Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 19 December 21 >

December 20[edit]

Category:American Hockey League venues[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. TM 17:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that an arena is a venue for a given league is very defining compared to the thousands of other arenas that exist. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that the arenas' used by every league should be categorized? That seems like a recipe for way too many categories given that these are general purpose arenas that host hundreds of events each year.--TM 13:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one article in this category which is not about a hockey venue but about a multi-purpose arena. So move the article to Category:Multi-purpose stadiums in the United States and delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The one article concerns a multi-purpose area, owned by the city. If it were owned and mainly used by the Hockey Club, but sometimes let out to third parties, I would have voted otherwise. Move article to a state-wide stadiums category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfectly legitimate category. It can easy be populated with the other 29 arenas in the same league. Flibirigit (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2018 (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:Continental Basketball Association venues[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. This issue of whether or not to categorise multi-purpose venues by every usage may be better raised as a general discussion about that principle, rather than as a discussion about one of those uses. Maybe WT:CAT, maybe at a project page? Pinging the participants @Namiba, DexDor, Djsasso, Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, and Flibirigit: in case any of them wants to pursue that idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, none of these arenas are defined by having hosted the minor league Continental Basketball Association games. They are all general purpose arenas which have hosted a variety of events and teams. TM 15:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's a stretch to say this falls under WP:NONDEF. Yes they're multi-purpose arenas and most were not built with sole reason for hosting a CBA team, but only a few multi-purpose areas are going to be defined by one team or concert (I can think of Yankee Stadium and Madison Square Garden). But you're discounting the fact that there wouldn't have been a CBA team in that arena if one of its uses wasn't to host basketball games. If this category falls under WP:NONDEF the slippery slope argument could be extended to Category:College basketball venues in the United States and Category:National Basketball Association venues or other venue categories. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a major difference is that the CBA was a minor league and many teams only played in the arena for a short time period. Madison Square Garden hosts hundreds of events each year but any basketball fan (and many non-fans) know that it hosts NBA matchups, therefore it is in part defined by its hosting of NBA games. None of these arenas are defined by hosting CBA games and most did so for only a short time period.--TM 20:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See this previous discussion for background.--TM 20:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorizing multipurpose venues (e.g. Bayfront Center) by every sport etc that took place there is overcategorization and against NONDEF so we shouldn't be categorizing venues by league. DexDor (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Or make it clear that arenas should be categorized either as multi-purpose or for one use and purge as proposed below. DexDor (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that an arena is a venue for a given league is very defining compared to the thousands of other arenas that exist. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main characteristic that distinguishes one arena from another is its location - there aren't thousands of arenas in a city. DexDor (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More than one thing can define an arena, its is very likely a reader is going to do a search for venues that hosted teams in a given league. It is no different than listing teams a player played for, just the building equivalent. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:Multi-purpose stadiums in the United States for all multipurpose stadiums that are in this category. If that leaves this category virtually empty, then delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge (supporting Marcocapelle) -- It is appropriate to have a category for dedicated venues that are mainly used by a single sports team as its home venue, even if it also hosts other events. However those that host multiple sports are better in a multi-purpose venues category, perhaps split by state. I think we have an WP:OC#VENUE guideline on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly legitimate category, similar to NBA venues, MLB venues, etc. Flibirigit (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two are not mutually exclusive, categories are meant to help people find similar topics. It is highly likely that users would be searching for the group of arenas that are used in a given league. I can't be the only one that does this and I have done it alot. Removing the leagues arena's cover removes quite likely the most important categories on an arena. I highly doubt there are many people specifically looking for Multi-purpose stadiums in the United States compared to looking for ones in a specific league. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @marcocapelle - Every stadium in the whole world is truly multipurpose. It should be the multipurpose category that is purged and delete, because it is essentially useless. Flibirigit (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2018 (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:Healthcare in Springfield, Massachusetts[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this is a small category unlikely to grow. TM 15:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We have enough trouble populating healthcare by state, without starting on anything smaller. Rathfelder (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2017 (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:Knowing Bros members[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a cast/crew list, this fails WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 14:52, 20 December 2017 (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:Code: Secret Room contestants[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 14:44, 20 December 2017 (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:The Genius (TV series) contestants[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 14:42, 20 December 2017 (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:Adelaide Football Club life members[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't really seem this category is needed and is a bit superfluous. It doesn't meet the category section of WP:CLNT whereby; "A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following question is "no": Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?"
