Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 23: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
add question
Line 354: Line 354:
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|Rabbis by country}}
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lc|Rabbis by country}}
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''delete''' in the spirit of [[WP:OVERLAPCAT]], this combines the content of two unrelated other categories: [[:Category:Chief rabbis]] and [[:Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel]]. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''delete''' in the spirit of [[WP:OVERLAPCAT]], this combines the content of two unrelated other categories: [[:Category:Chief rabbis]] and [[:Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel]]. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 05:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
::[[Solomon_Schechter|Solomon_Schechter]] is in neither. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 18:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:34, 25 August 2023

< August 22
August 24 >

August 23

Category:Wetlands of Pallisa District

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT. As always, things do not always need to be categorized all the way down to the "district" level right off the top -- this would be fine if there were five wetlands to file here, but is not needed for just one. There are only three things in the parent category Category:Wetlands of Uganda, however, and one of those three things is the same thing that's filed here (in defiance of WP:DUPCAT rules), which means that there's no prospect of finding four other wetlands to justify this category anytime soon. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tornadoes in Canada by date

Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME, these are apparently articles with a date in the article title. A merge is not needed, the articles are already in Category:Tornadoes in Ontario etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background: This category, along with Category:Tornadoes in Canada by location, was intended as a way to resolve the mess that's seen in existing categories such as Category:Tornadoes in Canada or Category:Tornadoes in Ontario, where the entries in those categories are in no specific order at all, neither date nor location, because the category name gives no guidance as to a suitable ordering of the category keys (some entries are listed under T for Tornado, some listed by date if that happens to be the first word of the article, some under L for list, some under the name of the location, and other variants too). The intention was to populate the two subcategories with items from the larger category, which would then consist of only of the subcategories. However, this work was left incomplete. This is also a problem with tornado categories in the US - an example is Category:Tornadoes in Georgia (U.S. state). Colonies Chris (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(continued): Looking at this more closely, it seems that the problem of indexing by location has since been resolved by the creation of the tornadoes in province subcategories. Within these, ideally, articles would be ordered by date, though that's pretty patchy. Currently, not all the articles in Category:Tornadoes in Canada by date are also categorised by province (e.g. Tornado outbreak of June 5–6, 2010 should be in Category:Tornadoes in Ontario) - once that has been done, the category in question would indeed be redundant. In fact, Category:Tornadoes in Canada by location is also potentially redundant, as it consists solely of province subcategories that could just be promoted to subcategories of Category:Tornadoes in Canada. Colonies Chris (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the National Photoartists Union of Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a single person. As always, every organization that exists does not automatically get its own dedicated "members of" caegory the moment there's one past or present member with an article to file in it -- this would be fine if there were at least five people to file here, but is not warranted for just one. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mere membership of an organization is hardly ever a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture of Mayotte

Nominator's rationale: Other similar category names follow the adjective format (African culture, Malagasy culture, etc.). Zanahary (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purging nationality categories from Arab people

