Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 10 September 12 >

September 11[edit]

Category:Motorsport venues in the United States by city[edit]

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: dual merge Category:Motorsport venues in New Orleans to Category:Motorsport venues in Louisiana and Category:Motorsport in New Orleans; delete Category:Motorsport venues in the United States by city. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subcat: Category:Motorsport venues in New Orleans
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary granularity. Not only is there a scheme by state, there are only a few dozen entries total and how many racetracks can any city have? The only entry now is for one city with one track. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge NO/Delete Parent The New Orleans subcategory has one article and should be dual upmerged to both Category:Motorsport venues in Louisiana and Category:Motorsport in New Orleans. (The parent category contains nothing else.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double upmerge the article and delete - If we had a city with a significant number of motorsport venues, it would make sense to have such a category. However, New Orleans only has one articl in this category, and that wouldn't be enough even if we had similar categories for several other cities. And we would only need the "by city" category if we had several cities. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to state -- This differs from wrestling in that these will be dedicated venues, used for little or nothing else. If there were cities with 5 dedicated venues, having a category might just be permissible, but the present thread is unnecessary fragmentation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 17 September 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.

Template:BaltimoreCityMD-NRHP-stub[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the articles and cateogries about this city, Baltimore, Category:Baltimore. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:40, 11 September 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:Sahrawi people stubs[edit]

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: upmerge to Category:Western Sahara stubs and the relevant biographical stub parent category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Scanning all of Category:Sahrawi people for stubs produces just 15 articles - not nearly enough for a stub category. The entire Category:Western Sahara stubs category contains less than 100 articles in all of its sub-categories. These category splits are not needed at this time. Keep the templates, but merge up to Category:Western Sahara stubs. Delete both categories. Dawynn (talk) 18:26, 11 September 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:Printworthy redirects[edit]

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) 05:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't bother me a whole heck of a lot, but I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that printworthy is not a word. I can't find any attestations in any major dictionaries, and it appears to only have social media/blog-related usage online. Textworthy, on the other hand, is attested. I know it would be a bit of a pain because there's a lot of links and usage in WikiProjects and such, but the discussion ought to be had at least. Pariah24 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per WP:IFITAINTBROKE. It's a very good observation that popular dictionaries don't carry a definition of "printworthy" (TIL) but this is a case where Wikipedia has invented its own definition, and it's part of our site jargon. We carry the definitions in the category descriptions, and also at length in Wikipedia:Printability. These aren't visible to readers, we could call them "disflopified" and "reproductile", as long as we defined those terms for ourselves. But as a practical matter, changing them is a fairly simple matter of recoding a few (dozen?) rcat templates. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the question isn't whether these redirects should be in text format (they are), but whether they should be printed. The word "Printworthy", while it may be one we made up, expresses tis in a clear way. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term textworthy in nearly every case refers to written or printed text; not digital media. Typically, the purpose of jargon is to provide a name for novel things that are not easily accommodated by existing language. This is less a case of needing jargon, and more an example of a perfectly good existing term that was passed up for whatever reason. I could call an article a "WikiArticle", or a protected page "unnewbworthy," but why would I? Pariah24 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly while thinking more on it I'm starting to oppose my own proposal just on the basis of not wishing to put someone through the work of re-coding all the rcat templates. I'll close the discussion in a while if nobody else has anything to add. Pariah24 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Recoding the templates is not that much of a problem, but any reader seeing the terms "printworthy" or "unprintworthy" can fairly intuitively understand what they are intended to mean. bd2412 T 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
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.

Gurgaon, Yamuna Nagar and associated subcategories[edit]

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 Gurgaon categories, rename Yamuna Nagar categories. This is a confirmation of the latest status quo, since the Gurgaon have been renamed back during this discussion, while the Yamunanagar have been kept at their new name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories related to Gurgaon
Categories related to Yamuna Nagar
Nominator's rationale: As the district name is changed by government, so I renamed all these categories. But at that time i dont know that we have discuss before renaming categories, but if decision after discussion comes that all those changes are wrong, I'll revert them myself or you can help me too. ― 1997kB 17:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss Bencherlite and DreamLinker — 1997kB 04:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gurgaon I came across this following a thread at WT:CFD (here) where I tried to reverse some of the undiscussed category moves and changes. So while I don't have prior knowledge of this area, my oppose is for two reasons: (1) neither this category, not all the other ones potentially affected, have been tagged; (2) the naming of categories follows the naming of the main article, not vice versa – the article is still at Gurgaon and two requests within the last nine months to move it have failed (Dec '16, Apr '17).

