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 10:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional characters from Cairo to Category:Fictional Egyptian people

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category. Clearly not needed, at least right now. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Only one article does not deserve a separate category. JIP | Talk 08:56, 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.

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 rename. MER-C 10:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni -> Category:Alumni of the University of California, Los Angeles
• Category:University of California, Los Angeles buildings and structures -> Category:Buildings and structures of the University of California, Los Angeles
• Category:University of California, Los Angeles faculty -> Category:Faculty of the University of California, Los Angeles
• Category:University of California, Los Angeles fellows -> Category:Fellows of the University of California, Los Angeles
• Category:University of California, Los Angeles images -> Category:Images of the University of California, Los Angeles
• Category:University of California, Los Angeles people -> Category:People of the University of California, Los Angeles
• Category:University of California, Los Angeles staff -> Category:Staff of the University of California, Los Angeles
• I propose renaming these awkward two-part category names. The comma kind of separates "Los Angeles" from "University of California", while there is no comma between "Los Angeles" and the rest. Recasting the category names seems to be a better alternative. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are a lot more using the same format within Category:University of California people. Moreover the US categories all use 'XXX alumni', not 'alumni of XXX'. There may be a case for inserting a comma, eg Category:University of California, Los Angeles, alumni. Oculi (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: There are indeed more categories like that, but I didn't look forward to the prospect of tagging all of them in a request that might fail. If it goes through though, I will tag them. There are also existing categories with the proposed format, for instance all subcategories in Category:University of Montana. The reason I propose the other format is the awkwardness of the existing format (even without the comma), which is actually advised against in some style guides. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are worse ones: eg Category:State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry people. I had supposed this looked OK to a US eye. Oculi (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Are there any US alumni categories beginning 'Alumni of'? Here is the list of all cats beginning 'Alumni of'. Oculi (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I mentioned above, all (direct) subcategories in Category:University of Montana are in the proposed format. Not Alumni of though (which is a subcat to the People of subcat). HandsomeFella (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - we have a working system with University of Foo stuff that is working well and pretty universal, although it is not entirely standardized, mostly due to the resistence of United Kingdom categories which follow their own conventions. I agree its a bit awkward with the coma in the middle, but the various campuses of UC are so universally known that nobody's surprised. Plus if we renamed these categories, they would be eligible to speedy renaming the other way per WP:C2C. And we have Category:University of Montana faculty and Category:University of Montana alumni. We also have Category:University of the People people, which is quite nice. Place Clichy (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: None of those you are mentioning are two-part names. Keep is not an option, because the current names violate WP:Copyediting#Punctuation. Either we insert the comma – an alternative suggested by Oculi above – or we recast the category names. Regarding C2C, remember WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Even if something was agreed upon way back when because it seemed to be a good idea at the time, if it's later found to be not such a good idea, or that there are cases that people did not think of then, and that do not fit the pattern that was agreed upon, a new consensus can emerge. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do a lot of alumni related categorization. The overwhelming majority of American schools are using the Alumni of xyz titles. There is no reason why it should change, especially for just one university. There is no compelling reason to change. Seems like the reason boils down to someone’s preference for one away over the other. If it is changes, to be consistent, change the hundreds of other alumni categories for all other schools from high school up. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Well ok, then I guess we'll have to insert the comma. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We currently have largely standardized on "Alumni of ..." for the UK and some former colonies, and "... alumni" for the US and most other places, just as we have "Academics of ..." and "... faculty" with roughly the same geographic distribution. If we're going to deal with this dichotomy, doing it piecemeal on an institution-by-institution basis is not the way. And in general it's probably much less painful to cite WP:ENGVAR and leave well enough alone. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 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.

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 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Health blogs to Category:Health websites

Nominator's rationale: No actual articles apart from the eponymous one. Rathfelder (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 25 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.

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 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dinobots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is almost empty now, only consisting of the main article Dinobots and one article about an individual Dinobot, Grimlock. Therefore it's pretty much useless to keep this category around any more. Delete this. JIP | Talk 13:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. No need to merge, the articles are already in the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 24 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.

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 10:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Language-oriented digital libraries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful intermediate category. Most libraries, digital or not, are "Language-oriented". This category did not include very much, and in particular nothing oriented towards English. I've now established categories for digital libraries by country, and, unsurprisingly, the libraries are all focused on the native language of their country, apart from the ancient languages. And Cuneiform, which isnt a language. All the articles are in at least one other digital library category. Rathfelder (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 17:47, 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.

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 10:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:High tech recruitment companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We don't have a "high tech" tree. This should be just upmerged back to its parent (Category:Employment agencies which is its sole parent category). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. High tech doesnt mean anything. Rathfelder (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "High-tech" is exceedingly subjective and likely to fall under original research. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per User:Rathfelder and User:AnUnnamedUser. "High-tech" is a subjective and poorly defined term. JIP | Talk 08:58, 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.