< October 30	November 1 >

October 31

Category:LGBTQ fraternities and sororities

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 11:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBTQ fraternities and sororities to Category:LGBT fraternities and sororities

Nominator's rationale:, "LGBT" is the standard terminology on Wikipedia, not LGBTQ. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least one of the fraternities/sororities is explicitly queer-focused and gender neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tip.Stall (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The naming pattern is totally inconsistent with all other LGBT categories. Either LGBT should be used or some other naming pattern, but the inconsistency must be addressed. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually all the categories will be moved to LGBTQ, but for now LGBT is the only allowed initialism. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Eventually", according to whom? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter until it happens. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why bring the topic up at all? Who is even proposing such a change? How is this relevant to the name of this category. This category is the only category on all of Wikipedia to have "LGBTQ" in it. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - also WP:C2D per main article List of LGBT and LGBT-friendly fraternities and sororities. Place Clichy (talk) 15:51, 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:Fictional gay males

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 9#Category:Fictional gay males

Category:Moloch

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 11:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF this is a non-defining category. It simply lists things "related to" the god rather than about the god. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Category:Moloch in popular culture might be a useful category. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Categories should list related main articles, not articles which cover the same subject. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, apart from the eponymous article only Moloch (Dungeons & Dragons) and Moloch in popular culture belong in this category, too little to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above and WP:SMALLCAT. Havradim (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. MER-C 11:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism to Category:Radical feminism and transgender

Nominator's rationale: This hodge-podge category mostly seems to group together radical feminist opinions on and interactions with transgender people. Some of the pages are questionable. The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival allowed transgender men to attend, so can hardly be described as trans-exclusionary. Trans woman exclusionary, yes, but not trans man exclusionary. Ditto for Womyn-born womyn. Having womyn in this category is even more questionable. Some individuals and groups who use "womyn" have been inclusive of trans women. It's just a sloppy and poorly named category. Furthermore, do any people explicitly self-identify as "trans-exclusionary"? I have my doubts. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose whilst contentious, TERF does at least have some external sourcing and an attempt at COMMONNAME. But the change here is just a freshly-rolled neologism. As such, there would be zero 3rd party sourcing as that term, and so the rename simply becomes an excuse to depopulate the category and delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How exactly is a festival such as the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, which explicitly included trans men, trans-exclusionary? Furthermore, I have no intention on deleting or depopulating the category. My intention is exactly as stated, renaming the category to something with actual meaning. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question for that article. Maybe it doesn't belong. But we have to construct categories with some sort of basis to them, then place whatever belongs in them into them, and exclude what doesn't. What we shouldn't do is to take a random collection, then try to construct a boundary around them.

As to Michigan, then it doesn't matter how many trans men you invite, if they exclude trans women (as they did) (or v.v.), then they're trans-exclusionary. That's how the words work.

