Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 23



Category:Offices of the Roman Curia

 * 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 to Category:Dicasteries. MER-C 08:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Offices of the Roman Curia to Category:Roman Curia
 * Nominator's rationale: Can't see how this separate, seemingly redundant category is really motivated here? PPEMES (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral, there is some other content beside offices (namely subcategories Category:Documents of the Roman Curia and Category:History of the Roman Curia) but that may be too little to keep Category:Offices of the Roman Curia and Category:Roman Curia apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think these too should be merged? I'm not sure that's necessary, though. PPEMES (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, see also the related discussion on tomorrow's page, I think that that concerns a clearer need of merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Category:Roman Curia seems admirably subcategorized. The suggested merge would take 11 specifically categorized ('offices') articles and leave them floating vaguely in the eponymous category Category:Roman Curia. Oculi (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep—An "office" of the Roman Curia is a specific type of dicastery, according to the law that currently governs the Roman Curia, Pastor Bonus, article 2. The category should remain, unless we are also going to merge Category: Congregations of the Roman Curia, Category: Tribunals of the Roman Curia, etc. which are also dicasteries. Each type of dicastery deserves its own subcategory of Category: Roman Curia. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If so, how about we rename it to Category:Dicasteries instead (which could then include the preexisting Category:Former dicasteries)? PPEMES (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. I think that is canonically accurate and a better way to organize the existing content. Also, in the pending reorganization of the Roman Curia, there are many reports that all the different types of dicasteries will simply be called "Dicastery of...", so this may be helpful when we have to rename most of the pages soon. I support this sub-proposal. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 00:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Alt to Category:Dicasteries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pontifical organizations

 * 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: do not merge. I'll list the second category on the manual page for redistribution of contents per comments below. MER-C 08:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Pontifical organizations to Category:Institutions connected with the Holy See
 * Nominator's rationale: Too unclear or too broad scope, at least as means of separately motivated from destination template. As such, essentially redundant.PPEMES (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose—The Institutions connected with the Holy See are specifically defined in Pastor Bonus, articles 186-193, that currently govern the Roman Curia. It is not a broad category for any organization or entity with ties to the Holy See or the pope. The categories should not be merged. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! OK. Should Category:Institutions connected with the Holy See remain too then? PPEMES (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep both categories, and "selectively merge" as suggested below. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 00:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and selectively merge in the target, with the rest of its content (things that are not insitutions) merged elsewhere, e.g. to Vatican City. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I second the "selectively merge" proposal. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 00:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nepalese government stubs

 * 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 category to both parents. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting nepalese government stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Far below threshold of # of articles to qualify for a stub category; created out of process. I propose we upmerge the stub template to Category:Asian government stubs or Category:Nepal stubs and delete this category. Her Pegship (really?) 19:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, merge template to Category:Nepal stubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support upmerge the template to both parents mentioned. Grutness... wha?   13:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sanamahism stubs

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting sanamahism stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Far below threshold of # of articles to qualify for a stub category; created out of process. I propose we upmerge the stub template to and delete this category. Her Pegship (really?) 19:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Grutness... wha?   13:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lord Mayors of London

 * 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. MER-C 10:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Lord Mayors of London to Category:Lord mayors of London
 * Propose renaming Category:14th-century Lord Mayors of London to Category:14th-century lord mayors of London
 * Propose renaming Category:15th-century Lord Mayors of London to Category:15th-century lord mayors of London
 * Propose renaming Category:16th-century Lord Mayors of London to Category:16th-century lord mayors of London
 * Propose renaming Category:17th-century Lord Mayors of London to Category:17th-century lord mayors of London
 * Propose renaming Category:18th-century Lord Mayors of London to Category:18th-century lord mayors of London
 * Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:JOBTITLES and the recent RMs at Talk:List of lord mayors of London and Talk:Lord mayor, and the member Category:13th-century mayors of London, the plural form should use lowercase. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The title is Lord Mayor of London (and so capitalised), just as we would capitalise the title Earl of Essex or King of England. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You may have missed some of the recent discussions, which have been somewhat numerous but do have a consensus outcome that is reflected in the guideline at MOS:JOBTITLES. Yes, we would capitalise Lord Mayor of London, Earl of Essex, and King of England, but this is different because this is about the plural – the entire set of people who have held a title. I can provide explicit pointers to many of those recent discussions, but I hope that the most directly relevant one will suffice – please see the recent RM at Talk:List of lord mayors of London (and note that it is using lowercase). The discussion in that RM also contains references to many similar RMs with consistent outcomes. A formal title is capitalised as a proper noun when in the singular form as a formal title held by only one person (as in the article title Lord Mayor of London). In the plural, it is describing a group of people, not a single person, so it is not a proper noun in that form and should not be capitalised. The singular/plural distinction is explicitly discussed in MOS:JOBTITLES. Surely the category Category:Lord Mayors of London should be consistent with the corresponding list List of lord mayors of London. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy close suggested, as this proposal meets the speedy criterion WP:C2D for the corresponding List of lord mayors of London. Please also see the corresponding recent RM discussion at Talk:List of lord mayors of London. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:PVRIS albums
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 3%23Category:PVRIS albums

