
You seem to misunderstand that the remaining categories are even narrower intersections, namely by type of law within the Province of Canada. This is just for info, I do not say it is better or worse.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The previous discussion is here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_3#Category:Medical_doctors_from_British_North_America. Based on that discussion, I created two new categories: “Lawyers in Lower Canada/Canada East”, which is a sub-cat of “Lawyers in Quebec”, which in turn is a sub-cat of “Canadian Lawyers”. I also created “Lawyers in Upper Canada/Canada West”, which is a sub-cat of “Lawyers in Ontario”, also a sub-cat of “Canadian Lawyers”. In my opinion, there is an historical / geographic / civil law continuity for the legal profession in Lower Canada/Canada East => Quebec, and an historical / geographic / common law continuity for the legal profession in Upper Canada/Canada West => Ontario, which would be masked by the new category.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 12:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I should also mention that there was continuity in the use of the terms “Lower Canada” and “Upper Canada”, even after the creation of the Province of Canada in 1841, which is why I created “Lawyers in Lower Canada/Canada East” and “Lawyers in Upper Canada/Canada West”. The Parliament of the Province of Canada passed a statute that provided that the terms “Lower Canada” and “Upper Canada” could continue to be used for legal purposes. It wasn’t until the creation of Canada and the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in 1867 that those two older names finally stopped being used.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 13:01, 17 January 2024 (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:Natural scientists by nationality etc
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: Small category with only two subcategories.
Hugo999 (
talk) 10:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If I understand correctly, natural scientists categories are supposed to be parent categories of e.g. biologists, physicists and chemists.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic of any entries. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 20:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Just Delete all three. The articles are well categorized and this doesn't seem defining to the articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:54, 22 January 2024 (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 characters with eye diseases
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: This doesn't seem defining at all, as it can encompass characters with incredibly minor eye issues that don't affect their appearance or behavior. The subcategories are significantly less vague and broad.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 08:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, redundant category layer with only two subcategories and one article.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I have interlinked the two subcats with see-also links. I also removed
Hiroshi Odokawa whose list entry makes no mention of eye disease. –
FayenaticLondon 10:45, 17 January 2024 (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 characters displaced in other dimensions
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: Fails
WP:NONDEF, as it is not a trait of the characters, but rather, a situation they are in, or a feature of the story itself. It is akin to saying "fictional characters who once boarded a train".
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 07:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Characters like
Bishop and
Shard have been permanently trapped in a version of Earth which is very different than their home reality, and and this pretty much defined their status in over 30 years of stories.
Dimadick (
talk) 02:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Oinkers and Dimadick
AHI-3000 (
talk) 20:54, 17 January 2024 (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 characters from parallel universes
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: While
Category:Fiction about parallel universes focuses on works about the concept of parallel universes themselves, the use of parallel universes in general is such an incredibly common thing in fiction that I don't see how this category is defining. It encompasses literally every character from somewhere that isn't "our universe", which is to say, all of fantasy fiction and a large chunk of sci-fi.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 07:27, 16 January 2024 (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 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:LGBT Sex Clubs
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 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:Native American people from the San Francisco Bay Area
Category:21st-century attacks on synagogues and Jewish communal organizations in the United States
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 per Marcocapelle. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 19:37, 16 January 2024 (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:Kamrupi literary figures
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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. These categories are extremely underpopulated, which is unhelpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 00:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge all per above. —
The Anome (
talk) 07:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge all per nom. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 19:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge There is plenty of room for expansion in the later decades (e.g. the
einstein problem), but this was evidently quickly abandoned after creation. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 11:53, 22 January 2024 (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.
Nominator's rationale: This category was previously deleted year ago in
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 14#Category:Public domain characters. Part of one argument is that this content should be listified rather than having a separate category for what could be a huge category. Since it was deleted before, I thought I'd bring it back to CFD to see if this decision should be overturned or carried out as a CSD G4-type of deletion. LizRead!Talk! 22:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Public domain varies by country, so this category is too confusing and may lead to inaccurate beliefs about what characters are public domain. A list is indeed better, as it specifies where the character is public domain.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 23:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I started a draft page for character sin the public domain in the USA.
Delete varies by country and over time so it's not defining. No objection to a list but that can be outside of CFD. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:47, 22 January 2024 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to have a page and a single category (which also only has one page)
Mason (
talk) 21:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The contents were not interlinked by "see also" templates, but they are now. –
FayenaticLondon 21:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per above --
Lenticel(
talk) 07:12, 19 January 2024 (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:Israeli social commentators
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: broaden the category because there isn't a "social commentators" parent category
Mason (
talk) 21:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. "Social" is also too subjective.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:23, 17 January 2024 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between "pre-Confederation Canada" era and occupation.
Mason (
talk) 21:26, 16 January 2024 (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.
