Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< February 4 February 6 >

February 5[edit]

Category:Comets with aphelia greater than 1000 AU[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:ARBITRARYCAT and contains only two articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

21st century in Nepalese provinces[edit]

Nominator's rationale: upmerge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in every category. In four cases, merging to the "history of province" category is not useful because the history category is otherwise empty. In those cases upmerging to the grandparent "province" category is not needed either because the articles are already in a "government of province" category. So deletion is all that is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Songs based on speech samples[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Just because a song uses a speech sample, that doesn't make it a defining quality of the song itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No more distinctive than 'songs featuring a Les Paul Guitar.' --Richhoncho (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Songs about religion[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Ridiculous nonsense in the usual "Songs about [word in title or in lyrics]"-theme, which is redundant with existing categories (most notably Category:Religious songs). Serves no useful categorisation purpose except grouping together dozens of songs which are very much unrelated or very tenuously related (at the absolute best). It might be possible to group songs by theme in some way, but this is definitively not it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I am still laughing at seeing a redirect Livin' on a Prayer (song) created to redirect to the actual song article, but with cats for Bon Jovi songs and Songs about religion. The target, apparently, isn't about religion... I have dealt with the redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Bacteroidetes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Bacteroidetes") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Bacteroidota).[1] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom --awkwafaba (📥) 13:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Race-related controversies in animation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The difference between "animation films" and "live-picture films" is not one worthy having two different categories on the same thing. This just leads to WP:OVERCAT problems (as a quick look will show, many films have both...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Animation controversies in film[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category is A) misnamed and B) redundant. The first, because really it should be "Controversial animation films"; and two, because the difference between "controversial animated films" and "controversial live picture films" is not one worth having two separate categories RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Video games using code wheel copy protection[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. Use of a specific form of copy protection is not defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Software that uses Lenslok[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. Use of a specific form of copy protection is not defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Songs about places[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Categories are supposed to bring things together with a similar defining attribute. Here’s the entries brought together in this category under the letter S: Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town, Shangri-La (The Kinks song), Somewhere (song), St. James Infirmary Blues and Surf City (song). No objections, at present, to turning the cat into a container only category. Richhoncho (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)}}
  • Comment @Richhoncho: Are you planning on putting the whole category tree forward for deletion? While I'm sure that most of these are way too generic, there might be a rare few instances where songs about some specific, precise places (say a city or a neighbourhood) might actually have a relevant connection; and if only in the interest of having a thorough discussion on those, I'd recommend this be done in separate steps. I'd support keeping original only as container cat. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: As already stated, happy with container only cat, the rest do need looking at, but not me now. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03: Thanks, so long since I did a AfD or CfD I was confused when previewing Cfd2 didn't show correctly. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Containerize, it is reasonable as a parent category, but there should not be any articles directly in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Containerise and distribute or delete articles. Some refer to a specific place and should be recategorised. Others refer to nowhere in particular and should not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:TC Matic songs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. This is a group whose coverage seems limited enough that neither a list nor a category seem required. Simply mentioning these in their article (as is already done) seems plenty enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT which goes on to read "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page" Plenty of songs by artist with only one member. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Songs about whistling[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Instead of wasting my time removing these from each article where they're inappropriate and then ending up with CSD:C1 because it turns out none are, let's just go right here. (from a quick statistical sample) None of these are "about whistling". These are all variants of the "Songs about [word in title]" theme which the creator has been making as of late. There is no reason to think that this is a pertinent scheme, and people interested about words in titles can do an intitle search without needing a category which links item which are almost entirely unrelated except through sheer coincidence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. I cannot for the life of me, see what the connection between a song about a train whistle and a song which uses the term 'whistle' as a euphemism for oral sex have in common. The creators of these random "songs about" categories which fail every guidance contained in Wikipedia including WP:CATDEF, WP:V and WP:SHAREDNAME should cease forthwith. It's almost bordering on vandalism. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Richhoncho: Have you considered taking Kjell Knudde (talk · contribs) to ANI? For songs-by-subject categories, their talk page indicates problems dating back to at least 2018. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    I have given them a very clear warning. If this continues, or if the problem stretches even further back in time, then I'd agree with Pizza's suggestion... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    @LaundryPizza03: and @RandomCanadian:. Thanks for your support guys. I am not sure ANI is a solution because there is more than one person creating these categories and several supporting the retention of these categories. It could also be argued that when I remove articles from these these cats (if not mentioned in text only) I am vandalising his work. Plus I am probably a little OCD on this subject, see User:Richhoncho/Songs by theme for additional details. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Based on Kjell's category creations, I believe an ANI is warranted. Each of these categories, particularly the "songs about" ones should be reviewed and further creations need to be curtailed. Category:Songs about decades is another palm to the face. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Participants in British reality television series[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Participants is suitably vague. What do we mean by this? Hosts? Contestants? Guest appearances? Not sure what the purpose of "participants" is as its not overly helpful. The sub-categories are all "candidates" or "contests". Perhaps what is needed is a second Category - British reality television hosts and judges (or something similar). For example, at present people like those appearing on Love Island appear alongside judges from The X-Factor and The Voice which doesn't make any sense. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Fictional states of the United States[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Like the recently deleted main article, most of these articles and redirects are not actually U.S. states; the four that are (Calisota, Springfield's State (The Simpsons), Winnemac (fictional U.S. state), and possibly Pennsyltucky) can be merged into Category:Fictional regions and Category:Fictional locations in the United States; Moosylvania and Panem could also be incorporated into relevant parent categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support At least for the few that actually are merge-able. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:French formal gardens[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, (with few exceptions) the subject of the articles is about châteaux, not about gardens. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Turkish sentiment[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Commissioners of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining attribute. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep I created the category because membership in the commission was clearly significant for its commissioners, since both they and others mention it in their biographies, and being able to keep them all grouped together is a convenience for Wikipedia readers. For example, Joseph Nye is on several similar councils and commissions, which are included in the categories for his article. EVhotrodder (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, short-living and non-defining occupation. No objection to the list in Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete definitely nondef, including for Nye. (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep It's an important commission, the results are instrumental in an ongoing political and diplomatic process, it was an important achievement for the members, many of whom were previously notable in their own right. I can't see what purpose would be served by deleting this work... Part of the point of the commission was that, unlike its predecessor, it was multistakeholder, which means that the composition of the commission was, itself, a significant topic. And the composition of the commission is what this category covers. Also, Wikipedia policy is clear that lists and categories coexist, and each serve useful purposes, indexing content and making it more available to readers. Getting rid of it advances no goal, and so seems to me like gratuitous deletionism. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps a bit more discussion about whether this is a defining characteristic would get us to a consensus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  • The fact that the composition of the commission was a significant topic is not relevant here. The question is whether membership of the commission is defining for most people in the category, individually, and the answer is clearly no. Also, Wikipedia policy is clear that lists and categories may coexist, not that they should coexist. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Some group being notable does not mean that being a member if it is a defining characteristic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Sport in Canada[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Match eponymous article naming. It appears Canada uses the plural "Sports" as opposed to "Sport". See 2017 discussion on the article move. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment surely that's changing the topic of the category? Sport is sport in general (and would not be pluralised), sports would mean individual sports, no? Grutness...wha? 02:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • At least in US English, sports is singular. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting. There appear to be a mishmash of "sport" and "sports" subcategories in both this folder and the equivalent US one. Looks like a general tidy-up is needed. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Bangladesh Liberation War poems[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep- There is scope for more articles to be written about the numerous notable poems on the war. It can be kept because it does have realistic potential for growth (cat creator).Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The category can be recreated if those numerous articles actually appear, until then it is a crystal ball matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Images related to WIlliam Tenn[edit]