BencherliteTalk 19:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong Venue The main article is Gurgaon so the category should blindly follow. (If and when the article is moved by consensus, I'd support a speedy rename of all associated categories.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gurgaon until the article is renamed with consensus - in this case, the general rule is simple: Unless you can prove that an issue exists with the category which doesn't with the article (e.g Queens), the categories always follow the articles. Support Yamunanagar as having 2 years of stability at this title makes it a C2D speedy-worty case. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that every category apart from the first was added after my initial comment, and none of them have been tagged with {{cfr}} to point people here. As for the Yamuna Nagar categories, they are moot as is nothing that needs doing here now: they were moved to Yamunanagar out of process (and so the "Yamuna Nagar" categories are empty redirects) but, as Od Mishehu notes, the "Yamunanagar" name is established and so the end result is fine. BencherliteTalk 10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gurgaon While the government has tried to change the name recently, the old name is still very well known and continuously used in newspapers, advertisements and television. It will take quite some time before people start using the term "Gurugram". Many people outside India may not even know of the change. So I think it is practical to keep it at Gurgaon for the time being.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:39, 17 September 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:Fictional shooting victims[edit]

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. ℯxplicit 01:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Possible WP:TRIVIALCAT —swpbT 17:23, 11 September 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:Law of the Russian Empire[edit]

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:Law in the Russian Empire. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Alternative name: Category:Russian Empire law. There are many categories of the "[x]ian law" type and a few of the "Law in [x]" type but none in this form. User:Fayenatic london suggested the "in" one, I suggested the adjective-style one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 14. There is a weak preference for Law in [X] (e.g. Law in the Russian Empire) over Law of [X] (e.g. Law of the Russian Empire) or [X]ian law (e.g. Russian Empire law), and a slightly stronger preference for the Russian Empire over Imperial Russia. However, Category:Law in the Russian Empire would be inconsistent with every other category in Category:Law by country. I am hoping for some additional discussion, insights, and/or preferences.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:10, 11 September 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:White African[edit]

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the scope of these categories is largely overlapping. I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rename like that would probably need to apply to the whole "white culture" tree, so we might discuss that some other time with a batch nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep if I'm understanding rightly; if we're needing to talk about renaming the whole tree, renaming or name-related-merging just one category is rather pointless. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a misunderstanding, the nominated merge only applies to this single category. Wrt the whole tree, that would be a discussion about renaming instead of merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, my musings threw off the conversation. This nomination is pretty narrow. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 25 September 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:Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017) tournaments[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: GFW held no tournaments that were independently notable. LM2000 (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No needed. GFW didn't held notable tournaments --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LM2000 and HHH Pedrigree: Clarification needed on deletion rationale, since there are currently two articles in this category that seem to fit. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle They appear to fit only at first glance. The more notable Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (which held quite a few notable tournaments) merged with this Global Force Wrestling and took their name. Those tournaments actually don't belong to this GFW, this GFW held not notable tournaments. The articles were placed in this category by good faith editors who got confused by the name change.LM2000 (talk) 06:15, 19 September 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:GFW (2014–2017) shows[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining category, "shows" cat is empty and subcat has one entry for a show put on by another promotion.
:Subcats: Category:GFW (2014–2017) pay-per-view events‎.LM2000 (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subcat --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 11 September 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:Physician astronauts[edit]