Bowling stubs
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: No template, unproposed, unnecessary, as are the following sub-cats, none of which contain more than 1 article. Her Pegship (?) 20:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete categories and templates per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:06, 16 January 2024 (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 characters by age and medium
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: Extreme
WP:NARROWCAT with only two categories. Leads to clutter, should be dual upmerged.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:45, 16 January 2024 (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 characters by owner
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: "Owner" is vague and can mean a lot of things, leading to
WP:SURPRISE. If this category is to stay here, it needs a more specific name.
Category:Fictional characters by creator already exists, so the current name is also redundant, as a creator can also be an owner of the character. Company likely makes the most sense.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Is "owner" really a vague term? Isn't it very much a legal issue?
★Trekker (
talk) 20:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If so, maybe it needs to be more specified, like "IP owner". The first thing I thought was that it was a category for fictional pets.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I guess that is a fair point.
★Trekker (
talk) 20:58, 16 January 2024 (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:Countesses of Urgell
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 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:Female characters in fairy tales
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 to merge these two categories in isolation, without prejudice against a broader nomination of the entire tree.
* Pppery *it has begun... 00:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Nearly all fairy tales have female characters. As currently (under)populated, it is far too broad, hence meaningless. If not deleted, then maybe it should be restricted to those characters who are not solely confined to a single tale, e.g.
Baba Yaga.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 06:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm relisting mostly so this can be discussed alongside the discussion below. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep on gender issue; Keep as sub-category of “Literary characters by genre”. On the first issue, I agree with Zxcvbnm that it’s not appropriate to delete this category based on gender, as a one-off. Need to review all of the literature categories that use gender, for consistency, and treat them all the same. On the fairy-tale issue, I would say that
fairy tales are a distinct sub-category of literature, as an aspect of
folklore and therefore should remain as a separate sub-category of literature. As the fairy tale article notes: "all these together form the literature of preliterate societies". They are a special type of literature, preceding modern literature, and therefore should have separate sub-categories, for example, within the sub-cat of “Literary characters by genre”. That is an appropriate location for this category.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 13:55, 19 January 2024 (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:Male characters in fairy tales
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 to merge these two categories in isolation, without prejudice against a broader nomination of the entire tree.
* Pppery *it has begun... 00:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep this category. I agree with AHI-3000.
Dimadick (
talk) 11:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Opposers should provide arguments why
WP:EGRS does not apply in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep on gender issue; Keep as a literary genre, for same reasons as I gave above for the female category.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 14:07, 19 January 2024 (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:20th-century executions by Singapore
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.
They may be accurate, but they're confusing. I spent a good five minutes trying to figure out if the category was incorrectly parented. If no change is made, I think that a very clear explanation in the category would be helpful.
Mason (
talk) 01:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:30, 16 January 2024 (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:Finnic peoples
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 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:Rocket launches
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 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:Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras players
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 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:Religious places of the indigenous peoples of North America
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: Per
WP:INDIGENOUS when describing people the word "Indigenous" should be capitalized.
ARoseWolf 15:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, "Indigenous" is capitalized when referring to citizenship (i.e. a proper name) but there is no North American citizenship, this is merely descriptive.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Indigenous people are defined by their citizenship with Native American or Indigenous tribal nations. It is naming convention policy. Lowercase 'indigenous' would be reserved for contexts in which the term does not apply to Indigenous people in any sense—for example, indigenous plant and animal species. If you don't like policy then there are ways to challenge the policy. --
ARoseWolf 19:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC) --edited 19:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support as per
MOS:RACECAPS/
MOS:CITIZEN (both links are poorly named but that's beside the current point). Capitalizing Indigenous when referring to people is a well-established practice, in keeping with all major style guides.
Yuchitown (
talk) 14:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitownreply
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:Lawyers from the Province of Canada
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: Recently created category, which overlaps with other recently created categories, and is not technically accurate.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 12:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Shortly after the decision to delete the "British North America lawyers" category, and to create sub-categories for "Lawyers in Lower Canada/Canada East" and "Lawyers in Upper Canada/Canada West", John Pack Lambert left a message on my Talk page, suggesting the creation of a new category: "Lawyers from the Province of Canada". He suggested that the divisions of Canada East and Canada West were "just conventional" and the real factor was the Province of Canada. I replied that I did not think the proposed category was needed, in light of the decision to create the two sub-categories, and was not technically accurate. Mr Lambert has now created the category. My reasons on my Talk page for not creating it were:
"Hi John Pack Lambert, I’ve thought about your suggestion but I don’t think it would work. There was no single bar for the Province of Canada, because the legal and court systems were different. Lawyers in Lower Canada / Canada East were members of the Law Society of Lower Canada, trained in the civil law. Lawyers from Upper Canada / Canada West were members of the law Society of Upper Canada, trained in the common law. Neither set of lawyers had right of audience in the courts of the other section. There was clear continuity in the lawyers from Lower Canada / Canada East / Quebec, and a separate continuity in the lawyers from Upper Canada / Canada West / Ontario. That’s why I’ve suggested putting a sub-category of Lower Canada lawyers in the existing category of « Lawyers in Quebec », and a sub-category of Upper Canada lawyers in the existing category of « Lawyers in Ontario ». I would also say that if a lawyer was called to either bar prior to Confederation, but continued into Confederation, they should just be catégorised as a Quebec lawyer or an Ontario lawyer. If they ceased practice before 1867, then I’d put them in the sub-categories."
