Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 27

< October 26 October 28 >

October 27

Category:Irish collaborators with the British Empire

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. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 29#Category:Collaboration with the British Empire was closed as delete. MER-C 11:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Irish collaborators with the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is pushing a POV that Irish people who support Britain are "collaborators". Of the five members of the category, several (Bradstreet, Cassidy, Magan) lived during times when Ireland was ruled by the British monarch, Joyce was not Irish, and Fovargue is already in appropriate categories for having informed on fellow IRA members. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 23:40, 27 October 2019 (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.

Greek Catholic Churches

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 11:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D per main articles Greek Catholic Church of Croatia and Serbia, Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, Macedonian Greek Catholic Church and WP:C2C per the rest of Category:Eastern Catholic Churches that belong to the Greek Catholic Church. Note that 'Greek Catholic' is a lot more common term than 'Byzantine Catholic', not only on Wikipedia but, for instance, on Scholar (15,600 hits vs. 855 hits). Note, also that native languages of these churches use a variation of 'Greek Catholic': hr:Grkokatolička crkva, sh:Grkokatoličanstvo, sr:Гркокатоличка, mk:Грко-католичка, bg:Гръкокатолици. In fact, first-page Ggl results seem to indicate that 'Byzantine Catholic Church' is mostly a term in the United States to describe the part of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church there, which is only one of the 14 different Greek Catholic Churches. @Sorabino and Marcocapelle: ping contributors in speedy discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
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:Spacecraft by launch system

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. MER-C 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Launcher is a non-defining feature of spacecraft. fgnievinski (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'd say it's a pretty defining feature, ginve that the size and weight of the craft correlates directly with how it is launched. As commercial spaceflight becomes more prominent, the actual launch system is becoming even more relevant, as launch is not limited to a small number of national space agencies. This is also a well-populated tree which serves the purpose far better than other methods (e.g., infoboxes) can. Grutness...wha? 03:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, it does not make sense to nominate this category on its own, the subcategories should be included in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Grutness notes, it's a pretty defining feature of them. This is true enough for craft (i.e. designs), but even more so for missions (i.e. instances of such a craft). Many of these are CubeSats, which could have been launched by almost any launch vehicle from a Shuttle down. But they were launched by a particular, and recorded, launcher and that warrants description here. Also anything affecting the subcategories would be even worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2019 (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:Psychology terminology

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 8#Category:Psychology terminology

Category:American military personnel of North American descent

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. MER-C 11:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. These categories each contain only one national subcategory (for Native American, Irish-American and Hawaian descent people, resp.), which are ethnic and national designations in their own right that were perfectly fine at the level above until an editor decided to create this artificial intermediate level. None seems to pass WP:OCEGRS. Note that simultaneously created parent categories Category:American people of North American descent by occupation and Category:American people of Oceanian descent by occupation would find themselves empty and be eligible for speedy deletion if this goes through. Place Clichy (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but perhaps it should be a full upmerge, not just as nom. These are one-member categories with little scope for useful expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2019 (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:Collegiate sports portals

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. MER-C 11:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one item: Category:College football portal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 27 October 2019 (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:Baseball portals

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. MER-C 11:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one item: Category:Baseball portal BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 27 October 2019 (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:Martial arts portals

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. MER-C 11:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. It contains only one item: Category:Martial arts portal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 27 October 2019 (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:Religious skeptics by ethnicity

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. MER-C 11:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Religious skeptics by ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Atheists by ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Agnostics by ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Humanists by ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The intersection between absence of religion and ethnicity does not seem to be automatically defining, per WP:OCEGRS. These recently-created categories seem to be an illegitimate intermediate level of categorization. Note that individual subcategories are not part of the nomination, as e.g. Jewish atheism is a notable topic. Place Clichy (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete support, not really defining and the two don't go together. As useful as sceptics by hair colour or by shoe type. The two don't have anything to do with one another. Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 2 November 2019 (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:Roman Catholic church buildings in Australia

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 11:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Despite the name, "this category is for buildings that are not used as churches", indeed two seminaries and a presbytery (priest house). Suggest naming according to parent Category:Buildings and structures of the Catholic Church, to avoid confusion with Category:Roman Catholic churches in Australia which is for the church buildings. Place Clichy (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
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:Canadian Jews of Mizrahi Jewish descent

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. MER-C 11:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Canadian Jews of Mizrahi Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Canadian Jews are otherwise organized by national origin or by religious denomination, not by Ashkhenazi/Sephardi/Mizrahi subculture. The only article is already found in Category:Canadian Jews, Category:Canadian people of Egyptian-Jewish descent and Category:Canadian people of Lebanese-Jewish descent. Place Clichy (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Egyptian-Jewish and Lebanese-Jewish descent should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2019 (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:Dracula in film

