Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 18

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< January 17 January 19 >

January 18 edit

Category:The Circle (band) albums 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) 03:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per page move. QuietHere (talk) 22:52, 18 January 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:Gliese 752 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) 03:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable system, only two articles in category, unlikely to expand. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Merging is not needed, the articles are already in the appropriate parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No problem deleting this category. Categories grouping individual stars in multiple star systems are not very useful anyway.Trurle (talk) 23:53, 18 January 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:59 Virginis 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 (articles appear to be well categorized, and 59 Virginis was in exactly the same categories as the nominated category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable system, probably no additional planets in system. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per nom. But I suspect, when the category is going to be deleted, that merging to at least some of the parent categories is required, @Kepler-1229b: please advise. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 18 January 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:Super Bowl champions 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. bibliomaniac15 19:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT. A similar discussion, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_11#Category:World_Series_champions, deleted a parallel category in 2014. This was also discussed in 2014 but no consensus was reached. It would be defining for a given team to win the Super Bowl, it is not for each individual player. This is especially true given that any given player may or may not have even played in the game; for example, Trevor Bates was on the practice squad of New England when that team won the championship. User:Namiba 19:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added two similar categories: Grey Cup champions and American Football League champions. If you object, please let me know and I will remove them.--User:Namiba 18:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that today is the Super Bowl and this category has been nominated for almost 3 weeks, can this discussion be closed today?--User:Namiba 14:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-defining characteristic. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:PERFCAT doesn’t name athletes at all. And yes, being a Super Bowl champion is defining and is often one of the first things noted in an obituary (examples here and here and here) Rikster2 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Ol’factory, I noticed that you closed the other discussions on this page. Could you close this one as well?--User:Namiba 18:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - wait what? There seems to be a hurry to close these discussions without proper input. WP:PERFCAT refers to performers and not athletes? How is competing on a team that wins Super Bowls, Grey Cups, World Series, not notable or relevant. PERFCAT refers to actors who have played Dr. Who, or musicians who have performed at Madison Square Garden. These is actually an absurd delete nomination Krazytea(talk) 22:37, 13 February 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.