"The reason I suggest this approach is that the division of the province of Canada into Canada East and Canada West wasn’t just conventional. The Province of Canada was a quasi-federation, and the separate court systems and legal systems, with separate bars, was one of the strongest markers of the quasi-federal nature."
For the same reasons, I suggest that the new category should be deleted.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 13:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not familiar enough with the history of Canada to comment on this. If I understood correctly, Mr Lambert is not allowed to participate in deletion discussions, but I think an exception should be made here because this case is entirely unrelated to the reason of his topic ban (if that is what it is).
User:Fayenatic london what would be good procedure here?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think that it is a good idea to temporarily lift the ban.
[1] The reason of the ban was because of how they reacted to deletion discussions.
Mason (
talk) 19:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for asking, but I was not aware of the ban at the time, and although I once tried to look for it to check what was decided, I did not find it. –
FayenaticLondon 22:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and per precedent.@
Johnpacklambert, please listen to other people's wisdom here. There is no need to distinguish Canadian people intersections by occupation and colony.
Mason (
talk) 19:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
You seem to misunderstand that the remaining categories are even narrower intersections, namely by type of law within the Province of Canada. This is just for info, I do not say it is better or worse.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The previous discussion is here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_3#Category:Medical_doctors_from_British_North_America. Based on that discussion, I created two new categories: “Lawyers in Lower Canada/Canada East”, which is a sub-cat of “Lawyers in Quebec”, which in turn is a sub-cat of “Canadian Lawyers”. I also created “Lawyers in Upper Canada/Canada West”, which is a sub-cat of “Lawyers in Ontario”, also a sub-cat of “Canadian Lawyers”. In my opinion, there is an historical / geographic / civil law continuity for the legal profession in Lower Canada/Canada East => Quebec, and an historical / geographic / common law continuity for the legal profession in Upper Canada/Canada West => Ontario, which would be masked by the new category.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 12:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I should also mention that there was continuity in the use of the terms “Lower Canada” and “Upper Canada”, even after the creation of the Province of Canada in 1841, which is why I created “Lawyers in Lower Canada/Canada East” and “Lawyers in Upper Canada/Canada West”. The Parliament of the Province of Canada passed a statute that provided that the terms “Lower Canada” and “Upper Canada” could continue to be used for legal purposes. It wasn’t until the creation of Canada and the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in 1867 that those two older names finally stopped being used.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 13:01, 17 January 2024 (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:Natural scientists by nationality etc
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: Small category with only two subcategories.
Hugo999 (
talk) 10:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If I understand correctly, natural scientists categories are supposed to be parent categories of e.g. biologists, physicists and chemists.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic of any entries. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 20:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Just Delete all three. The articles are well categorized and this doesn't seem defining to the articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:54, 22 January 2024 (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 characters with eye diseases
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: This doesn't seem defining at all, as it can encompass characters with incredibly minor eye issues that don't affect their appearance or behavior. The subcategories are significantly less vague and broad.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 08:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, redundant category layer with only two subcategories and one article.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I have interlinked the two subcats with see-also links. I also removed
Hiroshi Odokawa whose list entry makes no mention of eye disease. –
FayenaticLondon 10:45, 17 January 2024 (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 characters displaced in other dimensions
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: Fails
WP:NONDEF, as it is not a trait of the characters, but rather, a situation they are in, or a feature of the story itself. It is akin to saying "fictional characters who once boarded a train".
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 07:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Characters like
Bishop and
Shard have been permanently trapped in a version of Earth which is very different than their home reality, and and this pretty much defined their status in over 30 years of stories.
Dimadick (
talk) 02:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Oinkers and Dimadick
AHI-3000 (
talk) 20:54, 17 January 2024 (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 characters from parallel universes
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: While
Category:Fiction about parallel universes focuses on works about the concept of parallel universes themselves, the use of parallel universes in general is such an incredibly common thing in fiction that I don't see how this category is defining. It encompasses literally every character from somewhere that isn't "our universe", which is to say, all of fantasy fiction and a large chunk of sci-fi.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 07:27, 16 January 2024 (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 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:LGBT Sex Clubs
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 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:Native American people from the San Francisco Bay Area
Category:21st-century attacks on synagogues and Jewish communal organizations in the United States
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 per Marcocapelle. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 19:37, 16 January 2024 (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:Kamrupi literary figures
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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. These categories are extremely underpopulated, which is unhelpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 00:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge all per above. —
The Anome (
talk) 07:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge all per nom. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 19:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge There is plenty of room for expansion in the later decades (e.g. the
einstein problem), but this was evidently quickly abandoned after creation. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 11:53, 22 January 2024 (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.