Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 7 April 9 >

April 8[edit]

Category:Lithuanian resistance partisans[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneccessary subcategory. The article is Lithuanian partisans and other similar categories do not distinguish resistance partisans. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 8 April 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.

Czech ice hockey clubs[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 16#Czech_ice_hockey_clubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories contain the players of the same clubs. Proposing to merge to the category with the club's current name. Darwinek (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club changes their titular sponsor very often. Proposing to rename to neutral name to avoid CFR nominations each year.--Darwinek (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am split on the first 3 because its fairly standard that we have categories for each name a team has gone through for player categories as it is inaccurate to state a player played for a team with a different name than the one they actually played on. In sports the teams actual name matters. I do however agree with the last one. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is tricky. Czech Extraliga teams very often change their official name according to their main sponsor. This way you have easily many players who, technically speaking, were playing for a team with, say, 4 different names, although it is still the same club. - Darwinek (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is why I am a bit split on the situation. Some teams still have non-sponsor generic names that could be used I like the one you propose. Not sure if that is the case for the others. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 10 April 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:Lists of peerages[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 admin action required (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is currently in Lists of British people but includes French, Portuguese etc, so I suggest a split to a new sub-category. The proposed name seems the best fit with the contents, rather than e.g. United Kingdom, but other editors may have better suggestions. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 8 April 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:Al-Mokawloon al-Arab players[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 match head article El Mokawloon SC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club's name on Wikipedia is "El Mokawloon SC", so this category should be named the same. Ben5218 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per C2D, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 10:26, 9 April 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:Dental colleges in delhi ncr[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: speedy delete WP:G6. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a redirect to a category which was deleted under C1. Airbornemihir (talk) 09:52, 8 April 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:Trump associates associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections[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. Counting heads, the delete !voters have only a narrow lead ... but of course WP:NOTVOTE. In this case, the delete arguments are better founded in policy, esp WP:RECENTISM and a rare double layer of WP:OCASSOC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have made a list of the category's contents before deletion, at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 8#Category:Trump_associates_associated_with_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the people listed have been charged with being associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. And per WP:OCASSOC and WP:RECENTISM (see below). Coldcreation (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, nor is it a question of criminal charge, it is the notion that just being associated with Russians implies interference in the 2016 United States elections. In fact, to date, no evidence has surfaced showing the individuals in this category attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections (or collude with Russians to influence the election). This category blurs the distinction between Russian meddling in the election, and political or business dealings (whether dubious in nature or not) with Russia. To be clear: No Trump associates have been associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Coldcreation (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"No Trump associates have been associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" That's just not true - maybe they haven't been associated by sources you trust, but the MSM is good enough for Wikipedia sourcing. —swpbT go beyond 19:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Swpb: What source do you have that states the people listed in this category were associated with Russians to interfere with the 2016 election? Coldcreation (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have no idea who is under investigation for colluding with Russians to interfere in the 2016 elections. Coldcreation (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment @JFG: why on earth were you trying to unilaterally move the category while a consensus-forming discussion is underway about its fate? I am pleased to see that your move has been reverted, but surprised at your action – it would have made this discussion pointless.
If you think the category should be renamed, then propose that here in this discussion, and see if there is a consensus for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To editor JFG: That's not a "more neutral" title, it's an inaccurate title. The category is not for people who are being investigated, it is exactly what it says - people who have been associated - meaning in media accounts, not just in what the special prosecutor's office has divulged. —swpbT go beyond 19:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looking at the wording, it's hard at this stage to be as clean lined as the titles proposed suggest; especially with BLP's. The most one could say is that some people are associated with the investigation, but that's rather lame and non-defining (the poor guy/gal who types up handwritten notes of meeting is "associated"). For those who've pleaded guilty to something, you could have a category of people convicted of crimes brought by the investigation, but whose a target, whose a witness, and what leverage someone may have on whom is likely more speculative than factual at this stage and to a great extent non-defining (I don't think being interviewed in an investigation is defining for any one). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per swpb, although willing to explore alternative names for the category. Not convinced that JFG's proposal is an improvement per comments above. VegaDark (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Category:Trump associates implicated in the Russian investigation"... or Special Counsel investigation, would be better. This is fair in that there is no implication they interfered in the election or colluded with Russians to do so. This is what is known, and this is what is reported in the media. Coldcreation (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a case of WP:RECENTISM. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...and WP:OCASSOC. Coldcreation (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCASSOC. Being associated with a political controversy is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic for the purposes of encyclopedic categorization — being formally charged and or convicted might be, but simply being "associated" is not. And yes, also WP:RECENTISM. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above and WP:DNWAUC. The articles in this category are (based on my sampling) in many more appropriate categories. This may be suitable for a list (where each entry can be clearly explained), but not a category. DexDor (talk) 05:30, 16 April 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:Television shows by country[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. Daybeers (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And more