Category:Coop Denmark

 * 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) 19:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Coop Denmark to Category:Cooperatives in Denmark‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article, about Coop amba which is actually the parent company of Coop Denmark, which doesnt have its own article. Rathfelder (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and structures of the Catholic Church

 * 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: do not merge. MER-C 12:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures of the Catholic Church to Category:Catholic church buildings
 * Nominator's rationale: No obvious reason for duplicate content. C.f. interrelated discussions at Category talk:Catholic organizations, and Category talk:Catholic denominations. PPEMES (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge but to Category:Roman Catholic church buildings as all are supposed to be in the Catholic Church according to the category description. Oculi (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hasn't "Roman Catholic" categories - Category:Roman Catholic church buildings included - recurringly been associated exclusively with Category:Latin Church category tree? PPEMES (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Latin Church, created by PPEMES, is not mentioned in the nom or in the parents of either category in the nom, so why is it relevant? Oculi (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't come up with that convention of pertaining to the Latin Church, I recall others did. PPEMES (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. deals with buildings which are Catholic churches.  (of which  should be a subcat - for some reason it seems to be the other way round) deals with all buildings belonging to the Catholic Church, whether they are churches, monasteries, palaces, convents, administrative buildings within the Vatican, or Vatican missions in other countries. As such, the categories have significantly different uses.Grutness...  wha?   13:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I've disentangled the incorrect parent/child cat problem. Grutness... wha?   13:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Church building" means something specific (i.e. what is commonly called simply a church). This is a wider category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Necrothesp. A bishop's palace is a building of the Church but it is not a church building. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greek historical hero cult
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 3%23Category:Greek historical hero cult

Prince-bishops of Montenegro

 * 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 Prince-Bishops to prince-bishops, no consensus to rename the Prince-Bishopric. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Prince-Bishops of Montenegro to Category:Prince-bishops of Montenegro
 * Propose renaming Category:Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro to Category:Prince-bishopric of Montenegro
 * Nominator's rationale: rename per article title Prince-bishop and after boldly moving Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro to Prince-bishopric of Montenegro. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have moved it back. Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro is a proper name and is therefore capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not a proper name. Prince-bishop is (the English translation of) the German term "Fürstbischof" which however was not officially used outside of the Holy Roman Empire or the Baltics. The (English translation of the) proper name in case of Montenegro was Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the religious entity. This refers to the temporal state, which is clearly a proper name. Two different things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the thing, there hasn't been any other proper name beside the proper name of the religious entity. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Something doesn't have to be formally named to be a proper name! Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro is used as a proper name, as it is used as the name of the state entity which was Montenegro at the time. Whether it was officially used or not is irrelevant. United States is not the official name of the United States of America; does that mean it shouldn't be capitalised? It is a convention in English to treat such names as proper names and capitalise them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't United States an abbreviated common name form with retained capital letter from full proper name? PPEMES (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, but why should it have? United states is a generic title without the America bit added. Yet we do retain the capitalisation. Because it's convention to capitalise anything being used as the name of a specific entity. That's my point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support It is not a title, it is a description. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro is clearly a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A "Prince-Bishop of Montenegro" would be a proper name; a "Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro" is not a proper name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously I don't agree. Neither do I see a distinction. One is the ruler; the other is the entity he rules. Both are proper names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:C2C, WP:C2D. PPEMES (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, neither of those are appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A completely different argument is WP:MOS: a title is only capitalized when it is written immediately before someone's name. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That only applies to Category:Prince-Bishops of Montenegro, which I have no objection to renaming. It does not apply to Category:Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for Prince-Bishops, Oppose for Prince-Bishopric, mainly per consistency with article names, but I also find the Marco's MOS argument compelling and Prince - Bishopric being a proper name. --Trialpears (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cheating in chess

