< November 4 November 6 >

November 5

Eswatini templates

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. Timrollpickering 22:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: the head article for this small African country has been moved from Swaziland to Eswatini, per two RM discusisons (RM 12 October 2018 to "eSwatini", then RM 24 October 2018 to the conventionally-categorised form "Eswatini").
Category names should follow the article name, and the parent category for all templates from this country has already been WP:BOLDly moved by @Wiz9999 to Category:Eswatini templates. All these category titles are descriptive title per WP:NDESC, i.e. a phrase such as Swaziland football templates has been invented by en.wp editors to describe a set of articles, and is not a proper name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 5 November 2018 (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:S.S. Cavese 1919 players

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) 23:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two "clubs" were under the same article title Cavese 1919, thus the two cat should merged as Cavese 1919 players Matthew hk (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People convicted of rape by nationality

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a duplicated category. Either have Category:People convicted of rape by nationality or have Category:Rapists by nationality but why both? I don't see the distinction between being convicted of rape and being a rapist. If the issue is one of labeling, then merge to the less stigmatized convicted of rape category rather than the rapist category. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this merger alone because I came across these 2 categories and other sex offender categories while doing some editing. I didn't look at all "Convicted of" categories. It looks like a duplication to me as I stated above so I made the proposal. But it looks like my argument will not prevail. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 7 November 2018 (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:Sex offenders in Florida

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2018 NOV 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no basis to have state designated categories for sex offenders and no others exist. Each article listed in this category already has a sex-offense related category assigned, this one, focused on a state, is redundant and gives the impression that Florida has a unique problem with sex offenses. Liz Read! Talk! 15:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So that’s my case why Florida uniquely deserves this category. deisenbe (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I see your point, I think if we are going to categorize sex offenders/sex crimes based in Florida to a category like this, then we should create similar categories for every state when it is appropriate. That's my point of view on this. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. deisenbe (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with renaming it sex crimes is that the items in the category are not sex crimes, they are sex criminals. I don’t see where “topic articles” are in it. deisenbe (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 2 out of 10 articles in this category are about a criminal. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2018 (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:Films divided in chapters

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. Timrollpickering 18:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced that this is a defining characteristic of films. I think any film could be arbitrarily divided into chapters...or conversely, that the "chapter breaks" could be removed without significantly impacting the final product. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2018 (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:BL Lac objects

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. Timrollpickering 18:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Avoid abbreviations in titles, and match the corresponding article BL Lacertae object. Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2018 (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.

Organization to organisation (Commonwealth)

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. The discussion here & precedent favour national consistency over subject consistency. Timrollpickering 18:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination seeks to apply the long-term stable WP:ENGVAR-derived convention to defer to the usage of the top-level country category's creator, which is 'organisations' in all listed below. The countries in this particular nom have strong UK links. Oculi (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [All but 6 of these anomalies courtesy of Rathfelder]
  • There is a companion discussion 'ise' to 'ize' intended merely to root out a few stray 'ess's from 'zed' trees at cfd on 3 Nov. Editors might note WP:ISE and MOS:IZE. Oculi (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: did you actually read WP:ISE and the next para MOS:IZE? It doesn't support your case.
The MOS is very clear that:
  1. WP:ISE is one variant of British English. It uses organisation
  2. MOS:IZE is both American, and another variant of British English use organization
So organization is acceptable use everywhere, and British English does not require organisation.
The result is that this nomination is just shuffling between two acceptable forms. Inconsistencies in the country tree are being replaced with inconsistencies in the subject tree. This benefits neither readers nor editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My case would be that both are indeed acceptable (except in NZ and the US), but mixing them is not (in country trees; it is inevitable in subject trees, roughly 50/50). This has been tested at cfd many times: France, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Angola, Greece, Poland, Israel, Puerto Rico, Turkey, not to mention a slew in 2013 most of which contain "UK English predominates in Europe, so we should use the UKanian spelling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)". None of them call for RFCs or support a mixture, or are contentious. Oculi (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would have thought so. Oculi (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: The point which Oculi seems to want to overlook is that it is controversial because it is not a straightforward ENGVAR issue like petrol/gasoline.
The Z form is not just acceptable in British English. It is actually the recommended form of Oxford spelling, and also recommended by other major dictionaries: Cassell, Collins and Longman. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 8 November 2018 (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.