It isn't really possible to write a few paragraphs about being a life member of the club and the ref that's in the category only has one sentence explaining it "criteria for Adelaide Football Club Life Membership is 10 years of service at the discretion of the Board." Also, there aren't any other club life member categories, nor is there a category for the league, i.e. Category:Australian Football League life members. I think it is appropriate to have a sentence about being a life member in each subjects article, but not really appropriate for its own category. Flickerd (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2017 (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:Wikipedia categories named after spacecraft[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. The nominator @Mercurywoodrose's concern seems to be more with the whole category tree of hidden Category:Eponymous categories than with this specific cat. That concern may be better raised by a centralised discussion about the whole category tree, possibly at WT:CAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: i do not believe that the so called category tree of Category:Eponymous categories serves any real world function. its designed to place categories named after things in a separate tree from the articles named after things, as not all the articles in Category: Apollo 11 are actually space missions. for some, this means that categories named after things should not be in a parent category at all. i find that so pedantic as to be meaningless. i am hoping that someone editing spacecraft articles can shed more light than heat (though i guess spacrafts generate a lot of heat). convince me otherwise. this has been brought up many times before for other branches of this tree. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is a category of categories, not a category of articles, and is entitled 'Wikipedia categories' so it is not intended to serve any real world function. It is also hidden from the average viewer. Oculi (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • if the category serves no real world function, why do we have it? arent we the real world? is wikipedia just a playground for budding library scientists, or are we here to help real people learn about real things? making it a hidden category is even worse, not better, esp. if the category is not being used by any administrator to adminstrate anything.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on its contents, how about renaming to Category:Wikipedia categories named after spacecraft or space missions? 108.210.217.62 (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this category provides a nice view of all specific spacecraft about which we have enough articles so that they can have a category of their own, but creating nice views isn't really the purpose of Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2017 (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:Clinical pharmacologists[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. The category's defenders have answered the case against it. – Fayenatic London 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear distinction between the two Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment, two of the articles are about physicians in a time that the occupation of clinical pharmacologist did not exist yet. That leaves only five articles which is a really low number for a biographies category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to merge. The head article Clinical pharmacology doesn't suggest that there is a clear boundary between clinical and non-clinical pharmacology. But I have no knowledge of the topic, and would like to hear from the folks at WP:PHARM, so I have notified them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge Is this to distinguish clinical pharmacologists from experimental pharmacologists? Either way, I don't think this is a necessary split. Natureium (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Perhaps it isn't adequately explained in the content, but these really are two entirely distinct categories. Pharmacologists (not to be confused with pharmacists) are laboratory scientists who typically have PhDs and do basic research about drug molecules and receptor molecules. Clinical pharmacologists are medical clinicians who typically have MDs or other professional degrees and serve as the medication experts within a medical team. We would never consider merging neurologists with neuroscientists or psychologists with psychiatrists. Same idea here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to tell you. Based only on what I can gather from the page, he worked at a medical school and was noted for medical education, and the kinds of contributions that he made to pharmacology research are not described. Also, I'm not knowledgeable about the medical education system in India. I'll add that it's possible to be both, analogously to an MD-PhD dual degree holder. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it is most logical to continue to have the clinical category as a subcategory, but it's likely that a lot of pages just need to be recategorized. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough distinction in actual article coverage to justify such a sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on WP:SMALLCAT, it does not appear to me that the category has no potential for growth, and so it seems keep-able to me based on that criterion. Also, as noted above, there appear to be a lot of pages that need to be moved into this category, but haven't been yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found and added some more articles to the category; it now contains 24 members. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2018 (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:Love & Hip Hop cast members[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:Participants in American reality television series. – Fayenatic London 23:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a list of cast members, reality or otherwise, this fails WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 15:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not entirely sure about Category:Reality television participants. On the one hand, it is probably fine under WP:PERFCAT because it categorizes individuals by genre rather than a specific performance or series. On the other hand, it is sometimes very defining (for people who are notable only due to their appearance on a reality television series) and sometimes not at all defining (for people who are independently notable, and are invited to appear on a reality television series). With perhaps a few exceptions, most of the individual categories by series violate WP:PERFCAT and should be upmerged, in my opinion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's merge per Black Falcon for now, we can always discuss the entire tree later. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or keep, but do not merge. If appearing in this reality show was defining for anyone, keep them in it and purge those not defined; but if the cat is merged, we just set off on a path to a vast sprawling category which is no use for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Participants in American reality television series (changing my !vote). Category:Participants in American reality television series is already huge, so a few more wil make no difference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the American reality television series participants cat. Keep in mind the actual notability of any of these individuals is a sperate issue from the category. One good result of this is it avoids the horrible result of categorizing performers (reality television show participants) by performance (which reality show they were in). Considering that many people have been in multiple reality TV shows, this is a needed move. The current category violates rules against performers by performance categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with psychiatric disorders[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Likely overlap with Category:Fictional characters with neurological or psychological disorders and certain members of that category tree. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't plainly delete, if anything needs to be changed it should be a merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional bullies[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_24#Category:Fictional_bullies. – Fayenatic London 13:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional bullies, bully is a subjective term. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It is a very safe bet that most of the membership of this category can be cited to reliable sources as being bullying characters, and fictional characters, after all, are created to fill certain positions. So I am not accepting the assertion of subjectivity; I suspect that literary critics do not. Of course those for whom citation cannot be found ought to be removed, but I'm not buying the idea that we can judge those critics to be wrong.
As a for instance, Ghits for "biff tannen bully" number 83,000. I sure that there are plenty of others that get similar numbers. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overly subjective. This is especially true because some villains in especially the Superhero genre, will have been portrayed in multiple ways often over long periods of time. A few connected with Batman and Superman have been portrayed almost constantly in comics for over 70 years, plus appeared in many TV, film and novel depictions. While these characters are generally clearly the villain in all appearances, whether they are bullies is hard to say, and will at times depend on their specific portrayal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional panpipers[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looks like a WP:SMALLCAT: only 2 articles, and judging by the number of musicians in Category:Panpipes (Category:Panpipers does not exist–this needs to be fixed), there is likely no room for more. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. there seems to be a pattern of categorising fictional musicians by instrument, and this one is unusual enough to probably be defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Wikipedia is suffering from way too many small categories. This one is just not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional countries in the Americas[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary mid-level category between Category:Fictional countries and its two subcategories, both of which are already in Category:Fictional countries by continent along with three others. 165.91.13.209 (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – difficult to see what the objection is to this extra aid to navigation. Oculi (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2017 (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:Rogue planets in fiction[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. Unclear what the nominator actually intended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some articles are about specific rogue planets in works of fiction. In line with other “X in fiction” categories, I propose emptying these into a subcategory, Category:Fictional rogue planets. 165.91.13.209 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Is this really a rename proposal? What's the current scope and the intended scope? Is it fictional planets that are rogue? Or is it planets that are rogue fictionally? Or is it either of these two things? Mars is not a fictional planet but it has appeared in fiction (War of the Worlds) as a rogue planet so is it in scope? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the nominator didn't make any edits after 9 December. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2018 (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/2017_December_20&oldid=1083677912"