Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1Matt20 (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 17 April 2024 (→‎Category:American politicians who are the sole member of their party in statewide office: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 11
April 13 >

April 12

Native American artists by gender

Nominator's rationale: If there are concerns that lead to categories such as Category:American male artists (and similar articles) being treated as non-diffusing, it seems that the same rationale should apply to Native American artists. (Apologies if I've made any formatting errors. This is my first time submitting a cfd.) Katya (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then I modify to: Merge Category:Native American male artists to Category:Native American artists, per WP:OCEGRS unless there is indication that male Native American artists are a notable topic in themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it looks like there's been discussion in the past about whether or not there should be any "male artist" categories, without any consensus. In the absence of consensus to delete them, I think we should keep the Native American male artist categories, in keeping with other paired male / female artist categories elsewhere on the site. (Or we could revisit the issue of whether "male artist" categories should exist at all, but I think that's a separate issue. Again, my original question was just whether or not the categories should be non-diffusing.) Katya (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Center

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Tagged by Namiba on February 4 but not listed. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serer presidents

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we should be diffusing at the intersection of ethnicity and specific political office. Also as a follow up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_30#Category:Serer_jurists Mason (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Senegal has had 5 presidents since independence. 3 of those 5 were Serers as the cat clearly shows. The 4th had a Serer mother and a Serer wife. And we have not even accounted for Gambia and Mauritania where the Serer people are also found. I think this cat is pretty useful to the general reader and has great potential. There is no policy that I know of that states we can't do that. If that's the case, then there is no point in having cats for ethnicities and nationalities e.g. English actors, Scottish actors, etc.... Tamsier (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how does it meet the criteria for defining intersection, under WP:EGRS/IThat's the policy that this category doesn't meet the keep criteria for. Your arguments don't address the lack of defining intersection. Comparing this category to English actors is not comparable. We don't have English presidents, but we do have English politicians. Mason (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cat:Serer presidents is implemented in order to split cat:Serer people - which is permitted by OCEGRS. It helps us split notable Serers into their profession rather than lumping them all into the Cat:Serer people. To do that, would overload Cat:Serer people and would not help the reader at all. In fact, most notable Serers have not been added to this Cat for exactly that reason. The cat:Serer people should only contain Serer people, Saafi people, Niominka people, Serer-Laalaa, Ndut people, Palor people, etc., in the main Cat, and then sub cats for Serer people based on their profession. In my view, this would be more useful and helpful to the reader. Tamsier (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it isn't helping diffuse Serer people. It's a subcategory of Serer politicians. Mason (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories needing manual work before deletion

Nominator's rationale: not all categories here will be deleted; some are just being purged. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serer cardinals

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one cardinal that meets this criteria, which is unhelpful for navigation. If not merged, I think we should broaden the category to clergy or religious workers. Mason (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In Senegal and Gambia, but especially Senegal were the Serer are the third largest ethnic group, this community constitute the majority of the Christian community. I get your argument, but I truly believe this category is extremely helpful, and would provide even greater help to the reader in the future. There are more people that could potentially be added to this cat. I therefore urge the community to give it time and keep it as is.Tamsier (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other cardinals can be added? It's been 10 years since the category was created. I feel like that's more than enough time. And if sufficiently more people exist, those categories can be created again. Relevant: CFD that ended with deletion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 30#Category:Serer jurists Mason (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian Football League clubs

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article and category, Egyptian Premier League. Ben5218 (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Original programming

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Although we do use the "original programming" wording in for "television programs by network" categories, that's only because we want television programs to be categorized only for the service they were actually original to, and not for services that picked up rebroadcast rights -- for instance, a show that is original to NBC in the United States would be catted as NBC original programming, but would not get categorized for its rebroadcast by CTV in Canada, ITV in the UK or Seven in Australia.
But literally by definition, every television program is "original" to some television service or other -- a television program can't exist at all without being "original" to some television channel, network or streaming platform -- which just makes this functionally indistinguishable from Category:Television programming. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2023 farm sims

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by intersection of unrelated characteristics. Category:Farming video games does not have any scheme of subcategorizing its contents by individual year of release, and the Category:Video games by year tree doesn't have any established scheme of subcategorizing games for the intersection of genre with year of release either -- so this is the only category of this type that exists at all, but special treatment isn't necessary for just four games.
All four games have been left in the 2023 video games parent alongside this, so no upmerging is necessary in that direction. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia community campaigns

