Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 15
March 17 >

March 16[edit]

Category:Judges of ancient Israel[edit]

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: rename to Category:Hebrew Bible judges. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt renaming Category:Judges of ancient Israel to Category:Book of Judges judges
Alt 2 renaming Category:Judges of ancient Israel to Category:Hebrew Bible judges
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D Biblical judges. PS: See however Talk:Biblical judges#Proposed move to Hebrew Bible judges.
Alt rationale: WP:C2C per parent Category:Book of Judges people and sibling Category:Book of Judges monarchs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 2 rationale: WP:C2C per grandparent Category:Hebrew Bible people, and to prevent confusion with "judges" mentioned in the New Testament and the Deuterocanonical books. See also Talk:Biblical judges#Proposed move to Hebrew Bible judges. (Added on the recommendation of Marcocapelle, Fayenatic and William Allen Simpson). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But (as nom) I currently prefer the Alt nom WP:C2C "by book" approach, Category:Book of Judges judges, because it is objective (it's either explicitly mentioned in the specific book, or it's not), while endless WP:SUBJECTIVECAT arguments can be made about whether Moses and Joshua can be counted as "judges" or not if the text is ambiguous and you need to make cross-books analyses and interpretations (which Wikipedia shouldn't do, because of WP:SYNTH). I think that therefore the WP:C2C approach (which I had initially incorrectly called WP:C2B) of established category trees is a much safer approach to make both categorisation and navigation easier, less ambiguous and less contentious. And I know that Book of Judges judges may seem a little tautological, but I propose it exactly to clear up this confusion about supposed "judges" mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: William Allen Simpson had a very good point that even if you want to include Moses and Joshua as "judges", they are probably not best described as "of ancient Israel". Both options solve that problem. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, of course it is not. The discussion was about objectivity and I had in mind that judges from the Hebrew Bible isn't any less subjective than judges from the book of Judges. Anyway, I am still supporting Category:Biblical judges only, this is a category by occupation and I do not see why it is helpful to remove 4 articles about that occupation by limiting the category to one book. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added as option "Alt 2". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2023 (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:Germanic women by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS: people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. Having a native language that belongs to a certain language family is WP:NONDEFINING for an individual's career. To the first cat, WP:SMALLCAT also applies (1 child 0 items). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the word "Germanic" is used for ancient and early medieval peoples, and for a language family. The category content matches neither of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Germanic peoples and various category trees also maintain this notion that we can no longer talk about "Germanic people(s)" after the early Middle Ages. I'm starting with these relatively easy cases before moving on to more complicated related cats containing the word "Germanic", where it results in similar problems. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Language family is not a correct way to categorize people. A container category for Liechtenstein, Luxembourgian, Norman, Frankish and English people (and, in the case of the parent category, Gothic and Rus' people as well) makes no sense. Place Clichy (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2023 (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:Shippensburg Red Raiders baseball coaches[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Shippensburg Raiders baseball coaches. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The use of "Red Raiders" to refer to school teams is unsanctioned per page 3 of its Visual Identity and Brand Guide. I propose merging these categories to the one without the word "Red". This is in conjunction with another CFD about renaming various related categories. —ADavidB 21:14, 16 March 2023 (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:Shippensburg Red Raiders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The use of "Red Raiders" to refer to school teams is unsanctioned per page 3 of its Visual Identity and Brand Guide. I propose renaming these categories to those without the word "Red". Pruning the category tree may be appropriate as well. —ADavidB 20:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination, per main article (Shippensburg Raiders), and per common usage. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ADavidB these changes are eligible for speedy renaming WP:CFDS under criterion C2D: Consistency with main article's name, so I recommend that you use that process for any similar future nominations. As this nomination is eligible for speedy renaming, it can be closed by an admin after 48 hours if there are no objections. TSventon (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the grounds of consistency with the main article's name, while noting that the university's brand guidelines are not relevant to the name of Wikipedia articles or categories except in so far as they influence the common name used. Robminchin (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2023 (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:European monarchs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 25#Category:European monarchs