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting cheating in chess


 * Nominator's rationale: Not properly named for a biographical category and troublesome with respect to WP:BLP. Limited prospects for expansion as although cheating in chess is perhaps not uncommon, most cheaters won't get Wikipedia articles.  Originally contained three articles on Category:chess automatons that were operated by humans.  Although these could be considered frauds, I don't see how that could be categorized as cheating in chess.  (In my view the early chess automatons were entertainment akin to a magician's show and I would not consider either one to be cheating or fraudulent.) Quale (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggest renaming to Category:Chess players convicted of cheating, with that we will not have WP:BLP issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * renaming is OK for me. Mircea (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Convicted" doesn't work for several cases. But I am not sure a rename is helpful.  Yes, each individual article must tiptoe carefully to avoid BLP issues, but if they all do, then the category is OK too.  As for limited prospects for expansion, we just got a new one (Rausis), so it's the wrong time to complain about that.  Bruce leverett (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 'sanctioned for cheating' might work. Oculi (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Small and unnecessary category which will create BLP issues. Few chess cheats are actually notable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps rename to "Accusations of cheating in chess", "Allegations of cheating in chess", or "Chess cheating scandals". I found it interesting to read through the 5 articles in the category. (I'll admit I'm not very familiar with category guidelines, so if I'm off-base, please just ignore my comment.) I agree that "convicted" doesn't work, since most cases do not seem to involve criminal prosecution. And sometimes sanctions may not be involved – e.g., sanctions may be unnecessary if a person voluntarily admits to cheating and withdraws from further competition.  —BarrelProof (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not have any other 'accusations' or 'allegations' categories. 'Scandals' might be an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Inclusion criteria for any categories of this kind need to be carefully considered. In my opinion Gary Kasparov cheated in his infamous game with Polgar, but putting him in a cheating category would be terrible. It would be better to avoid this trouble and deep six this category idea entirely as I honestly don't see what value it has or how it improves the encyclopedia.  All the  noteworthy cases can be described in the article Cheating in chess and a category adds nothing worth the inevitable headaches.  An article allows context and nuance, a category just acts as a scarlet letter to brand its members as reprobates.  Quale (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said. Personally, I would not classify a violation of the touch-move rule or a rapid move retraction as "cheating" in this sense. That's certainly not in the same class as having a hidden accomplice sending secret messages, which seems to basically be what all the current members of the category did, or at least were accused of (it seems that the allegations against Borislav Ivanov were never fully verified in flagrante delicto or with an admission of guilt, although they were deemed sufficient for a lifetime ban and removal of FIDE ratings and ranking). —BarrelProof (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Regrettably, this category has a future. Indeed, looking over it, I clicked on Borislav Ivkov, and learned a lot, or maybe a little, whatever.  I also thought of an old incident where somebody resigned from the board of the USCF because it surfaced that he had doctored rating reports to get a title.  I think it is reasonable for people to want to look this stuff up.  Yes, every article is going to skate on the edge of BLP issues, which is not something I am used to, editing biographies of dead people, but what can you do?  For more about this exciting topic, see category Cheating.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to defame the veteran Serbian Grandmaster Borislav Ivkov. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Borislav Ivanov, I suppose, not Borislav Ivkov. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am truly embarrassed by this error. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bruce, I don't see many biographical articles in Category:Cheating except for Category:Cheating in chess which is 5/6 biographical articles (although still a small category). Is there an different cheating category that you think the cheating in chess category should emulate in branding living persons as cheaters?  To me, the chess category seems like an outlier in needlessly running headlong into WP:BLP danger.  Quale (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't entirely unprecedented, we have categories for drug cheating in sports with many BLPs for example. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe Category:Sportspeople involved in betting scandals? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've created and added cheaters to Category:Cheating in sports. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm maybe late to the party, I'd point out that there is already an article about cheating in chess, with the names of the "protagonists" of all major (and also minor) cases. Sophia91 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's very common for categories to have corresponding articles. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't see consensus to delete the category. Do we have consensus to change the name to "Chess players sanctioned for cheating"? Though this doesn't quite work for Rausis. Matulovic is another name that springs to mind. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Following the pattern of Category:Sportspeople involved in betting scandals, it could be Category:Chess players involved in cheating scandals. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am traveling, cannot contribute as promptly as I would like. I was going to say something like what User:BarrelProof just said.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good rename to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Involved in" sounds too weak, as it may lead to unverified accusations. Better stick to "sanctioned for". Marcocapelle (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, unverified accusations can be notable; see my discussion of Kramnik vs. Topalov below. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with Quale and MaxBrowne, unnecessary category, many cheaters won't get Wikipedia articles. Sophia91 (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Categories are not intended to be comprehensive of less notable entries, as with all of Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that there will be uneven coverage of this topic. I also thought of:
 * "John von Neumann"" -- the incident would be considered notable (covered in the press and everybody remembers it), but the guy was not (what was his name?).
 * Kramnik vs. Topalov WC match 2006 -- notable enough to be mentioned in Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov, although in all likelihood no cheating occurred. Equally implausible accusations occurred during the 1972 and 1978 WC matches.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, rename if necessary. The nominator has not presented a valid rationale for deletion. If people are reported by reliable sources as having cheated, how does that violate BLP? Also, there are enough articles, so the number isn't an issue. I was actually going to create a category for cheating in sports (Rosie Ruiz, Danny Almonte, etc.) and, while doing some checking, stumbled upon this AfD. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't care if the people here became semi-notable for cheating at chess, we do not need to categorize by every possible detail of life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.