Nominator's rationale: While there is a scheme for book covers by artist, there is no scheme for cover images by author. The books themselves would already be categorized in the "works by" category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • keep. Useful category, to keep track of non-free images. OTHERSUFFNOESNOTEXIST is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In categorization, it completely matters to have a useful scheme to navigate across similarly grouped articles, files, etc., appropriately. This category was created simply to populate Category:William Tenn with no other appropriate parent. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
What is wrong with population the William Tenn category? And I have an idea how to create an appropriate second parent, because other image categories are too general. It makes a good sense to have categories for illustrations of particular authors because of immediate relevance. There are this kind of categorys in commons, such as [[2]]. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Songs about Mondays[edit]

Nominator's rationale: See the discussion for Category:Songs about days. All of the same reasons why this is a fundamentally useless category apply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and my comments on the creator's talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, the particular day of the week does not seem to play a significant role in most of these songs, e.g. Tuesday and Thursday are largely interchangeable. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a collection of songs that have a certain word in the title. Just taking one entry (at random I might add, rather than to make this point), Tuesday (You Am I song), only mentions Tuesday as the title of the song, not that the song is about Tuesday. So its inclusion here fails WP:V and WP:DEFCAT. I then cheated and looked up the lyrics to see the relevance of Tuesday, and it just appears once in the song:-

And old Ryan's still his rust

And Tuesday comes and goes
Like any late night bus.
I could do a lot more with my time
But you should hear what's going on outside.
Now I don’t know why Tim Rogers chose to insert Tuesday in there, perhaps it was the sibilation, Saturday didn’t fit the meter and Friday was too mundane. But one thing is clear, the song is not about Tuesday, real or imagined and its inclusion in this category is purely and solely because of the title. It should be purged, but it won’t because nobody actually purges categories they merely suggest it.
Finally, songs can use all the all the literary devices available to wordsmiths, parables, alliteration, personification, satire, symbolism. Many song meanings are beyond the comprehension of their creators. Often songs cannot be classified as ‘Songs about..” and it does a great disservice to the creators of the songs and to Wikipedia readers by those who continually add things to WP without thought to the benefit to readers.
I Don't Like Mondays isn't about Mondays either, it's about a school shooting... that happened to take place on a Monday, worked into a chorus from something the shooter happened to say, if she'd said 'Can I have an ice cream?' would it have ended up in a category 'Songs about ice cream'
--Richhoncho (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete all per OVERCAT and NONDEF. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Songs about God[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT which is truly redundant to every single more specific religious song category. I do not see a valid justification for having this on top of that, as it's needlessly vague (there are so many types of songs "about God"; ...), and as such it doesn't even fulfill the basic purpose of categories, which is to link related items together, not things which happen to share one little element in common (if you're honestly going to suggest that "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" and "All the Good Girls Go to Hell" should be in the same category - to take two radically unrelated songs, then you don't understand what categories are for...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and my comments on the creator's talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, most of these songs fit better in a more specific category in the tree of Category:Religious songs and the few non-religious songs in this category, with God in the title, aren't really about God as commonly understood. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Grimes2 (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Most of these are already in relevant categories, gospel songs, hymns, etc the rest appear to have been added because of a word in the title, i.e. I'll Walk with God which is obviously about 'I' not God and also appears in Category:Songs about walking - which is confirmatory proof that these categories are stupid. "Walking with God" doesn't mean using 2 feet, does it? (added text and signature) --Richhoncho (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Songs about Bethlehem[edit]