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. MER-C 11:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Dracula in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to be totally redundant to me. Any pages that could be in this category are already in the "Dracula films" one. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2019 (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:1930s color films

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. MER-C 11:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Classic case of a non-defining category. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even though black-and-white films dominated the industry in the 1930s, the use of technocolor increased more. The idea is not to create similar categories for later decades (for obvious reasons), but to make it easier for interested readers to navigate among the relatively modest number of color films in this decade. --Semsurî (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: neither Category:1930s color films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or Category:1920s color films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (consider at same time?) are tagged as under discussion. (NB; see also Category:Silent films in color) Hugo999 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hugo999: that's because the CfD tag was removed. I've restored it, and I'll add the 1920s category in a minute. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles do contain information on the color processes used (Two-strip Texhnicolor, Three-strip Technicolor, hand-colored, etc.) and changes in technology are a defining aspect for films. Dimadick (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, as noted I don't think we'd want any later decades but certainly this was defining and significant during the 1920s and 1930s. Note even in the 1930s that many of the included entries are cartoon shorts rather than feature films, for which it was still very uncommon. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "classic case" is sheer handwaving. It's obviously clearly defining by simple conditions, and it's a technically significant period, with relevant content, for the development of colour photography and cinematography. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Note - if the consensus is to delete, these films should be listified. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Too late for that, as we already have this list: List of early color feature films. Covers color films from 1902 to 1938, along with sourced information on the color format used. Dimadick (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2019 (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:Pages containing click using deprecated parameters

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 action taken (out of scope for CFD). MER-C 11:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Pages containing click using deprecated parameters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No need to track the usage of deprecated parameters since the whole template is deprecated. WOSlinker (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a strange situation. It appears that the "this template is deprecated" notice was added to the documentation prior to the most recent TFD, which closed as "no consensus", and even prior to the TFD before that, which closed as "Snow Keep". I don't think that {{Click}} should be marked as deprecated at all. We should probably move this discussion to the template's talk page. This is a confusing situation, especially since there does not appear to have been any discussion on the template's talk page for over ten years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Jonesy95; whether the template is/should be deprecated is an open question and out-of-scope for CfD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:08, 27 October 2019 (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:Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies

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: situation resolved. Since Category:Schedule II banks in Canada has been upmerged this discussion is now unnecessary. Removing individual items as not defining is as usual possible on a per article basis without going through CfD. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This isn't a request to delete this category, but rather, what I'd like to see happen, if Category:Schedule II banks in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is ultimately retained, is for consensus to unlink Category:Schedule II banks in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as a sub-category of this category as it is creating pecularities whereby Walmart Canada is now listed as a Schedule II bank in Canada (which it is not; it sold its banking operations to First National controlling shareholder Stephen Smith and Centerbridge Partners on April 1, 2019, this year). Walmart Canada is not tagged with the Category:Schedule II banks in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) tag - it appears in that category solely because, I suspect, that category is tagged as a sub-category of this category. That's highly problematic, at best, and, at worst, very misleading.

Also, how do I propose a new type of discussion for CfD? Twinkle only lists Deletion, Merge, Renaming, Split, and Convert to Article? I think there should be an Other option, or some sort of option to otherwise remove a category from being a sub-category. Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dmehus: are you withdrawing this nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Marcocapelle, I wouldn't have a problem if this was withdrawn now that I've de-linked Walmart Canada Bank from this category apparently with no opposition to that de-linking. I am more concerned about leaving my Category:Schedule II banks in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) up as it consists almost entirely of redirects to Canadian branches of foreign companies, which have very little presence in Canada. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:12, 27 October 2019 (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:Informer (newspaper)

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. MER-C 11:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Informer (newspaper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: only an eponymous article and a file. Rathfelder (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although currently this category holds only one article, in the future several additional articles may be added to this category; as, in Serbia, this topic is discussed on every-day basis both in academic and journalist environments. Considering current (very low) level of media freedom, media manipulation (by this newspaper in case) I think that this topic can be covered extensively on an encyclopaedic level. Vs6507 23:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, at least for now. In the unlikely event that a handful of different articles about this newspaper is written, the category may be restored. Side note: no other Serbian newspaper has its own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to see here. The file is in the article, so I'm not sure what the benefit of having this category at this time. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:29, 29 October 2019 (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:Ethnic groups in the Arab League