Mayors and regents of places in Indonesia 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) 03:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in each category and not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While there would have been more than five for each location, most of the office holders would be non-notable. No objection to recreating any if they ever get to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 19 January 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:Trecento composers etc. 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, except no consensus on Category:Trecento composers. So I will keep Category:Trecento composers as a subcategory of a new Category:14th-century Italian composers. Once articles have been appropriately categorized and we can see how much overlap there is, we could reconsider having both Category:Trecento composers and Category:14th-century Italian composers. (I know hardly anything about the subject, so please don't come at me with pitchforks.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, which I nonetheless support slightly more subtle !vote below. This renaming was originally proposed by capmo at WP:Village pump (proposals) § Rename Trecento/Quattrocento/Cinquecento/Seicento/Settecento categories, where I advised that it was the wrong venue and suggested moving the proposal here; they decided that the discussion was better-suited to WT:WikiProject Categories § Rename Trecento/Quattrocento/Cinquecento/Seicento/Settecento categories, where it was supported by me and pythoncoder, but closed again as the wrong venue by Redrose64. Posting here to finally allow discussion in the right place.
Original nom's rationale: The [...] categories should, in my opinion, be replaced with their plain English equivalents [...] Someone who doesn't know the Italian art of this period won't have to guess what Seicento means. It's worth noting that not even the Italian Wikipedia uses this rather cryptic convention: it:Categoria:Compositori italiani
YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like common sense that the English Wikipedia should use the English terminology. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC) copypasted 19:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @YorkshireLad: Thank you so much for creating the entry here and also for updating each of the categories involved. Just now, I was reading the instructions at WP:CFR and was a bit confused on which steps to follow (rename? merge?) and with the proper procedure for bundled nominations. I was relieved to see that everything had already been done. Thanks again. —capmo (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that this is in the correct venue, support all five renames, because this is the English (not Italian) Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except Trecento for so many reasons, and I politely advise that Marcocapelle, pythoncoder and Redrose64 reconsider their opinions. Moving the categories without moving the main articles is problematic. If we're going to talk about the Italian wikipedia, note that their articles and category names are in line, which these wouldn't be after such a move. I can't speak for the other eras, but "Trecento" is a standard and the most common way to refer to the musical era and the era of art; "14th-century Italian composers" is far less common than simply "Trecento composers". Category:Trecento painters or Category:Quattrocento painters etc. isn't even in the nom. Besides, the Italians can't name if the Trecento because that also means "300" in their language. Anyways, I wouldn't consider "Trecento" "a non-english term" in the same sense that we would for "Hola". In musicology it is extremely common to use specialized terms to refer to movements; e.g. the latin Ars nova, Ars subtilior and Ars antiqua; or the German: Empfindsamer Stil and Sturm und Drang. Also important to note, many Trecento composers weren't even Italian (!!!) Johannes Ciconia and Sant Omer are the first that come to my head. In essence, having such a move creates a category-article inconsistency, musicological inconsistency and factual inconsistency. Aza24 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johannes Ciconia worked most of his life in Italy while it is unclear whether Sant Omer belongs in this category at all. The question is not whether "14th-century Italian composers" is a common term, we simply diffuse all composers by nationality and century because there are too many composers for one category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Aza24, I will defer to your knowledge on this! But then I think we still have a problem, because Category:15th-century Italian composers and all the later ones are being treated as synonymous with the appropriate "-cento composers" categories, as evidenced by the fact that the former redirect to the latter. So I suppose the way to resolve this is to de-redirect the numbered-century categories, and use them for their literal purpose of Italian composers from that century; then use the "-cento" categories for composers associated with the cultural era? YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now done that. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No major change in scope, while more consinstent with other categories of people by century. Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I suppose I could be persuaded otherwise, but the more I think about it, the more I disagree with moving. Trecento is a specific term with a slightly different meaning from "14th century", at least in musicology. See Aza24's excellent summation above. Some non-Italian composers came to Italy, and their work would fall into this category. It's not entirely crazy, by the way, to have both categories, ... but meh. Would have to think about that more. Antandrus (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't have two categories that are 95% overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I'm not a musicologist; rather I was a music performance major at university, and a professional musician for almost 50 years. Of course, we learned about Trecento-style madrigals (and I've sung them) and even dances for the music of that era (in the Society for Creative Anachronism, not music school). But they aren't strictly by century. These are by century and by country categories. WP:C2C
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — on the other end of the scale, I've never heard Vivaldi called a "Settecento composer". The article also has him as a "Seicento composer" (in his teens). Other than Trecento, I'm not remembering any of these other categories. I've never heard of a Seicento-style or Settecento-style of performance. Sometimes musicologists are pretty far into the weeds.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In music I'm not aware of any others than Trecento being regularly used in musicology or music in general; in the visual arts only Trecento and Quattrocento, as John says. Since this nom includes only the composer ones, I wonder if the appropriate solution would be to move them all but Trecento, and have a sub category of Category:14th-century Italian composers. Aza24 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you should modify your !vote above to match. Please don't blanket oppose, when actually you know the terms aren't used. We rely on knowledgable advice.