Nominator's rationale: None of these songs are "about Bethlehem" (they're well and truly about Christmas, but simply because "Bethlehem" is in the title does not make them be "about Bethlehem"). As such, a category which is factually incorrect, even if the WP:DEFCAT issue is set-aside for half a moment (and if you take it into account, this should almost be a speedy delete). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and my comments on the creator's talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment, the category is currently empty, but I can imagine that most songs were about Christmas rather than about Bethlehem as a town. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    yes, see my comments on the creator's talk page, - the "about" in the category (many more than three here) said no more than that a specific term happened to be mentioned in a title, - not even about Christmas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Marcocapelle: Examples included (but were not limited to) such Christmas classics as O Little Town of Bethlehem or Puer natus in Bethlehem and relatively less known or foreign-language ones like Bethlehem Down or Zu Bethlehem geboren. All very obviously not "about Bethlehem"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Grimes2 (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment RandomCanadian, please do not empty the contents of a category being discussed at a CFD discussion. It defeats the entire purpose of having a discussion. Let the closer handle the category contents depending on the decision they come to. It's bad form to propose deleting a category and at the same time you make it irrelevant by emptying it. Editors should be able to see what pages it used to contain. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Liz: Sorry, this was an unintended side effect of me doing this in the wrong order and removing this and and least a half-dozen inappropriate categories from hundreds of articles they were added to by the creator (all with the same blanket "added some categories" edit summary and at a pace which suggests no real effort was made to appreciate whether the topic truly was "about" the subject or just contained it in its title...). When I finally came to check the category page itself, I had already removed all of the entries (I've given a fair sampling above): you'll undoubtedly understand that I don't feel like wasting my time and putting back inappropriate categories. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    in support of the removals: some were just grotesque and an offense to our readers, such as categorizing a song mentioning "Lamm Gottes (Lamm Gottes, für uns gegeben) as Songs about sheep, simply because "lamb" is mentioned in the title (Lamb of God), and yes pictured. It's still not about sheep. - The categories should not have stayed until a Wikipedia discussion terminates. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Fenway Bowl[edit]

Nominator's rationale: One article in the category which is already in this category's parent cats. This may qualify for speedy per C2F. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:William Tenn[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only content is a bio of the author & a subcat for his works, which is entirely sufficient. Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is an unnecessary layer of categorization. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • keep I wasted lots of time trying to find where to put a new article I created. Writer's bio is a natural place where to search author-related subcategories. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Politics of Bangalore[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory is already in the tree of Category:Government of Bangalore and Category:Local elections in Karnataka. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: Relavant pages and subcategories are added. Request not to delete since all the pages related to Politics in Bangalore can be tagged under one category. However Category:Government of Bangalore can be deleted since it is named after a Government which never existed. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I reverted it, because everything that was added was about government, not about politics. That is, it is about government with a "g" (noun), not with a "G" (name). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Saw that you removed Category:Politics of Bangalore from page Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). But BBMP (Greater Bangalore Municipal Corporation) is the politically elected governing body of Bangalore. Hence I feel that retaining Category makes sense. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, so that would leave a subcategory and one article. Then it is still a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Xyleninae[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "Choose type of action wanted" marked as "deletion", but my intention is more "discuss". I can see that Xyleninae has never been created on en.wp. It would appear that this is Noctuoidea (and that superfamily Noctuidae is tagged as disputed) subfamily - see https://www.gbif.org/dataset/111ec1e3-9549-4bc1-84bf-479ba57cfd5b. Your thought about this? Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  • If the category is not kept, it should be upmerged instead of deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Xylenina is classified as a subtribe in the Noctuidae family, but we do not have dedicated articles on many of the family's tribes and subtribes. Noctuidea itself has been undergoing revisions in taxonomy in recent decades, because there is no available molecular analysis on a number of the included species. It is not entirely clear if this is a monophyletic group, or whether all included species have been correctly classified. Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Balkar people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The Balkars and Karachays are the same people, and speak the same language, but there's no common term for both on English. We don't have a category for Karachays on Wikipedia, so instead of creating another, I think it's better to keep these two peoples united and rename the category. For sources that prove my claims see this [3]. Super Ψ Dro 10:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment, if we keep only one category for both peoples the renaming makes perfect sense. Alternatively we might split the category - after all there are two articles as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment -- The distinction seems to be that one come from one area of the Caucasus and the other from another, though they speak the same Turkic language. I am not sure how to resolve this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220212164113/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_5

Leave a Reply