Sorry if you thought I was implying that you were seeking to depopulate this, but a look at the talk: discussions will show that several editors would favour that. The category needs to be robustly defined and based as a category on secondary sources. We can do this for TERF, however uncomplimentary that is, but we can't do it for groupings of our own choosing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that this category mashes together various topics related to transgender—radical feminist interactions and I question whether the "TERF" category is broad enough to include these various topics. Should individuals be included? As for Michfest, if it can be described as trans-exclusionary for excluding trans women, it can also be described as trans-inclusionary for including trans men. This particular ideology is vaguely referred to, often erroneously as "trans-exclusive" when most of their critique is leveled at trans women in particular. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look back over its history, and the (rather spread out) past discussions. This term is applied primarily to individuals (which I note you've been stripping from this cat whilst it's at CfD, so excuse me if I give up on any AGF here); its application to concepts otherwise is the one to which we should look askance. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is common practice not to categorize individuals with categories such as Racism, Antisemitism, Homophobia, etc. An example from the homophobia category: "This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic." How is this TERF category any different? If Bindel and Raymond are categorized with this category, they are also being classified as misogynists (this TERF cat is a subcat of transmisogyny which in turn is a subcat of misogyny). Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the key individuals behind the TERF ideology should be included but that it should not be filled up with lots of random TERFs who are not key individuals and are notable primarily for other things. Alternatively, a separate category for TERFs could be considered, in a similar way that we have separate categories for Holocaust deniers and Holocaust denial. This is another good reason not to allow this category to be hollowed out before a decision is made here. Even if we do decide to change the categorisation, must not lose track of which articles are being categorised. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that MichFest was not "trans-exclusionary" because they admitted trans men (in theory, not likely in fact) is a willful misunderstanding of the overall term. The practice of "trans-exclusionary feminism" (whether "radical" or not) excludes trans women, and MichFest did exactly that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally know trans men who have been to Michfest, so that's flat out wrong. Many trans men attended the festival over the years. Furthermore, so did many trans women. The "ban" (it was called an "intention", not a ban) on trans women was largely based on the honor system and Lisa Vogel was explicitly against interrogating women about their trans status. The article on Michfest says it was widely known that trans women attended. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusionary intentions are exclusionary. Being incompetent or inconsistent in applying those exclusionary intentions does not make them otherwise. (For example, if somebody nails up a sign saying "No Jews" then that is anti-Semitic and exclusionary irrespective of whether they follow up on the implied threat of physical exclusion.) I would also remind you that we are discussing the validity of the category itself, not its membership. Whether individual articles belong in it can be discussed separately although this must not be done as part of any bad faith effort simply to hollow out the category membership to make it appear less necessary or valid than it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to the existing category Category:Feminism and transgender (which isn't a great name, but that's another discussion). gnu 57 21:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "Feminism and transgender" category includes everything from transfeminism to Patrick Califia to radical feminist topics. I think it's useful to have some sort of category for interactions between the transgender community and the radical feminist community. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'd say this category represents a cogent topic, and its naming is consistent with our article at TERF. There are indeed topics that are commonly referred to in RS as relating to "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" (moreso than the wishy-washy alternative of "radical feminism and transgender"). That said, we should be vigilant about applying WP:CATVER, particularly for a sensitive/controversial category like this. If it turns out there are very few articles that can be verifiably placed in this cat, it may be appropriate to upmerge to Category:Feminism and transgender. Colin M (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the "wishy-washy" comment. Is the parent category, "Feminism and transgender", also "wishy-washy"? Every single article in this TERF category relates to interactions between radical feminism and the transgender community. It's not wishy-washy, it's just more accurate and broader. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, according to TERF this term is about exclusion of trans women, so the category may well contain organizations and events that include trans men. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one of the issues. Most of the radical feminists who are called "TERF" do not consider themselves trans-exclusionary and some are actively inclusive of trans men. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding people is, by definition, exclusionary. Not excluding some other people does not negate the exclusion of those who are excluded. We know that. They know that too. The claim is obviously not made in good faith. It is just a linguistic game. We can, and we do, note their objections to the term in the main article. We are not obliged to indulge such claims any further than that. The common name for this topic is the current title of this category and its main article. Not liking the common name is not a reason to seek to obscure it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would in that case be trans women exclusionary, not trans-exclusionary. The clunky TERF terminology doesn't allow for such details. Many trans women, by the way, have criticized the initialism "TERF" because it doesn't reference the exclusion of trans women specifically. Noticeably, their objections seem absent from Wikipedia. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the suggested new name is meaningless, whereas the current name has published history and is searchable. While the current name is not wholly accurate (it should be Trans-women Exclusionary Radical Feminists). It was accurate at the time, but has since become part of the English VocabularyOldperson (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the parent category, Category:Feminism and transgender, also meaningless? Bohemian Baltimore (talk)