Nominator's rationale: Category:Artists by ethnicity and Category:Artists by nationality are two different category trees. Not all Iraqi artists are Arab artists, e.g. lots of Iraqi artists are Kurdish. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 15#Arabs and Arab people. Test case for the disentanglement of nationality-based Category:Fooian people subcategories of the ethnicity-based Category:Arab people tree per suggestion made by @Fayenatic london. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did I nominate this correctly? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the nomination and tagged more categories. – Fayenatic London 10:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I wasn't sure which ones to tag, and which ones to leave alone for now, so I decided to begin simple and check with you. I fully agree with your expansion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I tagged all the above pages. – Fayenatic London 13:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It would make sense to leave a message about this nomination (with a link) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arab_world and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Iraq. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As I argued at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_18#Category:Arab, categories for nationals of countries where Arabic is the majority language belong in Arab people because WP:SUBCAT allows cases where the majority of contents would belong in the parent. We have other cases where people are sub-catted for less than a majority, e.g. WP:IRE-CATS is a consensus that people from Northern Ireland are parented by both British and Irish hierarchies, even though many do not identify as both but only as one or the other. The description on the category page should indicate how individual biographies should be diffused to subcats. The alternative to this nomination is to copy the vast majority of Algerian/Egyptian/Iraqi artists etc into Arab artists, which would clearly not be desirable. – Fayenatic London 12:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true. Though there is an alternative, namely to not categorize people by a majority ethnicity at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tagged and added "People by century" categories, as the "purge" element of the nomination at wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_26#Arab_people_by_century was not commented on by other participants. – Fayenatic London 04:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: what do you think of my latest comment? We do not categorize white Americans either and we categorize Han Chinese people mainly based on sub-ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As you mentioned Chinese, I looked around the existing hierarchies, and found that there is no navigation between e.g. Category:American artists of Chinese descent and Category:Chinese artists. I wonder if there should be a link for the ethnic connection.
    As a compromise, how about keeping the existing categories but adding a layer "People from the Arab World" (+ People from the Arab World by occupation, Artists from the Arab World, 20th-century people from the Arab World, etc) which would contain the sub-cats for the 19 nationalities where Arabic is natively spoken? That would more demonstrably satisfy WP:SUBCAT and the nominator's objections. I do not strongly favour this extra layer, but would prefer that to purging the connections per the nomination. – Fayenatic London 10:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly oppose a People from the Arab World tree per as an WP:ARBITRARYCAT, a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, and an WP:OR WP:CROSSCAT.
    1. The People from Fooland naming convention is mostly used for former countries. The recent renamings stem from the Category:People from the Russian Empire precedent of September 2022. "The Arab world" was never a single country or sovereign state, so the People from Fooland naming convention does not apply here.
    2. There is no agreed definition on "Arab world", so it can never be WP:CATSPECIFIC, but only lead to categorisation problems. For the same reason I have been deleting/merging/renaming pages called "Western Europe(an)" something, because there is no agreed definition on "Western Europe" either (see for example Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 31#Category:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe). I don't care if it's possibly (depending on definition, which is the problem) about the region I just so happen to live in or somewhere else; categorisation needs to happen according to agreed definitions.
    3. You say the 19 nationalities where Arabic is natively spoken, but that sentence in itself doesn't even make sense. What you probably (?) mean is that there are 19 [sic] countries where Arabic is the native language spoken by the majority of the population. First, I think that number is probably 21 (all member states of the Arab League minus Somalia), and second, that is WP:NONDEFINING. We recently established a consensus to rename Category:Arabic-speaking countries and territories to Category:Countries and territories where Arabic is an official language precisely for this reason.
    4. There is so much generalisation, arbitrariness and subjective inclusion and exclusion going on when it comes to grouping countries as "Arab", "Arabic" or even "Arabian". Take Chad. Only 15.8% of Ethnic groups in Chad self-identify as "Arabs". Chadian Arabic is spoken by about 2 million people, while Languages of Chad states that Standard Arabic is spoken by around 615,000 speakers. Meanwhile, the Sara people speaking mostly Sara languages (unrelated to Arabic) dominate the population of Chad with about 5,311,303 (30.5%). But: Arabic is an official language of the country. Do we count it amongst "the Arab world" or not? It's not a member of the Arab League. It has observer status, but so does Venezuela, and that doesn't make Venezuela part of "the Arab world" either, does it?
    5. Something similar may be said about South Sudan, which until its 2011 independence was also often regarded as part of "the Arab world" because it was part of Sudan. What about Somalia? It's an Arab League member but its main language is Somali. What about Somaliland? And so on.
    6. And that's before we get to all non-Arabic minorities within the other countries. There's a reason why I bring up Iraqi Kurds (about c. 15–25% of all Iraqis, depending on how you count) to counter the generalisation that all Iraqi artists are "Arab" artists. They're not. Invoking WP:SUBCAT doesn't do justice to millions of non-Arab people in Arab-majority countries, including about 10 million Kurds in Iraq and Syria alone. This is just mixing up the Category:People by ethnicity and Category:People by nationality trees; we shouldn't do that. Just because a majority of their compatriots is a native speaker of the Arabic language does not mean we should go around categorising Iraqi Kurdish artists as "Arabs".
    7. We've been applying that principle for several months now, and long before I got involved with CFD in February this year, as the September 2022 Category:People from the Russian Empire precedent shows. I don't see why or how we should be making an exception when it comes to Arab people. This nom is a logical follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 15#Arabs and Arab people, as well as many other related discussions such as renaming Category:Arabic-speaking countries and territories, wherein we already established consensus.
    Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I might add the following hypothetical: If the Kurdistan Region/Iraqi Kurdistan achieved independence tomorrow (and does not apply for membership or observer status of the Arab League or anything), would we be justified in categorising it as part of "the Arab world", or not? If not, why would we be justified in categorising it as part of "the Arab world" today?
    Compare this with the 2011 independence of South Sudan (which thereby left the Arab League), and how this has changed perceptions about how it is not part of "the Arab world"; either "not anymore", or maybe it "never really was"? The point, and the problem for us as Wikipedians, is that it is arguable either way, and thus subjective and arbitrary, and thus a term like "the Arab world" is unfit for Wikipedia categorisation purposes. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was purging nationality-based Category:Palestinian people from ethnicity-based Category:Palestinians but was reverted by User:Iskandar323. --Yelysavet (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion does not appear to be about that, but ... modern Palestinians in the sense of people with Palestinian nationality are a subset of the wider ethnic group defined as "Palestinian". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Iskandar323, no, they are not. Palestinians are only one of the Category:Ethnic groups in the State of Palestine. --Yelysavet (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sub-category could just be bad, so it's not really demonstrative of anything. "Palestinian", as an ethnicity, is based on geography and shared language and culture. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion somewhat cuts to the heart of Arab identity, and is the source of ongoing discussion at Arabs too - the question being how best to define "Arab" with respect to the sources as an ethnic group that leans so heavily on language that by some definitions, anyone sufficiently fluent in Arabic language and culture is effectively an Arab: these broader definitions often include modern day Druze, Kurds and Arab Christians, even if those communities have different ideas about themselves. The broad definition would appear to the sense here, with Arab people being a contraction of "Arab-speaking people from the Arab world", e.g. Arab artists are Arab-speaking artists from Arab-speaking countries. Given that Arabic is the unambiguous lingua franca in most Arab world countries, this is not a huge stretch or liberty really. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a stretch because Druze and Kurds are an ethnicity of their own. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Druze are often described as an Arab ethnoreligious group, i.e. a sub-group, including on our page here, but Kurds are admittedly a bit more of a stretch. I guess it depends on whether the majoritarian principle expounded above by Fayenatic exists. I don't have an answer to that. The possibility of adding in the sub-layer "People from the Arab World" suggested by Fayenatic also occurred to me as a possible workaround. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Nationality means both "belonging to one state" and "belonging to the ethnic, historic group of people"; so there is nothing wrong with Iraqi people being a subcategory of the Arab people category. Marcelus (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century establishments in Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT / WP:NARROWCAT. "Ukraine" didn't exist yet, but Kievan Rus' did. These categories largely have the same contents anyway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any sources for that change, or is that your own WP:OR? Marcelus (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles Name of Ukraine cites the oldest mention of "Ukraine" in the year 1187, but that does not imply that "Ukraine" was a common name of a region or country in the centuries to follow. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that this should be understood as events from the 10th century on the territory of today's Ukraine. Besides, Category:11th-century establishments in Ukraine is not anachronistic in any respect, it is a completely different case. Marcelus (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, resolves anachronism. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as always, as the "anachronism" and similar viewpoints look at this from one perspective only (how was it called then), not from another, equally valid (how is it called now). "When did the things in current Ukraine or the things that shaped the history of what is now Ukraine get established" is a natural question, the history of a country doesn't start when it is formally named or established but long before. Fram (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American cabinetmakers

