< July 18 July 20 >

July 19

Category:Genderqueer people

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: split. – Fayenatic London 07:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not everyone in this category explicitly identifies as genderqueer. We should follow the convention established in renaming List of people who identify as being genderqueer to List of people with non-binary gender identities (see discussion on that article's talk page). Note that there is a recurring and ongoing discussion regarding renaming the Genderqueer article to Non-binary gender, but this category rename discussion specifically concerns categorizing people appropriately, which is especially important for BLPs. Funcrunch (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CorbieVreccan, to be fair, queer has its roots in Western culture, while third gender has its roots in non-Western culture, which is why we don't see "traditional, indigenous communities that have Two Spirit people" use terms queer and genderqueer. I'm not sure what you mean by "urban" above, especially since I'm used to "urban" and "urban culture" being used as a euphemism for African-American culture; I take it that you mean "urban area"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No euphemisms intended. I thought my usage of urban vs rural areas was clear, as I said "rural communities" and "urban communities" :) If I'm only referring to specific cultural or ethnic groups, I will make that clear. The reason I mention this lack of usage in traditional cultures, or it still being considered as a slur by some, is that I know we will find people being put in this category who do not identify as such, or who find it really hurtful to see that on their page. I've seen older folks be really traumatized by being called "Queer." It was used as a hateful slur against me as a child, as well. Yelled at me by bashers with twisted faces as their fists came at me. I've reclaimed it, was part of Queer Nation, etc., but I understand not everyone can. Anyway, mislabeling already happens all the times with these categories; I'm just trying to forestall some of the problems that tend to arise with this stuff, and the cleanup we wind up having to do in the aftermath. I'm just bringing it up now because I'd rather do this here than on the talk page or in email of someone who's upset at having that cat on their BLP. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, I'm not sure what you mean by "which seeks to assimilate aspects of non-human biology, where species are agender or bi-gender, with the human intersex condition." Which article are you speaking of? The Genderqueer article, for example, only talks about humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling I was making a rod for my own back in my comments. I consider it wrong to assimilate people with intersex conditions with transgender people, whose organs are the result of surgery. I do not feel I understand the subject fully and am not voting. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with non-binary gender identities now created. I'm not sure how to formally close this CfD, but I've removed the CfD notice from Category:Genderqueer people and posted notices and a link to this discussion on that talk page and in edit summaries for both categories. Funcrunch (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. Participants in a discussion shouldn't close the discussion themselves, an admin will pass one of these days and will do that. You might want to add a comment withdrawn in bold font to indicate that the issue has been settled already but it's not essential. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 28 July 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:Business services 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 07:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do need this specific category for very few companies. Easily be deleted or solve the purpose in other categories. Light2021 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 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:Performance consulting firms

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) 03:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Easily be job done. Unnecessary category is added. It only promote the corporate spam for some companies. Consulting or management consulting firms can easily be merged with one. Light2021 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 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:Innovation consulting firms