Organization to organisation (Europe)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale: This nomination seeks to apply the long-term stable WP:ENGVAR-derived convention to defer to the usage of the top-level country category's creator, which is 'organisations' in all listed below. The countries in this particular nom are in Europe. Oculi (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would not wish to court controversy. Perhaps next time, after the RFC. Oculi (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that there is little logic behind this. But we can always convert a whole country from s to z or vice versa. Ultimately I would favour to have (at least) all non-English speaking countries consistently at either z or s. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would help quite a lot. My problem is that if I am working on, for example Category:Journalism organizations, which needs splitting by countries, I have no quick way of telling whether I am supposed to use s or z. Rathfelder (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2018 (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.

Organization to organisation (other)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination seeks to apply the long-term stable WP:ENGVAR-derived convention to defer to the usage of the top-level country category's creator, which is 'organisations' in all listed below. The countries in this particular nom have no particular links with or proximity to the UK. Oculi (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That idea has not been suggested. Category:Organisations based in Iraq was created by User:Brammen in 2006 and the long-standing convention (enshrined as a WP:C2C speedy condition) within the category is to defer to the creator (or bring the whole category to cfd if it is thought that there is a compelling reason for Iraq to use 'z'). The rough idea is that Category:United Kingdom say should use Br Eng within it (colour not color, Association football not soccer, transport not transportation, organisation not organization (as we are no longer in 1963) and many others). Oculi (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly (but you probably know better than me), writing with a 'z' in British English is correct but archaic. If most British Wikipedians would be okay with a 'z' on Wikipedia, that would be even better, obviously, but so far I haven't seen a consensus on that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2018 (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:Egyptian revolutionists

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 18:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This could be speedied as WP:C2C per Category:Revolutionaries by nationality, but I am listing it here in case there is some reason to make a distinction between revolutionists and revolutionaries. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 5 November 2018 (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:17th-century Dukes of Normandy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2018 NOV 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category will only ever contain one person and that person is neither a Frenchman nor a ruler of Normandy. Consequently, it can be upmerged to Category:Dukes of Normandy. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2018 (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:Tony Burrows songs

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: withdrawn and resolved as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Strange one this. This category contains songs were Burrows sang, NOT songs where he was the named artist. Many are where he is nominally a 'member of a band' put together to support the single. Some he may not have even sung on.

Not opposed to a list of songs Tony Burrows has sung on - which would be much wider and longer than a category. This category name is misleading. Richhoncho (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Melanie Makes Me Smile is a Tony Burrows song with him as the named artist so accurately fits this Cat.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Egghead06:. Fair enough. Trim all the other songs out of the cat and retract delete nom? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with that. Songs where he was the lead singer in a group really don't belong in this cat.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having just one song in the category would totally defeat the purpose. Categories are intended to lead the reader to other closely related articles. Perhaps including the songs on which he is the lead singer of a group but removing the songs on which he is just a backing vocalist would be the better thing to do. - 172.85.246.94 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2018 (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.

Swaziland

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 all except those removed from the list by the discussion. Timrollpickering 10:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
434 subcats of Category:Swaziland
Categories struck from this list per suggestions in the discussion below
plus about ~95 years/decades categories from before 2018
Changes to word order per suggestion by Good Olfactory in the discussion below
strike out 8 international relations categories where the new name also needs a new word order
new listings for 8 international relations categories with corrected word order
Nominator's rationale. the head article for this small African country has been moved from Swaziland to Eswatini, per two RM discusisons (RM 12 October 2018 to "eSwatini", then RM 24 October 2018 to the conventionally-categorised form "Eswatini").
Category names should follow the country name, so this nomination is a first step on that path. To simplify matters, I have tried to take only the simplest and most clearcut cases, as follows case as the first step: i.e. those which:
  1. use the full word "Swaziland", and not the demonym "Swazi" (so Category:Swazi people etc)
  2. are clearly a descriptive title per WP:NDESC, i.e. a phrase such as Category:Organisations based in Swaziland which as been invented by en.wp editors to describe a set of articles.
  3. are not a proper name (e.g. Category:University of Swaziland and its subcats)
  4. do not approximate the title of a public office (e.g. Category:Chief Justices of Swaziland)
  5. do not refer to the participation of the country in international organisations such as the United Nations, which sometimes uses a name different to he nmae chosen by Wikipedia' naming policies
  6. do not refer to a national sports team of the country or to the country's participation in international multi-sport events such as the Olympics, since those sports and events may have their own procedures
This left a list of 435 categories, out of my AWB-generated list of 721, of which 481 include the word "Swaziland". The other 45 categories which do include the "Swaziland" but which I excluded for the numbered reasons above is listed on a subpage of this one: Swaziland cats not included
These exclusions are not intended to prejudice future discussions of the other categories. Maybe the others will all be renamed without controversy, or maybe they need to be discussed in smaller sets. But simplifying this list will allow this discussion to focus on the principle, rather than on any exceptions. If you spot any categories listed above which you think should be left for a future discussion, please ping me and I will strike them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swaziland: Discussion and survey[edit]
Yes, that's what I was thinking of - sounds good to me. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: I will leave a note for the closing admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 6 November 2018 (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:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a protected page