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Only 2 articles. User:Namiba 14:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories with disallowed fraction characters

Nominator's rationale: The characters ⅜, ⅝, and ⅞ are disallowed by MOS:FRAC because they do not reliably work with screen readers. After discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Fractions in category names, it seems the ASCII representation is preferred in these situations. I updated the MOS and am making this nomination to get final approval from a slightly wider audience. Also fixed non-compliance with MOS:UNITS; whitespace is required between number and unit. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW, as of the 1 Aug 2023 database dump, these are the only categories with these characters. -- Beland (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Turns out the 4ft 8⅜in categories have been moved to Category:1432 mm gauge railways and friends as a result of the MOS:FRAC discussion. -- Beland (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:12⅝ in gauge railways is a WP:SMALLCAT. Aren't there any others than only Midland Beach Railway Company? I suppose not: The gauge of the locomotive was a unique 12+5⁄8 in (321 mm). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per a comment I've just added to that discussion, I tested the page with NVDA (a popular screen reader), and found that ⅞ was read fine - better than "7/8" which is read "seven divided by eight". This was a very quick and dirty test, so I think it would be helpful if someone with access to other screen readers could test to see if they have been updated since the original MOS:FRAC guidance. It would be a shame if we make this change in the name of accessibility and end up making things worse. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works to fix the character issue! -- Beland (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fellows of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V, WP:NONDEFINING & WP:OCAWARD
The International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics article makes no mention of having fellows and the only article in this category, Petr Vaníček, makes only an unsourced mention of this award within a list of other fellowships so it doesn't seem defining. Normally I listify award categories before I ever nominate them, but there wasn't much to work with here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category now has 7 members.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Clicked through the other articles listed by Altenmann do mention this but generally in passing with other honours so it doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The rationale hasn't changed because a few more articles have been added. Nor has my vote changed. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of Northwestern Europe

