Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13[edit]

10th century in Holy Roman Empire[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. Technically I don't think these are mergers since it's a category being deleted and then the contents go in two locations but the remaining ones are being deleted but either way, there's support for the nominator's suggestion. As to the note idea, there's no consensus on the language at the moment so I will leave that to someone here if there's interest in doing that. While not listed here formally, there's also consensus to rename Category:10th-century establishments in East Francia to Category:Establishments in East Francia since it only existed in the 10th century. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge but more importantly rename from Holy Roman Empire to East Francia. The Holy Roman Empire is generally regarded to have been established in 962 with the coronation of Otto I as emperor. The predecessor of the Holy Roman Empire, before 962, was the kingdom of East Francia. With currently only four establishments involved I don't expect there will be a big need to split the century category any further into decades or years so this is a combine rename/merge proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now -- It may be desirable to add a note to the category, pointing out the date of the transition. However as the polity of East Frankia only existed from 840-962, is it worth having split by centuries at all? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename. I would point out that the whole tree of establishments by year by country is very underdeveloped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now Agree that it's desirable to add a note to the category. 21:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
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:Basketball players at the 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four[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. Those arguing for delete are numerically greater (!vote of course) but also point to more policy-based rationales. The opposition seems focused on the technicality of whether athletes fall under WP:PERFCAT but there doesn't seem to be any response to the larger overcategorization concerns. I don't see any response to the issues regarding why the Final Four versus the whole tournament and it seems like there is acknowledgement by those supporting delete that this is one example of a larger category structure that could be nominated for deletion which indicates a larger recognition of the greater policy to me. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Performer by performance. It's for anyone appeared in a final four game, not just those on a team in the final four, so it's purely whether the biography was "on stage". We don't have similar categories for the Elite 8, Sweet 16, the NCAA tournament, the final game itself - for folks who appeared in various playoff schemes below the finals (like Olympic trials, NBA or NHL or NFL or NCAA playoffs). Note: this is one of a whole bunch of these categories by year. If the community deletes this one, I'll promptly nominate the others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For college basketball, the "Final Four" two-day event is the signature event - which includes both the semifinals and final. The championship game rarely gets the same level of historic mention and the other rounds aren't particularly differentiating. It is common for the Final Four to be used as a benchmark achievement for players (such as here and here and here) and coaches/programs (examples here and here and here). All season teams are called "Final Four caliber" or a "Final Four contender." Maybe this is unique to college basketball, but this is a legitimate way the season is defined (example). Rikster2 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not teams in the final four, nor for members of those teams, it's only those who played in any of the games. Unlike soccer/association football, substitution is basically unlimited in basketball, and is common when a team is leading by a large margin late, the coach puts everyone in for a few seconds/minutes, that defines them? 15 minutes of fame now reduced to 15 seconds? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is absolutely for members of those teams - that is exactly who is in the category. The only members of those teams not in the category are those not notable enough to have articles. And yes, coaches like Dave Rose, Dave Rice and Steve Marcello are notable for having played briefly in Final Fours. Otherwise, players who appear only in a few minutes of a FF game aren't notable enough to have an article anyway, so that's a moot point. Rikster2 (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not sure why "performance" vs. "member of team" is an issue here. Performance is the cornerstone of every one of the 1000s of player categories for professional and college basketball teams. For example, Willie Reed signed a contract and was a member of the Sacramento Kings during the 2013–14 NBA season. However, he never played in a game so there is no "Sacramento Kings" category. And that is appropriate because the official NBA records didn't consider him an NBA player. This is also true of Final Four participants (see the official NCAA FF record book, starting on page 21). This makes the standard of participation easily verifiable. Rikster2 (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a performance by performer category, even if limited to "final four". I suspect that these team members will usually only have articles if they subsequently went on to play professionally. Their previous amateur career (as students) is unlikely to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct that most will only meet GNG if they played professionally. College basketball in the United States receives as much news coverage as professional leagues in most countries. While