Category:Extra genres[edit]

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: rename to Category:Pages using infobox Asian comic series with genre. No consensus over which target to rename to, but the current name is clearly unsuitable, so I've gone with the nom's target. @William Allen Simpson, feel free to start another discussion over this. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's a standard to identify what template and what parameter is being used. Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 16 March 2023 (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:Television news program articles using incorrect naming style[edit]

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 delete category; use template rather than adding category directly.. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a hidden maintenance category; it's not inherently invalid, but there is a structural problem that may require reconsideration of how best to organize it. The problem is that it's both hidden and directly declared on articles rather than being transcluded by a maintenance template, meaning that it's effectively invisible to editors and thus doesn't get removed if and when the problem that necessitated adding it to the article in the first place gets corrected — for example, I just had to do an WP:AWB run to remove it from a full one-third of its former contents because the pages had already been moved to fix the relevant titling problem three or four years ago.
As well, there are several articles here for which I'm unclear on any potential alternative that they could be renamed to — for example, there are several British regional news programs that share the same title as each other and thus are disambiguated by region, but that seems very much like the only viable option for disambiguating newscasts in that situation, and thus it's questionable whether they belong here at all.
So this may potentially need to be transferred to a maintenance template, so that pages that get corrected and have their template removed accordingly are automatically dropped from the category instead of having to get noticed and cleaned up years later — but as a directly declared and simultaneously hidden category, it isn't working. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose deletion (as creator), but the fact that 1/3 of the pages in it had their page moved to a correct title means that the category works. The issue with editors not removing it is indeed regrettable, but doesn't negate its usefulness. Gonnym (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose deletion, I merely proposed changing how it's used. But it's doubtful that it "works", exactly, since given its invisible nature there's no evidence that the category was responsible for the page titles getting corrected (especially since the other 2/3 didn't get corrected at the same time). This kind of thing really only works if it's intrusive enough (e.g. a big maintenance template at the top of the article) that people see it and feel motivated to fix it. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the mover of Tagesschau (Italian TV programme)‎ and Tagesschau (German TV programme), to which I saw Bearcat's removal of the category, I can say that I had no idea of this category's existence. -- AxG / ✉  22:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with template then Delete — with a template, there's no need for a category. In the past, we always used "What links here" on the template.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maintenance categories that group pages with a specific maintenance template on them are perfectly reasonable things to have, and indeed often are used (e.g. Category:All uncategorized pages). This certainly does need to be associated with a template so that it's visible, and automatically removed when resolved, but it's not an inherently unreasonable category on principle. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:All uncategorized pages et alia are done with the engine or a bot. These are tagged by a human (or a very specific bot). A template is both better and sufficient. In the old days, I'd include a link to What Links Here on the template itself; one click maintenance, less computationally intensive than a template+category. We only started to use categories once we had parser functions to detect very specific errors. This is about page titles, no parser functions needed.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:All uncategorized pages is not "done with the engine or a bot" — it's a category, structured the same as any other category, and it's merely transcluded by the application of a maintenance template to the page instead of being directly declared as a [[Category:Bla bla]] statement in its own right. Which is all I'm asking for here: I'm not asking for it to be deleted, I'm asking for it to become associated with a maintenance template so that editors know it's there because there's a maintenance template on the page. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once upon a time, there was a maintenance report found under Special:SpecialPages. Nowadays it must have better automation? Surely nobody is placing a template by hand anymore?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just replace with template. I don't see a need to delete the category, but this isn't helpful as a manully-added category. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox categories are based upon parameters on the module/template(s) itself. This is different, as it requires editor judgment about style. Bearcat suggests a new template, something like {{uncategorized}} with a date parameter. My suggestion is the new template doesn't even need to be as complicated, because we can use Special What Links here on the template instead of populating a category. But everybody (so far) agrees we need a template, and probably somebody to place it on the pages already in this category. Don't waste more time with a relisting. Once this is agreed upon, just list the others for consensus in the next pass.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not standard to use "what links here" on the template as an alternative to a maintenance category. The standard practice is that maintenance templates populate maintenance categories; they're typically hidden so that they're not getting in the way of casual reader browsing, but making this hidden without an associated template was exactly the problem here. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the idea is to transfer this from a direct category declaration to a maintenance template of some sort. The infobox wouldn't likely be able to detect the problem, however — it can detect parameters in the infobox template itself that are doing incorrect things, but I don't really see how we could make the template sentient enough to detect a mismatch between the title of the article being "series" while the content of the article was describing a newscast given that the content of the infobox isn't the issue. So this would indeed need to be a banner, because I don't see how we can make the infobox detect a problem in the article that doesn't pertain to the infobox itself.
As for the other categories, I didn't see them as they weren't involved at the article where I came across this one — but at this point, I don't see "add them to this discussion and then relist yet again" as a useful solution. Either they can just be automatically treated the same way as whatever happens here, or they can be listed for their own separate discussion based on the outcome, but there's not much point in prolonging this for yet another relist. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have started Template:Television incorrect naming style to place articles into this category or four of its siblings. Does that seem a good start for now? Happy to have it renamed before closure of this CFD, or revised as you see fit. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 29 March 2023 (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:EMD 60 Series locomotives[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. Only 2 members, no reasonable prospects for growth. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2023 (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:EMD 50 Series locomotives[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT. Only 2 members, no reasonable prospect for growth. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2023 (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:7th-century churches in Austria[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: isolated single-article category while Austria did not exist yet. A merge is not needed, as the article is already in Category:Churches completed in 696. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2023 (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:British Hong Kong emigrants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge and rename. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More duplicate and inconsistent categories by Mr Lambert. The target follows the more common pattern within Category:Emigrants from British Hong Kong. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 16 March 2023 (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.