        William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've just done a lot of work on Italian musicians and I found these terms confusing. They were rarely used in the articles. Rathfelder (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support except Category:Trecento composers, for which a new overlapping category Category:14th-century Italian composers should be created containing the appropriate individuals (as technical nominator). YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:19, 26 January 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:Ghanaian MPs 2017– 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) 03:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Term of Office has ended. It ended on 6 January 2021. So the name must be changed to 2017-2021 Ampimd (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom's rationale. Valenciano (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom's rationale. --Natsubee (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support obvious. We will need a new category for the new Parliament. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 23 January 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:Roads in Bicol 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) 03:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More standard and consistent. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:40, 18 January 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:American sportspeople of Lebanese descent 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: there is consensus that the nominated category should be deleted. There is no consensus on whether the contents should be merged to Category:American people of Lebanese descent. So defaulting to "merge" in order to retain the status quo with respect to the information categorizing articles by Lebanese descent. As a result, Category:American sportspeople of Arab descent can be deleted as empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created a banned user, this is a non-defining intersection per WP:OCEGRS. Lebanese Americans have no unique history of involvement in sports nor has it been covered as its own unique topic. Category:American sportspeople of Arab descent would be empty if this is deleted. User:Namiba 13:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:OCEGRS, and the usual problems of descent categories (User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Also, emptied Category:American sportspeople of Arab descent. Lebanese are not and have never been Arabs. Scots are not and have never been English.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Merging to the proposed target is also feasible in theory, however in practice these ineligible categories are often added in complete disregard for the conditions set at WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT, as well as categories already present on the page. As an example, Olympic Gold medalist Jordyn Wieber does have a sourced statement in article with a one-line press quote that she eats Lebanese food for Thanksgiving because she has a Lebanese grandmother, but she is probably very, very far from being commonly and consistently defined by reliable sources as, for instance, the Lebanese American gymnast. Per WP:CATDEF, she therefore does not need to be in any Lebanese descent category. Place Clichy (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Clearly having Lebanese ancestry is defining to at least some people. If it is not to some of the people in the category we can remove that on a case by case basis, but there is no reason to remove it from all. The intersection of Lebanese descent and being in sports is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 25 January 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:Murdered military personnel 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) 03:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not commonly and consistently expected as a professional hazard or qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, making the link even weaker.
In particular, military personnel are expected to die in the line of duty. That is not murder.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since those killed in battle are assassinated, what's left is a non-defining coincidental intersection. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that absent a war crime, it's justifiable homicide and/or self-defense, actually. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Since those killed in battle are assassinated" Death in battle is typically not a crime. Killing of prisoners of war is a war crime. Dimadick (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to creating a war crime category as I didn't think of that in my original comment. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every intersection of death and occupation is justifiable. In this case, most military personnel who die violently die in an act of war, which does not fall under murder. Some that get classed as murder are really killed in acts of hate crimes motivated by a broad ideology (usually featuring shouts of "allah akbar") that in a broad understanding of causes would count as to the victim a killing motivated by random violence, and so not worth categorizing as murder either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 25 January 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:Murdered police officers 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, merging contents to appropriate "FOOian police officers" Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. Not commonly and consistently expected as a professional hazard or qualification. There may have been many years between the occupation and the death, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to appropriate national police officer categories. Many of the articles in these categories are not already in other sub-categories.--User:Namiba 13:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Since those that are assassinated or killed in the line of duty are pulled out, what's left is a coincidental non0defining intersection. No objection to merging. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Namiba. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all in selection as the categories' contents make clear no attempt has been made to single out those who were unlawfully killed in the line of duty and anyone else. Given the light that has been shed on the activities of some police officers it may be impossible to be sure that some of the biographies here meet (verifiably) an acceptable level of not being killed in self-defense which is inconsistent with "murder". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:01, 19 January 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:Wikipedia featured topics United States presidential election, 1880 featured content 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) 02:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with WP:NCELECT — the featured topic was renamed and now is at Wikipedia:Featured topics/1880 United States presidential election.

This does mean the talk-page banners will need to be updated in the relevant articles. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 18 January 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:TOFIL Awardees 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) 08:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The TOFIL Award is given by the Junior Chamber International for business people in the Philippines. The articles are for people that are already notable and they generally don't even mention the award so it's clearly not defining. The current contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 18 January 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:Philosopher's Annual Prize winners 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) 08:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TOPTEN and WP:OCAWARD)
The Philosopher's Annual picks the top 10 best philosophy papers of that year according to the editors. Usually we associate such end-of-the-year Top 10 lists with popular culture (best movies, best dance songs, etc.) but this announcement has the same vibe. The articles mention this award only in passing so it doesn't seem defining. There wasn't a list, so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 18 January 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_January_18&oldid=1006629589"