not every college player would be notable, the main players (especially those from the top teams, as are typically those in the Final Four) have historically ALWAYS met GNG. It is a common misconception from Europeans (I am assuming you fall in this category) that college sports in the US is as unimportant as it is in their own countries. This is patently false. Rikster2 (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Players in this category can meet WP:GNG even if they don't play professionally (e.g. Larry Hollyfield, Tommy Curtis, etc). Even if this were not true, I'm not sure why that would be a factor in deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, WP:PERFCAT specifically talks about artistic performances. There are many, many categories for performance in sports events, including the Pam American Games, Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, FifA World Cup, UEFA Euro, SuperBowl champions, etc. Rikster2 (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The premise of the proposal was rebutted without response: these categories include all team members with articles, not just ones who played in the Final Four as alleged. The examples in WP:PERFCAT, as Rikster2 commented, are all artists. My understanding was we don't want a category in the bio for each of the countless performances an individual is involved in. Athletes are competitors, and this is a category for those who reached the elite milestone of reaching the Final Four. I'd estimate that less than 5% of American basketball players with articles have this category, and rarely will a player have made it to the Final Four more than once. Not only are athletes not "performers" as intended at PERFCAT, this category class doesn't pose the problem of flooding a page with countless more categories. I'd also be wary of a double standard for non-politicians, as Category:American political candidates by year exists, which must introduce a slew of categories for lifetime politicians on par with performers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT: "Avoid categorising performers by an appearance at an event". Note that the guideline explicitly mentions that is not limited to artists even though all examples are about artists. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So why is this logic not being applied to categories such as Category:1998 FIFA World Cup players and Category:Gymnasts at the 2004 Summer Olympics? There are literally hundreds of these sort of categories for sport competitions. It seems very obvious to me that PERFCAT explicitly doesn't apply to sport based on how it is written and the sheer number of sports competition player/referee/manager categories that have existed for years. Heck, check this holding category out - Category:Sports competitors by competition. Rikster2 (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe they should be deleted, so no. Competitors by competition is one of the most significant way athletes are categorized, unlike artists and performers. Rikster2 (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that was a true equivalent than this would be Category:Players in the 2015 NCAA college basketball playoffs. That is the competition these players are in, not the last few games, but the whole of the basketball playoffs. What next, would we have categories for every season a player was in Major League Baseball, or every season a player was in the NBA or NFL? This is a horrible idea. It will lead to category clutter that we do not like. The categories linked are related to competitions that occur every 4 years and are defined as the top performance in the sport. The top performance in Basketball could be argued to be the NBA playoffs, although there may be other contenders, but it is not the final-4 competition, since this is essentially the top competition in a development league. Categorizing people by which olympics they were in may or may not make sense, but it is not the same as categorizing them by which NCAA men's basketball playoffs they were in. That is just over-categorization, in part because we already categorize such players by team and often also by position, and most who have articles will go on to play for at least one NBA team as well. This category will just lead to unneeded category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general playoffs is not as defining as the Final Four. And yes, in this case, the Final Four in mentioned more than the championship game itself. College basketball is not a "development league", but it's an uphill battle explaining the unique significance of college athletics in the U.S., esp. for football and men's basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for overcategorization of performers by performance. Plus, do the players have to actually play in a game, or is just being on one of the teams playing enough to get them notable. Keeping this would be a bad idea, it would lead to categories like Category:Football players ath the 2016 Superbowl, etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is possible a college basketball player might be in the final four all four years he might play for an NCAA team. Also if this is kept, then it would seem we should have at least Category:Players in the 2015 NBA final game if not a bit more for the playoffs, and similar categories for every year back to whenever the first final playoff game was played. We are looking at a player easily getting into 10 or more such performance categories. This is a really, really bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple Final Fours in men's basketball is quite rare. The record is 3, by 14 players (see UCLA_Bruins_men's_basketball#Notable_players). That being said, I think we need to expand this discussion to other fields like politics (above) as opposed to focusing solely on sports.