Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 1 April 3 >

April 2[edit]

Category:Reference standards[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unclear inclusion criterion; all standards are arguably for reference; seems just a category for similarly named standards. fgnievinski (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2021 (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:Period television series[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: not merged/renamed. @Kailash29792, Marcocapelle, and William Allen Simpson: if further discussion is needed before pruning/rearranging, I suggest Talk:Historical drama as the appropriate venue, with notice at WT:TV. – Fayenatic London 08:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They're the exact same thing. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle and Carlossuarez46: Historical drama was just moved a few days ago from Historical period drama (since 2014), and was orginally named Period piece (since 2005) created by trained historian with a film degree. It is still in Category:Period pieces. This was done without discussion (other than a non-discussed post on the Talk) by a single user. That change was made with no citations. In the US film and theater industry, they are called "period dramas" or "period pieces" (for an highly influential example, see 25 Best Period Dramas to Watch For an Escape).

    In the world of Hollywood, a period piece specifically refers to a film, TV series, or miniseries that is set during an earlier time. Period pieces often have high budgets and involve complex shoots, but the extra effort ensures that the audience is transported into a past era.

    — Period Piece Genre Explained: 4 Types of Period Pieces in Film
    Only actual non-fiction history is called "historical". It is a subset of (child of) all period pieces, because a period piece can include fiction. I'd thought that maybe there was an English-language issue, but I'm finding the same terms in Britain. The primary ghit for "Historical drama" is wikipedia, followed by pages of ghits for "period drama".
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, "historical drama" should be renamed "period drama" as the latter name is more common. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea William Allen Simpson. Many period pieces are not dramatic, but violent, comical, horrific and romantic, all separately. These rename discussions may be closed with the consensus not to move, once historical drama is renamed to period drama/period piece. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: adding sub-categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:02, 2 April 2021 (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:Albums produced by Warren "Oak" Felder[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category - also the proper name for the category as per the parent artist page ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:13, 2 April 2021 (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:Monument types[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: move subcategories to Category:Monuments and memorials by type, then rename to Category:Types of monuments and memorials. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: widely overlapping scope (target need not be container cat) fgnievinski (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2021 (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:Hypothetical nuclei[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 entries, one of which is a redirect. WP:SMALLCAT and mostly redudant with other categories like Category:Isotopes of helium and Category:Neutron for the respective pages in the category. Category:Hypothetical chemical elements covers almost everything else that would belong here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:30, 2 April 2021 (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:Sigma receptor agonists[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) 07:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are synonymous. Category:Sigma receptor agonists has only one page in it, but Category:Sigma agonists has 56. There doesn't seem to be a consistent preference for "X receptor agonists" over "X agonists" in category names, judging by the subcategories of Category:Receptor agonists. proton donor H+ 17:34, 2 April 2021 (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:Northwest Christian University[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 as nominated and also Category:Northwest Christian University alumni to Category:Bushnell University alumni, keeping redirects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New name as of 2020. The subcat Category:Northwest Christian University alumni‎ should be renamed as well. StAnselm (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2021 (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:Businesspeople who committed suicide[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT Eric talk 11:26, 2 April 2021 (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:Non-larid gulls[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:Gulls (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All gulls are Larids, not all gulls are Larus. This category seems to have been made when most gull species were in the large genus Larus. The taxonomy has changed since then, so there are more species that could go in this category. The name of this was wrong from the start though. Iloveparrots (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Pons JM, Hassanin A, Crochet PA (December 2005). "Phylogenetic relationships within the Laridae (Charadriiformes: Aves) inferred from mitochondrial markers". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 37 (3): 686–99. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2005.05.011. PMID 16054399.
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:Albums recorded at A&M Studios[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Category:Albums recorded at A&M Studios