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 to parent Category:Management consulting firms (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can be easily merged with other business category or not required a separate category for this one, Only purpose is solved to promote some non-notable companies making corporate spam. Light2021 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 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:Police 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: merge Category:Police films to Category:Films about police officers. I am not finding sufficient consensus about Category:Police comedy films, Category:Police detective films or Category:Police procedural films; all of these have other parents (e.g. Category:Police comedies, Category:Detective films or Category:Police procedurals and may be useful parts of those hierarchies; I am not persuaded that WP:NARROWCAT applies. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination if someone can see a clear way ahead for further steps that respect all the relevant hierarchies. I'm going to put Category:Police detective films within Category:Police procedural films for now. As for the parent Category:Films about law enforcement, it seems right to me that this now also includes Category:Prison films. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Potential delete as not a defining characteristic. I don't believe Die Hard for instance, would be considered a "police film", and I note that there's no article or indication of what constitutes a police film. If not delete, then as per this discussion I believe the category should be renamed to "Law enforcement films". DonIago (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, though that only strengthens my feeling that the cat should be renamed merged or deleted, as I doubt there's a significant distinction between "Police films" and "Law enforcement films" from the standpoint of categorization. DonIago (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Police comedy films": rename to "Law enforcement comedy films"
  2. "Police detective films": rename to "Law enforcement detective films"
  3. "Films about police officers": merge to "Films about law enforcement"
  4. "Police procedural films": merge to "Films about law enforcement" or rename to "Law enforcement procedural films". I'm inclined toward merging.
I think they could all be reclassified as subcats of "Films about law enforcement" if all else fails. Would that work? Oh, and should I formally CfD the subcats? DonIago (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can just copy the CfD tag on Category:Police films to the subcategory pages and change "|1=" into "|1=Category:Police films" so that it links to the right section on this discussion page. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for the guidance! DonIago (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion I linked to in my nomination preferred "Law enforcement" to "Police" as the more generalized terminology. I feel the same reasoning should be applied to the subcats at that point, but am uncertain whether detective and procedural films are discrete enough to really merit their own subcats in any case; I'd like to hear from other editors on that one. That would leave "Police comedy films" as the only open item. Your point about COMMONNAME is well-taken there. I'll link WT:FILM over to this discussion. DonIago (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always value your input Betty! How would you handle things (if at all) vis a vis Category:Films about law enforcement? DonIago (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After doing the above I would leave Category:Films about law enforcement as it is with the reconfigured Category:Films about police officers as a sub-category, at least for now. I think the main problem is with the categories lower down and these need to be addressed first (because upmerges obviously have a knock-on effect). My recommendations would result in dropping/merging three categories and I think that would address many of the problems with the hierarchy. At the moment I would favor retaining Category:Films about police officers and Category:Films about law enforcement and see how useful the distinction is after correcting the problems lower down. Betty Logan (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be amenable to that. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 20 July 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:12th-century diplomatic conferences

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 12th-century, keep others. – Fayenatic London 12:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, diplomatic conferences were very rare in the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on the 12th-century article, so that category may be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) Withdraw nomination. In this case the benefit of merging only two categories does not outweigh the drawback that Hmains mentions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 23 July 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.

Greyhound racing competitions in the Republic of Ireland

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. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale This category should be in Greyhound racing competitions in Ireland and not the Greyhound racing competitions in the Republic of Ireland because in the greyhound racing industry Ireland refers to both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. This is similar to Six Nations Rugby etc. Northern Irish racing does not come under the UK banner and only comes under the Irish banner so the categories should be amended. An example of why it needs to be amended is the St Leger (Irish greyhounds) which has been held at both Republic and Northern Irish tracks. Many thanksRacingmanager (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If you'll list those that are both NI and the RoI I'll create a new category for them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Properly formatted proposal created by me following discussion with proposer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:03, 21 July 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:Stories within One Thousand and One Nights

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. Timrollpickering 11:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, perhaps the categories themselves are a borderline case of smallcat but the parent category is also very small; and in addition the categories don't fit nicely in a "stories" and a "locations by fiction" tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 19 July 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:Service 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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can easily be merged with other categories/ Sub. nothing substantial to add as an encyclopedic value. Light2021 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 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:Ministers for Agriculture Ghana

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 category had been emptied already (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly named duplicate of Category:Agriculture ministers of Ghana —swpbT 15:02, 19 July 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:Major Vertebrate groups extinct during the Tertiary

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:Tertiary extinctions of vertebrate taxa within new parent Category:Extinct vertebrate taxa. The initial concern was that there were no parent hierarchies, but I have put the nominated category into Category:Cenozoic extinctions and Category:Cenozoic vertebrates (which is within Category:Extinct vertebrates). I have chosen a new name which is different from the suggestions below in an attempt to be more consistent with these hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Major Vertebrate groups extinct during the Tertiary to Category:Vertebrate groups which went extinct during the Tertiary period
Nominator's rationale: For grammar, clarity, and to avoid arbitrary inclusion criterion. —swpbT 13:11, 19 July 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:Actresses from Scranton, Pennsylvania

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) 04:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT —swpbT 13:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Petscan shows 4 articles which could fit here, but I go by a minimum of 5. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it stays there should be a Category:Male actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania as well. Icarusgeek (talk) 09:11, 21 July 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.
More