—Bagumba (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • However the final four distinction has no precedent, so if kept we would probably need to make this for all articles on people involved in the competition in question, which is the 2015 NCAA playoffs, which probably leads to several more people being 4-time competitors. For what it is worth, I have opposed the by term sub-categorization of members of the UK Parliament that exists, and managed to resist its implementation onto any US related legislative body, most notably getting it removed when there was a start to applying it to members of the legislature of Puerto Rico. luckily no one has ever tried to create categories putting members of the US congress into a category for every congress they served in, John Dingell would end up in over 25 more categories if that was done, as would John Conyers. Plus with senators like Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy not only would they be added to 20 or more new categories, but a senator like Spencer Abraham who only won election to the senate once would get put in 3 new categories because US senators terms will if served in full coincide with 3 distinct congresses. The exact line of what is and what is not a notable case of being involved in something might well be hard to define, but this clearly is going too far and opening it up to way to much category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW, applying Final Four to other sports besides men's basketball would be the case when WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. It's admittedly unique. That said, if other college basketball editors don't speak up, this will likely fall by the wayside.—Bagumba (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this category fall by the wayside? No compelling argument has been put forth to delete. WP:PERFCAT does not address sports competition and hundreds of sports competitor by competition categories (such as Category:Gymnasts at the 2006 Commonwealth Games) exist. Rikster2 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is meant by "it has no precedent?" That is not a reason to keep or delete a category based on any Wikipedia guideline. I will just say that playing in a Final Four is the grouping used by the NCAA (see here, pages 21-29), not in the NCAA tournament or in the championship game. This is a valid categorization, full stop. Rikster2 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2016 (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:Pages using deprecated coordinates format[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 14:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: From discussion on the category talk page, it appears there was no discussion of its creation, and it is being applied by tests for formats which are not, in fact, deprecated. If there is consensus to delete it, then the code for those tests should be removed from the templates concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biconditional Keep If 1) a list of deprecated formats is either linked-to or directly listed on the category page, so that editors stop improperly placing this category on false positives, and if 2) that someone (or bot) go through and remove this cat from pages using non-deprecated formats.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: There should be no false positives of this, and editors should never be placing this. Templates place it themselves when they detect the deprecated format. I've updated the description to reflect this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my Biconditional keep to Keep based on this information, which precludes the necessity for my 1st condition, making that more of a "this would be nice to have here" thing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other tracking categories, such as Category:CS1 maint: Date and year, include a detailed description of the error and how to fix it. It would be good to have that on this one as well.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The formats have been deprecated due to not supporting location maps. That's a major disadvantage, and there's no advantage to using it. @Pigsonthewing: Was there any actual opposition to the deprecation? I never saw any. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where did this supposed deprecation discussion take place? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I told you on the cat talk page a few months ago, there was no discussion. I BOLDly did it, and since there was no opposition, it stood. Are you opposed to it? If so, why? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I have never posted to that talk page, I find your claim implausible; so Diff, please. And yes, I am opposed to the supposed deprecation. Please let me know where you made that "bold" edit and I'll revert it, so that the matter can be discussed properly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Oh, it wasn't you who asked that. Sorry. (But the exact same question was asked and answered there.) But why are you opposed to its deprecation? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: I repeat: "Please let me know where you made that "bold" edit and I'll revert it, so that the matter can be discussed properly". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a single edit. It was the creation of the category, updating all of the template doc pages, and adding the categorization logic. And I note you're still dodging the question as to why you're opposed to it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then please provide a list of edits, so that I may revert them, and "so that the matter can be discussed properly". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tracking categories are useful, especially automated ones, to give editors a goal-oriented worklist. There's no requirement, that I'm aware of, stating they must be discussed prior to creation. While it's probably most-prudent to have an initial discussion, just because someone didn't doesn't exemplify its uselessness. I've notified the 3 relevant templates here, here, and here for more input.