Emigrants by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete and merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge/delete this set of duplicate categories created last August by Johnpacklambert. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 16 March 2023 (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:Protestants from insular areas of the United States[edit]

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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent and sibling categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to renaming, but with only three subcats I would rather suggest merging to Category:Protestants from dependent territories and Category:American Protestants. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming. When I created this category I found inconsistency between People by insular area and People from insular areas (Educators, Farmers...) and even People of insular areas (Sportspeople and subcategories). I disagree with upmerging however. After all, there are only 5 inhabited insular territories of the U.S., and that's not a reason to completely delete this hierarchy. Also, some pernickety editors keep moving such categories about insular areas out of geographically diffused categories because they are not states, so having this intermediate level also avoids placing the content in non-diffused parent US categories. There was some talk here to rename such categories still named by state to by state or territory (per Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States) but this was done for too few categories unfortunately. Place Clichy (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2023 (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:India–Pakistan cricket rivalry in popular culture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and cannot see any other valid targets for this category. Notwithstanding the fact that this article is about multiple adverts, of which only 1 is related to India-Pakistan at all, I therefore oppose an upmerge, and prefer a straight delete (as it's WP:OVERCAT to add this to the parent category). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2023 (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:India–Pakistan cricket rivalry at Finals[edit]

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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, we don't need a specific category for Finals of tournaments where India and Pakistan played each other. Of the 4 articles in the category, 1986 Austral-Asia Cup Final makes no mention of the rivalry, and 2011 Cricket World Cup 2nd semi-final isn't a final (it's a semi-final), leaving 2 articles with some mention of the rivalry, both of which can be upmerged to the general rivalry category. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2023 (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:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people[edit]

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: rename to Category:People from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The same as below. Skovl (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2023 (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:Austro-Hungarian people[edit]

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: combine repsectively Category:Austro-Hungarian people and Category:People of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to Category:People from Austria-Hungary (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created the target without realising that this category existed. For former countries, particularly multi-ethnic empires, I think that the "People of Foo" form work works best. The demonym attaches a degree of unity to people that is more imagined than real. Down with the tyranny of demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2023 (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:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 25#Category:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia

Category:Kven language municipalities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 1 item. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_16&oldid=1157911846"