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT, follow-up to long series of precedents such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Northwestern European countries.
Upmerge all actual regions (e.g. Category:Geography of Ireland) to Category:Geography of Europe by region; and
Purge all countries (e.g. Category:Geography of the Republic of Ireland) because they are already in Category:Geography of Europe by country.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century women rulers

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these medieval women. I'm suggesting a split into no fewer than 8 new categories. Follow-up to Category:5th-century women rulers (Split), 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well; the "7th-century women rulers" CfS, the "8th-century women rulers" CfS, the "9th-century women rulers" CfS, and the "10th-century women rulers" CfS are still ongoing.
Proposed split into 8 new categories
Women regents
Empresses regnant
Empresses consort
Queens regnant
Queens consort
Duchesses consort
Countesses regnant
Countesses consort
Doubtful cases

Notes: When biographies say so-and-so was the ruling duchess/countess of Fooland, always check what that means. If it is because her father and brothers died and so she inherited Fooland, that makes her a duchess/countess regnant (suo jure). But when biographies say so-and-so was the ruling duchess/countess of Fooland during the minority of her son, that means she was a duchess/countess consort + a woman regent, not a duchess/countess regnant. Regent ≠ regnant.

Also note the end-of-century mark. Example: Gerberga, Countess of Provence was countess consort until her husband died in 1108, so we can't categorise her as "11th-century countesses regnant", but only as "12th-century countesses regnant".

For the purposes of preventing WP:SMALLCATs, I am classifying "margravines" ("march-countesses") and "viscountesses/vicomtesses" ("vice-countesses") as "countesses". If any of these become large enough for their own categories, they can always be split off later. I am classifying Jimena Díaz (widow of El Cid) as "queen regnant" rather than "lady" (per article "lady of Valencia") or "princess" (per El Cid's article "prince of Valencia"), because all other rulers of the Taifa of Valencia are either called "king" or "emir" (the Arabic equivalent of "king"). I suppose we could call her an "emira", but that would also create a 1-item Smallcat, so let's just go with "queen regnant". Other doubtful cases have come with recommendations.

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any "consort" categor being here: consorts weren't rulers out of definition. Oppose others out of possible WP:OR, for example: Urraca of Zamora wasn't "countesses regnant", she was none of the sources describe her as such, she and her sister were given possession of the so-called infantados, a complex of monasteries that belonged to her and her sister by virtue of being infantas, they held them until their marriage. She also received the towns of Zamora and Elvira, but not by virtue of being an infanta. We do not know what title she bore. Calling her a countess is not confirmed in the sources. Similarly, Anne of Kiev was married to a count after her first husband's death, but she held power by virtue of being her royal son's regent. The Garsende of Béziers was a viscountess, not a countess. Mariam of Vaspurakan was a ruler by virtue of being a regent, not queen etc. If we want to isolate a category, it could be Category:11th-century women regents. The division proposed by the OP is wrong and OR. Marcelus (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcelus: it is not clear to me what exactly you are opposing. The proposed split will solve the issue that consorts do not belong here. I have argued the same, plus I have argued that regents are a different class as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is this: I am against the removal of Category:11th-century women rulers because it is a useful category, gathering women exercising actual supreme power in a country. @Nederlandse Leeuw proposed split will result in women actually exercising power (e.g. as regents) being assigned to the "x consort" category, which by definition gathers those not exercising actual power. Moreover, NL's proposed split is WP:OR and in fact most of the cases I have checked prove this, e.g. NL proposes to move Sayyida Shirin to the "queens consort" category, when in fact she was an emira. For these two reasons, the proposed change is unacceptable. Marcelus (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rabbis by country

Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:OVERLAPCAT, this combines the content of two unrelated other categories: Category:Chief rabbis and Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solomon_Schechter is in neither. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_23&oldid=1172222098"