Also, reverting Jackmcbarn's edits on this basis seems overly and needlessly aggressive, please stay calm.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that we discuss the creation of the category; I'm saying that we should discuss the supposed deprecation which appears never to have been done previously. I'm perfectly calm; please refrain from insinuating otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: I await your answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: and @Pigsonthewing: Mayhaps you may want to have a discussion at the Village pump so that it's available for a broader forum.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 23 February 2016 (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:Marvel Cinematic Universe actors[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) sst✈ 08:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:PERFCAT, as the category defines performers by their performance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Annoying overcategorization of actors. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a defining characteristic of a number in this category. Also something should be done regarding the creator of the category, as they continuously create and recreate similar categories. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 06:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WE do not allow performance categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (action may need to be taken): Okay, this is beyond ridiculous. Schmidt-austin keeps creating bad categories and then re-creating them once they are deleted. This is happening on a continual loop and I'm certain that this category has been deleted before (or one like it). Is there any way we can do something about this? Otherwise, it's just going to keep happening. DarkKnight2149 04:21, 19 January 2016 (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:History of the Ljubljana Marshes[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 double upmerge. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:SMALLCAT, also considering that the both parents are thinly populated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- We are never going to get enough material to need to split out history. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge not enough content to justify the category. An article on this subject that mentions these two things might work, but a category will not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2016 (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:Minor planets discovered in 2001[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. Category was empty already. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is the only Category of its kind (no other "Category:Minor planets discovered in" exists), and it is empty.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reyk YO! 14:21, 13 January 2016 (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:City attorneys[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. I note that there is an article City attorney, a title which also features in a few article names; the title "Municipal attorney" is mentioned in a dozen articles, but that is not persuasive enough to point me to find a consensus here. – Fayenatic London 15:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For clarity and consistency
These categories group attorneys who represent city governments so I think "municipal" is the right adjective here. The proposed rename is also more neutral with respect to cities, towns, villages, boroughs, townships and similar legal entities. (Alternatively, we could follow the lead of parent category, Category:Local government officers, which would allow Category:County attorneys to move under this tree.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified West Virginian as the subcategory creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Cities. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background There was an earlier, broader CFD discussion back in 2014 that ended with no consensus. I think it's largely moot since it was debating whether or not to rename the parent category to be American only and now we have an American subcategory. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly neutral - but oppose to American. While American should be used for people with American nationality regardless the country they live in, in the United States should be used for functions within the geographical boundaries of the United States. I suppose the latter is applicable here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at matching to the parent category, Category:American lawyers, and should have mentioned that. I'm fine with Category:Municipal attorneys in the United States too. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a long standing policy of using American in connection with the United States. If you disagree with this view, you need to object to it in regard to the whole tree, not just this one specific example of following that way. Everything from Category:American chemists to Category:American novelists to Category:American companies is using it as a designation for the United States of America.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly neutral on the United States vs. American. (I just favor municipal over city.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have Category:Bishops in the United States and some similar categories because there have been many bishops in the United States who were nationals of Germany, the United Kingdom, etc. and not by any view "American", but who are notable for being bishops in the United States. This is a question of nationality categories vs. place of position categories. That name is also meant to exclude nationals of the United States of America who served as bishops in other countries. To make things just plain difficult the way the bishops categories work, they seem to be designed to only include some bishops, and exclude from the categories Mormon, Amish, Pentecostal and some other such leaders who held the title of bishop because they are not deemed to have been bishopy enough to be called bishops for our categorizing purposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If these people (the bishops) were permanent residents of the U.S., and chances are they were if they stayed in the country for an extended period of time, then they were U.S. nationals, even if they were not U.S. citizens. A person can be a national of multiple states even if they have only one citizenship. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2016 (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/2016_January_13&oldid=1146512144"