Category:Lists of city nicknames[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 - See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_25#Category:City_nicknames_by_city_name - jc37 17:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, and in order to avoid confusion with Category:City nicknames by city name. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2021 (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:Urdu scholars[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: option A merge to Category:Urdu-language writers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: merge to Category:Urdu-language writers, this is not about scholarship in Urdu because those are in Category:Linguists of Urdu and as far as I can see we do not have a tree for scholars of any subject by language.
Option B: rename to Category:Urdu-language scholars, WP:C2C per Category:Urdu-language writers, Category:Urdu-language poets etc.
As nominator I have a preference for option A, but option B is still better than the status quo. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
pinging @Gjs238: who nominated the category for option B at WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Option A The current name is very vague. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A: merge to Category:Urdu-language writers After perusing the first several articles in the category, it appears that most are "Urdu-language writers", and the ones that are referred to as scholars are also listed in Category:Linguists of Urdu. So it seems that Category:Urdu scholars is redundant and unnecessary. Gjs238 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither -- Instead diffuse, i.e. empty manually into more appropriate categories (or perhaps better add additional categories such as Category:Urdu-language novelists. When we are assured that all members have As a matter of information, Urdu (unusually) is a language that is not exactly an ethnicity, so that Urdu writers could only mean Urdu-language writers. It was the court language of the Mughal Emperors of India and is widely used by Muslims in South Asia, both in north and central India and Pakistan. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B I took a random sample and found mostly historic muslim scientists and preachers as well as some contemporary fiction writers. And I don't think such preachers are correctly identified/merged as a "writer"/author. (Furthermore I was astonished to find 22 subcategories for Category:Urdu-language writers. Well, so far away, I never ever had any encounter with Urdu language speakers.) --Just N. (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2021 (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 child abuse victims[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar category was deleted recently for being vague and non-defining. ★Trekker (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For one how do we decide if the child abuse is defining for a character? And what counts as abuse? We don't have a coresponding category for real people for example because it would be impossible to judge.★Trekker (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I suspect that there is a lot of scope for novelists to explore this subject. It is difficult to have parallel categories for real people due to BLP issues, but no reason not to have one for fictional people. I would suggest that this should be limited to cases where the abuse is a major theme, rather than merely incidental. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be realistic, there is really no way actually enforce that (at least with the current name, if the category was named Category:Victim characters in fiction about child abuse then maybe it could work).★Trekker (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2021 (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:Catch dog breeds[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other sub-cats of Category:Hunting dogs (e.g. Category:Terriers, not Category:Terrier breeds). BenKuykendall (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. No idea why the creator named it 'Catch dog breeds' as the only subcat of hunting dogs with 'breeds'? Surprisingly 16 entries for cat: catch dogs. --Just N. (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per COMMONNAME, while individual dogs or individual breeds can be called a terrier, a spaniel or a retriever, I've never seen a mastiff or a bulldog called a catch in the same fashion. Place Clichy (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2021 (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:Information, knowledge, and uncertainty[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:Information, knowledge, and uncertainty; no consensus on Category:Economics of uncertainty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, container categories for unrelated subfields of economics, merely kept together based on JEL classification codes, a 50 year old library system. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rationale makes no sense. As someone whose work is largely in Economics of Uncertainty, I don't know what you mean about "unrelated subfields". As regards "50 years old" in what sense is this a criticism? JQ (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much do you know about these topics? Uncertainty is central to both. Happy to explain further, but it would be good to have an idea how much background knowledge I can assume. JQ (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting with game theory, the central concept is that of Bayes-Nash equilibrium, discussed in Bayesian game. Most of the other main equilibrium concepts in game theory are refinements of Bayes-Nash equilibrium. So, the connection to uncertainty is clear. Similarly, the central issue in portfolio theory is the risk-return trade-off, as discussed in Capital Asset Pricing Model. Given the centrality of uncertainty here, the relevance of the category is again clear. If we can agree on that, I'm happy to move on to the broader category. JQ (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are navigational categories meant to help readers find articles and, if there were a main article on the economics of uncertainty, I would absolutely be open to reconsidering. (Sounds like we're all implicitly accepting the parent category cannot be salvaged.)- RevelationDirect (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The JEL system was carefully designed by experts in both economics and indexing. It would be much better to work within it, but I've run out of time, particularly if it's necessary to argue about it. So, I'll try to write the main article, and leave the categorization to get gradually messier, as it has been doing. Lets keep Economics of uncertainty and you can dump the larger category JQ (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "information, knowledge, and uncertainty" which is prima facie absurd, and even more absurd due to its extremely limited content and lack of a mainspace article. If this is a legitimate category, then we ought to create Category:Apples, bananas and oranges with Category:Apples, Category:Bananas and Category:Oranges as its only members. I will hold off on saying "delete" to the other one because it seems like @John Quiggin: is about to make a point (or a main article), and I want to see it first (for me, you can assume I have a pretty good familiarity with game theory, optimization, and economic concepts). jp×g 02:55, 23 April 2021 (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:Neural networks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#Category:Neural networks