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. MER-C 09:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Ethnic groups in the Arab League to Category:Ethnic groups in the Arab world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The Arab League is a political organization in the Arab world. Egypt, Libya, and Syria have all been suspended from the Arab League at different times in history, but none of those countries stopped being in the Arab world. This category is pretty clearly meant for ethnic groups in Arab countries, regardless of whether they are part of the Arab League or not. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt merge to Category:Ethnic groups in the Middle East and purge content irrelevant to this definition (added 21 Oct). I agree with nominator that the Arab League, as an organization, is irrelevant to the geographical diffusion of ethnic groups. However, the Middle East is a well-known region of the world, which is also culturally significant, and already the basis for a great part of our category tree. It is a lot better for diffusion of the Ethnic groups by region category, especially since what we want to categorize here is both Arab and non-Arab ethnic groups. "Arab world" would probably be a too vague notion and open the door to endless edit wars. Place Clichy (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Ethnic groups in the Middle East per Place Clichy's suggestion. Clearer geographic scope. Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. I do not support the alternative merge suggestion, as the Arab world covers North Africa as well as the Middle East, and there is content that would not belong e.g. Berber, Maghrebi Jews, not to mention "diaspora in the Arab world" sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated, or keep (as it is a subcat of Category:Arab League). A glance at the contents undermines the alternative proposal as Tunisia, Sudan and the Comoros (amongst others) are not in the Middle East. Oculi (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely, as author of the alt proposal, I would say that the light change of scope is on purpose. Content like Ethnic groups in Somalia, Ethnic groups in Sudan, Ethnic groups in Djibouti as well as Northwestern Africa would not fit in the target category, and I think that this is a good thing. What do they have in common with the rest, besides membership in an international organization? Place Clichy (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than merge, I suggest that the alternative should be to split between Middle East and Category:Ethnic groups in North Africa. However, I still see value in keeping the Arab world category, as Category:Arab world has some other useful navigational content such as Category:Political movements in the Arab world‎. Although I would not create categories such as ethnic groups in the Anglophone or Francophone world, the Arab world has more coherence than simply a linguistic region. – Fayenatic London 11:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your split proposal here and my merge to ... Middle East proposal come down pretty much to the same thing, as obviously current content not belonging to the ME category should be purged before merging! Looking at current category content, there are subcategories re: Somalia, Djibouti, Sudan and North Africa, which are already in their regional categories. As what goes without saying goes better when saying it, I'm adding a mention above. Would you support this proposal? Place Clichy (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: would you care to express if your proposition to split Middle East and North Africa and my updated proposition to merge to Middle East after purging come down to the same thing? I think we are very close to finding consensus. Place Clichy (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy: I beg your pardon for not being clearer. I meant to suggest an improvement of the alternative proposal from its original version, but no version of those alternatives is my preferred outcome. I still support retention of a category with the current scope, by renaming it from Arab League to Arab world. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fayenatic london: Thanks for clarifying. I think I still find the purged Middle East category outcome more appealing. Place Clichy (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. Using the cultural region of the Arab world instead of the geographical distinction between Africa and the Middle East is going to serve our readers better since they're probably interested in both. The category isn't overly large and a split wouldn't improve navigation significantly even when readers are only interested in Africa or the Middle East. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2019 (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:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Sathya Sai Organization

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. For the record and if someone wants to merge, the only member was Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning. MER-C 11:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Sathya Sai Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: One page category. No chance of expansion .... ∯WBGconverse 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The parent for this organisation appears to be Category:Sathya Sai Baba, where the one article is already categorised. I would not oppose merging to the schools of which this is also a subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2019 (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:Queer studies

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 11:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category "Queer studies" shouldn't be the parent category for all LGBT studies, because queer studies is one aspect of LGBT studies in academia. Queer studies certainly represents a sub-type of LGBT academic studies, but queer studies should be a sub-category rather than the main category. So for example, people like Larry Kramer or Camille Paglia are relevant to LGBT studies, but are certainly not affiliated with queer studies, queer theory, or queer identity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There were slightly different nominations in 2006 and 2008, but naming practices of LGBT categories have evolved since then. Most arguments in favour of renaming to LGBT in the 2008 CfD (which was originally a deletion discussion) were that 'queer studies' has not catched up and is an Americanism while 'LGBT studies' is more global. These arguments are still valid today. The wider umbrella term seems to better reflect the current content of the category than that of topic article Queer studies. Place Clichy (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and on top of this I wonder if the main article should be renamed too. For example the first main quote in the article is from the former chair of the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies (my italics). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all of the above; and I agree with Marcocapelle on taking the main article to RM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:09, 27 October 2019 (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:Washington International University alumni

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 8#Category:Washington International University alumni

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_27&oldid=1073192298"