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) 20:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection of two different jobs. Why does this exist? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am far from sure it is trivial, because (1) the people were probably selected to be astronauts because they were already physicians, perhaps because they were particularly qualified to undertake research on the effects of zero-gravity on the human physique (2) it is adequately populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it's indeed part of their job. Astronauts tend to be selected from pilots and physicists, basically because astronaut duties are related to those kinds of work, and physicians are definitely not the ordinary type. Therefore, physicians (like teachers) get picked only if the bureaucrats specifically want someone in that profession, and it's part of the physician's job to be a physician in space, not a trivial intersection. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 21 September 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:White people[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ETHNICRACECAT primarily. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: as Sionk mentioned, we have a category for that. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Prisencolin: can you tell us which policy or guidelines you're basing your vote to keep the category you created on? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAT--Prisencolin (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not terrible specific. We won't use this category for people (WP:ETHNICRACECAT) then what will go in it? I don't see enough pages being included (WP:SMALLCAT). EvergreenFir (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term "white people" is not clearly defined. I cannot find a similar category "black people" either (it has been deleted). There is also no use for this category because it would be incorrect to categorise individuals as "white people".--DreamLinker (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above; I can't see a keep rationale I agree with or vice versa. Just because an overgeneralization exists in the language doesn't mean we have to have a category for it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:19, 23 September 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:Bette Davis[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous cat. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposed. CravinChillies 11:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Purge B. D. Hyman should be removed (since we shouldn't confuse this with a family cat) but that still leaves 7 articles and my cutoff for WP:SMALLCAT is 5. (I'd also be open to creating a more narrow category instead of Works about Bette Davis but there is a group of articles her that readers are likely to want to navigate between.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 2.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with RevelationDirect that there's enough here to go past SMALLCAT. I'd disagree with removing Hyman though, her notability relies on the book she wrote about Davis.LM2000 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SMALLCAT gives examples in the hatnote of Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor, Wives of The Beatles, and Catanian-speaking Countries which would have had 7, 9, and up to 8 pages in them, respectively. This category has 7 currently. Unless someone can convince me there's room for growth or I'm incorrect on my interpretation of SMALLCAT (I'm new to CfD so if there's some norm I don't know, ping me and inform me), I'd have to say delete. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 20 September 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:Opponents of affirmative action[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: OPINIONCAT. Is also underpopulated. Many members are alive. Worse, if they are like Doug LaMalfa where sourced content verifies opposition to a certain affirmative action bill but not necessarily affirmative action generally, then there could be justified complaints filed to the BLP office. Seriously, the category must go.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:20, 11 September 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:Botanists active in California[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to parents. There's no scheme of Category:Botanists active by state in the United States and Category:Botanists active in North America doesn't need diffusion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note just the article counts in parent cat. Category:Flora of California (2,047, compared to other U.S. states [at only double to triple digits] in Category:Flora of the United States by state & other N.Am. countries/regions in Category:Flora of North America); and additional totals not in parent cat. under Category:Endemic flora of California (1,146), Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) (1,116), Category:Natural history of the California chaparral and woodlands (1,304), and others.
Very active botanists/taxonomists working, often primarily or exclusively, on California flora for over 200 years distinguish the CA botanists cat. from all N.Am. botanists active somewhere from the Yucatåan Peninsula to the Arctic/Alaska to Florida. Category:Botanists active in North America does need this diffusion, by article counts more than the (also worthy) subcontinental Category:Botanists active in Central America & Category:Botanists active in the Caribbean. Let us please retain the category. — Look2See1 t a l k → 08:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category currently has 46 pages in it, although some shouldn't be there, as they aren't botanists, but organizations or publications. The parent category has 98 pages. Since there's an overlap of 14, upmerging would result in a category with 130 pages, or 124 if the 6 are removed that shouldn't be there given the title of the category. I'm generally in favour of smaller categories, but I accept that 124 is on the margin for requiring diffusion.
    My preference is to clarify the title of the category, since it doesn't really mean the state, and then accept that it's a worthwhile subcategorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there's not agreement about whether this is the state of California, a California bioregion and who/what it should contain, we have a vague name with WP:ARBITRARYCAT inclusion criteria. No objection someone wants to take a stab at a more precise category with a clearer name. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Biota should not be categorised by political boundaries, but this is not about a state, but a region of endemic biota. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if this isn't about the state of California. Probably the best thing to do would be to create Category:Botanists of the California Floristic Province and Category:Botanists of the California chaparral and woodlands if that is what are actually being categorized. Sionk (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Peterkingiron appears to think this is a category about biota instead of botanists. Categorizing people by political boundaries seems fine. But I'm concerned with "active in". We typically categorize by where someone is from or where they currently are, but the many places they may be active in is too broad for me. It's possible a botanist is active in 10 states. Categorize them by where they live now or their professional affiliation instead. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom's and RevelationDirect's clear reasoning. This is not about biota at all or nor (in the minds of more than a tiny, tiny fraction of readers) about an ecological region, but about botanists and a US administrative division.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first keep rationale that this is about botanists specifically active in the California Floristic Province &/or the California chaparral and woodlands is not confirmed by the contents of the articles that are in this category. (If this would have been an issue, a rename of the category could have been considered.) In fact the category name with plain California in it is completely reasonable. And if so many botanists specialize in Californian biota, then why merge or delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 26 September 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:Malaysian nobility stubs[edit]

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 template and category as empty (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No permanent category. No justification for creating this stub category. Dawynn (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty. The equivalent royalty and people stubs have plenty of articles. Any candidates for this will belong in one or other. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 17 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_11&oldid=1123484073"