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. Timrollpickering 10:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proposing moving to a more accurate name. By nature, people making an edit request can't actually put the template on the article itself since the article is protected. Therefore, any instance of this being on a mainspace, User:, Wikipedia:, Template:, or Help: page is not going to be an edit request. In general, its usage in articles and other non-talk pages seems to consist of misguided attempts at protecting a page by newbies rather than edit requests. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 November 2018 (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:Historic hotels in the United States

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 for now; revisit if the broader category tree is considered. Timrollpickering 10:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the characterization of a hotel as 'historic' is subjective when the hotel is not listed as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: How does the category for historic hotels in the United States differ from the other categories of Historic bank buildings, gas stations, house museums and warehouses in the United States or from the parent category Category:Historic buildings and structures in the United States; these are all "subjectively" regarded as “historic” but do not have a NRHP or similar local or state listing? Hugo999 (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point, I have added four siblings to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2018 (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.

Teachers colleges

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/rename to "Teacher colleges"; revisit if needs be. There's stronger support for "colleges" over "schools" and keeping separate categories by default is an undesired outcome but given the limited discussion after multiple relistings this may need further consideration in a merged environment. Timrollpickering 10:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option A:
Propose merging Category:Teachers colleges to Category:Education schools
Option B:
Propose merging Category:Education schools to Category:Teachers colleges
Propose renaming Category:Education schools by country to Category:Teachers colleges by country
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in China to Category:Teachers colleges in China
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Japan‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Japan
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Poland‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Poland
Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Russia‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Russia
Nominator's rationale: merge (option A) or reverse merge (option B). The previous attempt of merging Category:Education schools and Category:Teachers colleges failed, not because because anyone objected merging, but because there was an issue about the 'correct' name of the category. Here is a new attempt and please note that "no consensus" is worse than either of the two proposals because it will leave us with two categories with an identical scope. Also note that in option B a large number of country subcats have not been included in the nomination; the ones that have not been listed here should be decided upon individually, taking in mind WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2018 (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:BioWare companions

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 10:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT, the subject does not merit such an overly specific category. As far as I can tell, pretty much all Bioware characters who have articles here are party members for the main character's party. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 07:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I guess there are enough articles that we could diffuse the main category. But, at the same time, it's not that many and it's not like the main category is large. Problem is, we do not have a video game sidekick article, so even the parent category's cross-cat is on a OR-ish narrow-cat grounds. I would lead towards merging if the overall consensus is on the fence on this. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2018 hardcore punk albums

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. Timrollpickering 10:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't keep by year/by genre albums categories (except for catch-all genres such as "Classical"). The two articles in the category are already part of the parent categories Category:2018 albums and Category:Hardcore punk albums so there's nothing to upmerge. Pichpich (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2018 (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:Employees of the National Museum of Natural History (France)

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:National Museum of Natural History (France) people. From other cases, this seems to be the preferred form for this type of category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Employees of the National Museum of Natural History (France) to Category:People associated with the National Museum of Natural History (France)
Nominator's rationale: Technically, I suppose this expands the scope of the category a little bit but it makes it easier to fit inside its only natural parent category: Category:Museum people by museum. Pichpich (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I noted when I created this category, I copied the name from Category:Employees of the Natural History Museum, London. I see now that there is also Category:People associated with the Natural History Museum, London which includes the latter. Finally, I agree with the renaming. However, that expands the scope, and I wonder what to do with people who never worked with this Institution but donated their collection; are they "associated" or not? jeanloujustine (talk)
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