Category:Bitcoin Cash[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is being used for the promotion of a barely notable cryptocurrency, and multiple articles are being tagged with it (without any sources). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Bitcoin Cash is a different cryptocurrency than that of Bitcoin, even though they both derive from the same genesis blockchain. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of these links to the category but NeedAUsername44 reverted the edits to re-add to the articles. Note cryptocurrency articles are subject to WP:GS/Crypto and if my recollection is correct earlier promotional edits on this Bitcoin Cash article were the impetus for the DS. The user above essentially confirms the rationale is promotional "it is the biggest cryptocurrency, etc". It would be better if we didnt have categories for the small cryptos, as we have enough issues with PROMO edits on the articles themselves. This Category:Cryptocurrencies is sufficient for a merge if we cannot merge to Category:Bitcoin (category creator seems to object to that). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're misleading others. I did not say "it is the biggest cryptocurrency." Here is the actual statement, which can be seen above by anyone. "It's not a "barely notable" cryptocurrency, Bitcoin Cash is actually a highly used cryptocurrency. It has more transactional volume than Bitcoin, it is a top cryptocurrency, and has a market cap of $11 Billion (as of this writing)." Clearly what I am saying is that 1) it's notable, 2) it's actually used more than Bitcoin (see volume), and is a top cryptocurrency in the space. It's also not a "small crypto." I would like you to define "small crypto" then as you are using this phrase as some sort of deceiving characteristic of Bitcoin Cash, which it obviously by any metric is not "small." NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:SOAP Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, please backup your accusations with facts. I see none so far. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed. Bitcoin Cash does not fit within WP:SMALLCAT. It has a huge potential for growth, and as outlined with facts linked to above, it has already surpassed that of Bitcoin in various areas such as network activity, adoption, and by no means it's a trivial cryptocurrency, as it has a $11 billion market capitalization. If anything, as WP:SMALLCAT says, Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not matter what the market value is. The question is which additional wp articles will be written about this topic. If that remains unclear the realistic potential for growth argument does not count. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Clearly Bitcoin Cash has become a top cryptocurrency looking at it's stats as compared to others including Bitcoin, and if you look at the news there is lots of RS about it, so it is in my mind undoubtedly going to be more WP articles written on this topic. Whether that actually happens or not is unknown. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2021 (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:Films directed by J. Mahendran[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 10#Category:Films directed by J. Mahendran

Category:Recipients of the Order of Guadalupe[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, and WP:OCAWARD)
When high ranking foreign visitors met with representatives from Imperial Mexico, the Order of Guadalupe was given out as souvenir. Queen Victoria, Kamehameha V, and Leopold I of Belgium are not remotely defined by this award. There are a few Mexican people in this category but all except 1 are members of the royal family-1, 2, 3, 4-who are already somewhere under Category:Mexican monarchy. (The 1 exception is President Vicente Guerrero who is not defined by the award.) There isn't a main article so I shoehorned a collapsible list with all the category contents right here in the Mexican Imperial Orders article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2021 (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:Order of Saint John in Sweden[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, the spirit of WP:C2F, one eponymous article
The Order of Saint John in Sweden is a Swedish order that is automatically headed by the King of Sweden. The only things in this category is that main article and the current King of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf, who is not defined by the award. (Unlike my other nomination, there are not recipients in this category nor are they listed within the article.) I don't foresee any growth potential here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2021 (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/2021_April_2&oldid=1021497139"