Nominator's rationale: I recently made this category and it does not have broad use. The better name is "Wikimedia community project" because Wikimedia community project (Q56248902) already has some use in Wikidata, and it is the same concept. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic

Nominator's rationale: The contents seem to be broader than political office-holders, so "from" will be more appropriate than "of". – Fayenatic London 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while "from" is the default, I think "of" is also a good possibility for politicians and for military personnel. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Of" is fitting for political office-holders, but we don't use it for politicians generally. I suppose we have "opposition politicians of a country" who are appointed to a formal role, but e.g. revolutionaries or independence activists would be better described as "from" the country. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency and given the broader scope of the category. Mason (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians of the Korean Empire

Nominator's rationale: Either (A) purge and rename to political office-holders, removing some e.g. Syngman Rhee who was born under the Empire but IIUC not a politician until it ended; or (B) rename to Category:Politicians from the Korean Empire, because where there is no demonym we usually use "Politicians from" rather than "of" (see various siblings in Category:Politicians by former country). – Fayenatic London 15:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least purge, possibly rename, people who weren't a politician in the Korean Empire do not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies

Nominator's rationale: Manual merge to parents as appropriate. E.g. although the lede for Ferdinando Petruccelli della Gattina says he was a politician, he seems rather to have been a journalist. If not merged, then rename to Category:Politicians from the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies using "from" as above. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: Purge and rename. E.g. Abdul Rashid Dostum was a military officer, not a politician, of the DRA (1978–1992). – Fayenatic London 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hosts of the CCTV New Year's Gala

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sesame Street crew

Nominator's rationale: Cast and crew fail WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 09:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muppet performers

Nominator's rationale: Performers by performance is textbook WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These actors are on contract with either Jim Henson Company or Disney (Muppet), Sesame Workshop (Sesame Street), or Jim Henson Company (Fraggle Rock), to perform numerous roles. Such contracts are incredibly rare, and even the most finite involvement with any of them, the puppeteer remains known as having been part of the troupe, akin to a college alumni category.
For reference, they also each play endless characters, so it's not really by performance.
I'd propose Category:Muppet Studios performers, Category:Sesame Workshop performers, and Category:Jim Henson Company performers. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic developers

Nominator's rationale: Categorising by specific production follows the same logic as WP:PERFCAT. Category:Video game developers is sufficient. --woodensuperman 09:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fallout (series) developers

Nominator's rationale: Categorising by specific production follows the same logic as WP:PERFCAT. Category:Video game developers is sufficient. --woodensuperman 09:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Humayun Ahmed

Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTINHERITED. Nearly all the other entries in Category:Children by person are historical/dynastic. --woodensuperman 07:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, while I am not sure how WP:NOTINHERITED would apply here, it is not worth keeping this category with only two entries, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that if notability is not inherited, then categorisation in this manner is not defining. --woodensuperman 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouses

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination would surreptitiously empty "transport infrastructure" year categories (see Category:Transport infrastructure by year of completion). If a nomination would empty a differently-named layer, then it would be good practice to tag and list those categories. In this case, however, since Lighthouses are part of the Transport infrastructure hierarchy, merge but use "transport infrastructure" year categories as the second target in each case, rather than "infrastructure". – Fayenatic London 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayor and cabinet executives

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, the category does not contain articles about mayors but instead articles about local authorities. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the new name would certainly help reflect the existing content. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label

Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a variation of WP:OC/U#not-based. Note that this nomination does not imply to object to any of the userboxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't a OC/U#not-based; it's a category that doesn't slot into binary or otherwise pigeonholing labeling. Deleting this would also strongly suggest deleting any other u-boxes that don't equate to "gay" or "straight" (like bi, pansexual, etc.) So, what next? Are we going to erase non-binary and intergender editors as "not-based" for not agreeing to be labeled male or female? Don't people have more pressing things to attend to than trying to police other people's u-boxes, for no encyclopedically-constructive or editor-relations-and-understanding-building rationale? The actual reason we do not want truly not-based u-boxes or categories that are simply the opposites of affirmative ones is that they are seen as redundant: simply leaving the affirmative one off is taken to imply its opposite. While this is actually very poor reasoning, because it obviously fails to take into account that there is a difference between "I am the opposite of this category", "I didn't even know about this/these category/categories", and "I don't care enough about this/these category/categories to bother with them", even this faulty rationale does not apply here, because not identifying particularly as gay or straight isn't the opposite of being gay or straight, it's simply different adjacent category within the same spectrum/area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question the collaborative value of the entire Category:Wikipedians by sexuality/Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians tree, given WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by sexuality or gender identification, but I agree the "not-based" rationale doesn't apply and this is no different than its kindred so weak keep * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, then, the categories should merge there and the templates be adjusted to use it and its subcats?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pppery, this is another branch of LGBT+. I also agree with the others that LGBT+ is being treated as a special label when other demographics do not get such treatment. The established reason for this is that LGBT+ people have profound social connectivity that many other demographics, like straight people in general, lack. Some evidence of this is many other category talks including those listed at Category talk:Gay Wikipedians, an article for the demographic at LGBT and Wikipedia, and an organization for the demographic at meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. Public evidence of this demographic getting Wikipedia related harassment is at Talk:LGBT_and_Wikipedia#No_sexual_assault_in_2023_Wikimania_toilet. Categories like this one are part of the process for finding ways to surface and report the private evidence and harassment stories against such editors. Bashing LGBT+ people is part of the politics in most countries, so this is a necessary category for peer-to-peer advocacy. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there a reason this category refers to sexual preference instead of sexual orientation? --Trystan (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of a good one. It's probably just an artifact of the wording preferences of someone a long time ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fraggle Rock albums

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article, this is the only category that it makes sense to merge to. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of princesses regnant

Nominator's rationale: Aside from sons and daughters, I think no other subcategories are expected any time soon. That makes this a redundant layer to be dual-upmerged for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American politicians who are the sole member of their party in statewide office