Parent category is of necessity broad and inclusive, sub categories are more clearly defined.That's why there are subs.Oldperson (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The rename is bad for four reasons. Firstly, as Andy Dingley points out, it is a neologism while the existing name is in circulation in the real world and is its common name. Secondly, as gnu57 points out, it is similar enough to an existing category name that we might as well merge them if we accept the new name as being a valid name for this category. Thirdly, that no good reason has been advanced as to why the existing name is bad. It seems like a case of WP:IDLI. Fourthly, that the new name is vastly more broad than the current name to the point that is not the same topic at all! This category is about a specific exclusionary ideology, not about the various attitudes which various radical feminists have taken to trans people. The proposed rename would have the effect of making the topic less visible by lumping it in with other subjects.
I was surprised to see how little was in this category, both in terms of individual people and other articles. If it is true that somebody has been emptying it out to make it seem more malleable/unnecessary/deletable then I very much share Andy's concerns about whether there is good faith here, particularly if valid entries have been removed while less obviously valid entries, like Womyn, have been retained, possibly in order to make the category look less valid than it is. Also, it is grossly unfair to single out only one individual for membership, particularly when she is not even the originator or most widely known proponent of the ideology in question. (She certainly does belong in the category, just not on her own. Imagine if our category on Stalinism had only one individual in it and that wasn't even Stalin himself.) I'd like to see the membership repopulated with all valid entries that were removed before we consider the rename any further. That is assuming we don't just want to knock this on the head here and now, which might be the best thing. If so, it needs repopulating anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never suggested adding Bindel to a category on Stalinism, but hey, now you mention it... Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest you refrain from libeling Ms. Bindel. Thank you. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete the category and Merge the articles tagged with it into Category:Feminism and transgender. All 'feminism/ist+transgender' articles should fall under one category.~~ ^{[changed - see below]} It's not as if there are going to be 100 or more separate Wikipedia articles related to the subject.
Also, when it comes to BLPs and recently deceased individuals, you can no longer label the subject as a "TERF/Trans-exclusionary radical feminist", nor add a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" category (or any other similar) to the biographical article, without providing in-text attribution to support the label and/or category. This matter was decided by RfC consensus. ("In-text attribution" is more than just adding a citation. If anyone doesn't know what is meant by it, learn about it here.) Pyxis Solitary (yak) 06:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC); edited 03:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the category should only be used for individuals where the article text supports it with valid references but I am somewhat mystified as to how that forms the basis of an argument for erasing a valid and distinct subject altogether by merging it into a category vastly more nebulous. I find it hard not to interpret that as an attempt to obscure or censor embarrassing information from Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I find it hard not to interpret that as an attempt to obscure or censor embarrassing information from Wikipedia." While you're on the paranoid bender ... don't look under your bed! There's a monster hiding there. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 11:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^[change] Support: rename Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism to Category:Radical feminism and transgender. Depending -- and only -- on the exact content of an article that is also supported by specific RS should it be classified as 'Category:Radical feminism and transgender'. The parent category is Category:Feminism and transgender and is the category that should be used for the most part for the mish mash of trans related or trans mention articles that include opinions/activities by feminists about the subject, or vice-versa (i.e. feminist related articles). Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is the common term and is most likely to be recognized as it has significance in historical literature regarding the topic, specifically on how this particular and specific approach to feminism is leveraged against gender equality as it pertains to trans people. Forivall (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, What does "historical literature" mean in regards to a neologism of quite recent vintage/popularization? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I am concerned that people are removing plausibly valid entries from the category while the discussion is still ongoing. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not only is this a common term, but it accurately describes the ideological/metaphysical basis of these views as well. Other editors have explained it more succinctly. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 17:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am refraining from adding or removing any categories due to the ongoing discussion, but I would suggest that the Lesbian feminism category should not be used as a parent category for this TERF category. Many of the women identified as TERFs are heterosexual or bisexual and conflating the TERF label with lesbianism is potentially lesbophobic and defamatory. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The current name is the main topic. There can be an argument made that Category:Radical feminism and transgender could be a parent category to this one, but I don't think there are enough article to make that worth it right now.★Trekker (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the categories and articles are being quite dramatically altered (and new categories are being created) while this conversation is ongoing. I was previously scolded for removing individuals from the category, so I have since refrained from fiddling with the categories. I think other users should also exercise restraint. Lmatt, why did you create the Radical feminism and transgender category I initially proposed? You have made it a parent category of the TERF category and that is the sole entry. I don't think it is a good idea to have created the category while the discussion is still in process. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore: Lmatt's recent history is rather, pockmarked in various ways (see Blocklog for "Lmatt" ). They have a history of rapid-fire and disruptive editing in this fashion. It seems, however this go-around, they have begun to focus less on text (data) and now categorization (metadata). I, however, do not wish to go into detail. We aren't supposed to negatively discuss other editors and assume good faith. (Admittedly, however, the repeated need admins have found to block them leave me with less faith than I typically have for a user I am unfamiliar with.) Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We aren't supposed to negatively discuss other editors and assume good faith." You squeeze out a dump on another editor and have the audacity to say this as if what is posted before-and-after isn't there. ROFL! Do you have any fucking clue about how this comment looks from the outside looking in? Say nothing ... period ... about any editor ... period. Unless it's an ANI discussion about an editor. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it's OK for you to use terms like "paranoid bender" about other editors? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Because I was responding directly to that editor's comment about my comment. I wasn't talking about another editor. And that editor's response to my comment that he/she found "it hard not to interpret [the comment] as an attempt to obscure or censor embarrassing information from Wikipedia." is fatuous, distrustful logic (i.e. paranoid: "Exhibiting or characterized by irrational distrust or suspicion of others"). Pyxis Solitary (yak) 04:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmatt, you have radically changed the categories and category content while the discussion is still ongoing. You have not responded to my initial comment. You emptied Category:Transfeminism without discussion, presumably to have the category speedy deleted? Either way, that is the effect. I disputed the speedy deletion. I don't think this is appropriate editing. Better to allow the conversation to unfold than to edit rashly. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. TERF is specific even if derogatory, and needs to be reliably sourced in each article—as every category should be. The proposed rename is not an improvement as others have shown. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I have reverted Lmatt's rash edits. It's not appropriate to be doing what he/she is doing while the conversation is still going on. Not acceptable. That can wait. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close?. The category has now been reduced to only 5 entries plus the main article. People on both sides of the argument are now crying foul. I think that maybe the time has come to stop this discussion and, if necessary, start over with proper conduct. We need everything reinstated as it was shortly before this process started. If anybody wants to make the proposal again (either the same as this time or modified in light of anything that has been said here) then that is fine. I think that it is reasonably clear that there is no consensus for this specific change but it is legitimate if anybody wants to test that more definitively, under more stable circumstances, or maybe to try an alternative. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This corresponds to the recognized term. Comments such as "The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival allowed transgender men to attend, so can hardly be described as trans-exclusionary," demonstrate that the nominator is unfamiliar with the topic. Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mathglot, Please don't insult me. I'm quite familiar with the festival and the debate surrounding it. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles by type of contributor