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization as non-defining, trivial, narrow, possibly others. This category is also temporary. If a Republican wins in Maine's 2nd congressional district this fall, then Susan Collins no longer qualifies. If Mary Peltola or Jon Tester lose reelection, they no longer qualify. Joe Manchin isn't running for reelection, so he comes out when his term expires. Also, as noted in the category, this can be incomplete or inaccurate as state supreme court justices are not always partisan, but they may be members of parties. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One might just as well create a Category:American politicians who like eating chips, live on the 3rd floor and are named Kyle. NLeeuw (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty much every complaint listed here is arbitrary, subjective and baseless. This is a key measure of partisanship and political party strength. It is relevant to understanding the electoral geography of the United States. Yes, circumstances will change with the occurrence of elections and require the page to be updated. That can be done easily and promptly. You have apparently invented your own rule requiring categories to be permanently included on pages. There are plenty of categories which require people to be "current" in holding a position. (Although your Maine example is obviously mistaken, considering the fact that the congressional district is not a statewide office, the Alaska and WV examples are true, but not a valid reason for deletion). The potato chip analogy is intellectually insulting - you are arguing that this key measure of partisanship in states is as relevant as someone's snack food preferences? With all due respect, that is ridiculous. The supreme court justice caveat is merely an acknowledgement that the affiliation of some offices cannot be reliably or consistently sourced. Warning editors against making baseless assumptions does not mean that the category is invalid. 1Matt20 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wanted to add Category:Current elections as one of many examples proving that there is no prohibition whatsoever on so-called "temporary" categories. Also, look at the tables on each of the pages included in Category:Political party strength in the United States by state. How is that strength measured? By color coding, letting the reader know when members of political parties last held statewide office or legislative control. This category isolates that information, leading the reader from a page about an individual politician to broader knowledge of ideological trends and electoral geography. 1Matt20 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Category:Current elections is a maintenance category populated by {{Current election}}. Category:Political party strength in the United States by state is a category of pages on political party strength, and while that strength changes, the pages in the category won't. Legit point on my error on Susan Collins. A Republican governor or senator elected in Maine would remove her from this category, though. That makes this non-defining for the politicians in the category for sure, as well as possibly other forms of overcategorization as listed on that page. So there's nothing "arbitrary, subjective, or baseless" about my nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You have restated your personal belief that having to eventually remove a page from a category makes it non-defining. You are unable to actually point me to a categorization rule which requires every category to be binding forever. Wikipedia is edited responsively to reflect current events, and I can assure you I will keep this category updated to the occurrence of elections. You are unable to respond to my rebuttal that the supreme court justice caveat merely asks editors to not make unsourced assumptions based on the party of governors who appointed justices. Finally, before I created this category, other editors had already noted the politicians included as the sole remaining officeholders of their parties (quite prominently, on the intros of bio pages). Because that will change one day, must it be considered utterly irrelevant information on Wikipedia? 1Matt20 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete per nom. I think it is an arbcat and it isn't a defining characteristic for the people in the category. This seems arbitrary. Why not two office holders? Why not zero? Mason (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am having a very difficult time wrapping my head around this mentality. If there is only one statewide officeholder from a political party, it is an clear sign of ideological domination and resource disparity. How on earth is that a meaningless consideration? Saying "Why not zero?" is pure sophistry. 1Matt20 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to delve specifically into what WP:ARBITRARYCAT uses as examples: Top 7% test scores, 100th episodes. These are indeed random markers - they don't tell you anything. If there is only one member of a political party left in statewide office, that is plainly informative about the state's partisan lean. It is notable because it is the most glaring signal possible of an officeholder's resistance to trends - they are unusually popular, their views don't reflect their party's typical base, etc. Hence why a person's status as final statewide officeholder is frequently cited in Wikipedia biographies as well as in the media. 1Matt20 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have examples of person's status as final statewide officeholder being used as defining characteristic of the person? Because I really don't see how this is defining for the person. I think it's defining for the office or the party, but not the person. Mason (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are conjuring mutual exclusivity out of thin air. It is defining for the party, the office, and especially for the person - the individual whose name is actually on the ballot, whose unique public identity allows them to be the only statewide official from their party, resisting headwinds of power balance in their state.
      I could go on and on with examples: Joe Manchin criticizes his party's incumbent president at an unusual rate and openly flirted with third-party registration. Mary Peltola votes against her party 12% of the time, the fourth highest of her colleagues, compared with just 6% defection rate by the average House Democrat. Susan Collins was the only Republican senator to vote against confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Although he is a Democrat, Brian Gaines was appointed Comptroller of South Carolina by a Republican in order to move the office on from a corruption scandal. Are you noticing a pattern yet? If you're the only statewide representative of your party left, you are incentivized to be a "maverick."
      I expect you or the others on this thread to somehow contort each example into "not applying to the person." You are all making distinctions without differences, just arbitrarily splitting hairs at the cost of a category which streamlines comprehension of US political strategy and electoral geography. This perspective is baffling to me: "A holdout who defies the odds to be rewarded by the electorate for their unique image? Oh, that doesn't possibly mean anything." 1Matt20 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a less temporal version of Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide office. This category is widely discussed in mainstream reliable sources (though not by this specific name), as "maverick" politicians usually have outsize impact on American politics. --Habst (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternative to deletion: split into two separate categories, Category:Sole Democrats in Republican-majority U.S. states and Category:Sole Republicans in Democratic-majority U.S. states, with further explanation in the category pages. --Habst (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editors insisting that this category is completely arbitrary is eyeroll-worthy. If someone is the one and only member of their party holding statewide office in their state, that is very plainly noteworthy. News coverage of such officeholders frequently mention their status as the only Democrat/Republican holding statewide office in their state; see news coverage of Nicole Galloway, Nikki Fried, Rob Sand, Kim Wyman, etc. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as arbitrary and temporary. Susan Collins is far from being the only Republican to have served in statewide office in Maine. This category is a classic example of WP:PRESENTISM.--User:Namiba 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are completely mistaken about what the category means. It is for politicians who are CURRENTLY the only statewide officeholder. 1Matt20 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Football (band)

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: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 06:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User:JDBauby just added all the albums into this category and that is not helpful for navigation. This should be deleted, the albums kept in their appropriate album-related categories and band members put into Category:American Football (band) members, leaving this main category too small to exist. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if everything was organised (albums -> discography, members -> band members, etc.), would it not be good to have a master category that held all of these subcategories? JDBauby (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned it up a bit. Three subcats (albums, songs, members) plus a discography page have been enough to keep such eponymous parent cats in the past. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn Per above: three legit categories and three legit articles in the main category is the bare minimum. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 00:19, 12 April 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:American insect pathologists

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There are only two people in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. Especially, when these are the only two pages in the Insect pathologists tree Mason (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more opinions on where to merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either of the Merge targets that Marcocapelle has proposed are fine with me Mason (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_12&oldid=1219436527"