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Articles by type of contributor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Because there is only one category for contributor type, that of "connected contributors", this category is not necessary or useful. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as creator. I suppose there must have once been other member categories, but I don't remember what they were, and they aren't there now. So delete away. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: would you mind putting a G7 speedy tag on the category? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did and got reverted... —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 18:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: thanks for trying. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support; no merge is needed as the sub-cat is already directly in both the other parents Category:Articles and Category:Tracking categories. For the record, when it was created, this category also held Category:Wikipedia articles with disclosed paid content. That one had been created by SamHolt6 but was tagged as empty in Jan 2019 by UnitedStatesian. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2015 Memorial of Hubert Jerzy Wagner

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:2015 Memorial of Hubert Jerzy Wagner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:2016 Memorial of Hubert Jerzy Wagner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:2017 Memorial of Hubert Jerzy Wagner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:2018 Memorial of Hubert Jerzy Wagner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. There is no need to merge, the articles are already in the relevant parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It took me some time to work out what this is about. It relates to a volleyball friendly competition. I doubt it is notable enough to need annual categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guangdong Southern Tigers F.C. managers

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. MER-C 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Guangdong Southern Tigers F.C. managers to Category:Guangdong South China Tiger F.C. managers

Nominator's rationale: Guangdong South China Tiger F.C. is the official English name of the club, and the main page of the club has been already renamed so . Sagan Storo (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN MEDUSA moved this from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests ([1]) CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Questionable

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

Category:British urology surgeons

The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 11:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:British urology surgeons to Category:British urologists

Nominator's rationale: Redundant cat. Paul_012 (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think most urologists are surgeons. Rathfelder (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I created the cat. A mistake, as a urologist is a surgeon. Ericoides (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While you're about it could you also delete Category:Urology surgeons by nationality, which I created at the same time? Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical Councils

The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 11:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Medical Councils to Category:Medical profession regulators

Nominator's rationale: We don't (mostly) categorise articles by the name of the subject. Organisations with the name "Medical Council" are in most cases regulators of the medical profession, but there are others as well that don't use the term, and in many countries regulatory roles are split among several organizations. This category should be served by a descriptive name and categorise articles by the subject's function. Paul_012 (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant we just merge into Category:Medical and health regulators? Arrangements vary with time and place. Some just regulate doctors, others also regulate other clinicians. Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. A new separate category is not needed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I'm the creator of this category and I didn't know about the other one. I wholeheartedly support merging the two together. Dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also alternatively support a merge. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either rename or merge, both are an improvement compared to the current situation, per WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]