*Category:LGBT-related television shows by country to Category:LGBT-related television programs by country
Nominator's rationale: This is a request to overturn and reverse the renaming resulting from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Category:Television programs by country. A bit of background: I simultaneously started two related CfDs back then, the other being ...#Category:Television programming by language. My expectation was that similar consensuses would lead to a harmonisation of the category names. However, the Television programs by country discussion was closed as a rename to Television shows by country after two supports, while the Television programming by language discussion continued on for months longer, and saw clearer consensus in favour of programs/programmes rather than shows. Fayenatic london, who was one of the supporters in the by country CfD, also suggested that it be reopened and reversed. So here we are. Paul_012 (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also pinging Dwarf Kirlston from the previous discussion, and Timrollpickering who closed it. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. in theory, there are good arguments for both "shows" and "program[me]s". In practice, the WP:ENGVAR program/programme issue was an utter pain, creating a stream of CfD debates about which applied to which country, and endless entries in Special:WantedCategories as editors not fully versed in the latest theology applied the "wrong" variant.
    So, apply the KISS principle and use the term with no variants, which is shows. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - use of the term "shows" avoids the spelling issues. Just to demonstrate how messy it gets, even in this very proposal, it is proposed to move Category:Australian television shows to Category:Australian television programmes yet it is also proposed to move Category:Australian LGBT-related television shows to Category:Australian LGBT-related television programs. Even this proposal can't keep uniformity between the same country, let alone keep up with each individual variance of spelling between nations. Using "shows" takes this issue away and I don't see a compelling argument as to why "program(me)" is stronger or clearer than "show." -- Whats new?(talk) 00:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • An RfC resulted in a preference for "program" when referring to Australian programs. "Show" is not the correct word to use. These are not broadway shows, they are television programs. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but suggest a minor change - As I wrote in this CfD the TV project has long held that "show" is not the correct word to use and "series", "program" or "programme" is more appropriate. It's common in TV articles for the first sentence in a series article to start with "<Foo> is a television <series/program/programme>". If "show" is used it's always changed as that word is more suited to something you'd see on broadway (a musical etc). When applied to television, it's informal and not encyclopaedic in tone. For the purposes of this discussion "program" or "programme" is the more appropriate word; it covers both US and international English. It's unfortunate that we have to use two similar but different words, but that's going to be an issue until the US changes to use international English. That CfD resulted in consensus to change from "programming" but there was no consensus on whether to use "program" or "programme" exclusively so the CfD closer chose "program" as the default. This nomination seeks to continue that consistency but I feel that using both "program" and "programming" is problematic. Instead we should just use one for consistency and, since we have already started with "program", per the CfD outcome, we should be renaming the cats accordingly. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply @AussieLegend: I also want consistency, but this proposal will not create it, due to the ENGVAR issues. I am unpersuaded by the concerns about "shows" setting an inappropriate tone when used in category names (rather than the body of an article), and a little levity of tone is way more helpful to navigation than a category structure impeded by avoidable spelling variations. Per WP:CAT, categories are a navigational tool ... and navigation is not helped by inconsistent naming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Renaming all to "program" will create consistency that is in line with the existing category structure. As an Australian who was educated during the 1960s and '70s, when we actually learned in school how the English language works, I was taught that "programme" was the correct spelling. However, with the influence of primarily US media, "program" has become more widely used. In articles I fully support WP:ENGVAR but with categories I don't have an issue with US spelling when it's a consistency issue. Our main focus should be to get rid of "shows", which is clearly inappropriate. This CfD resulted in no consensus as to whether "program" or "programme" was preferred so the closer just picked one and ran with it based on the spelling of the parent category so now we have a series of categories using "program". Since that spelling is already established it seems logical to continue with it right down the tree, which is why I proposed the alternative. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply @AussieLegend: renaming all the cats to the USAnian "program" simply won't happen. It would need a consensus to abolish WP:ENGVAR (whether entirely or, as you propose on a limited basis) and I am sure you well know that simply won't happen; a WP:LOCALCON here cannot override the wider policy, so CfD cannot create the exception you seek. That would need an RFC at WT:MOS, where it would fail.
          So the result is that "program" inevitably means a "program"/"programme" variation, with all the hassle that causes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — "show" is definitely not appropriate per WP:TONE. I don't feel extremely strongly one way or the other about whether it should be "program/programme" based on regional context or "program" across the board (I can appreciate arguments for consistency and simplicity) but as a Canadian in Canada, I can appreciate people not wanting particular national rules forced upon them. So ultimately I would rather we support WP:ENGVAR and have the occasional debate than force some groups' spellings or their usage choices on others. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As of now it is not clear why discussions about "program" or "programme" would be a hindrance to this specific nomination. The same type of discussions takes place on every term that is spelt differently in different English-speaking countries and we accept that based on WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'd like to point out that our primary topic is at television show. "show" as a term means anything you'd expect to see on a TV guide or schedule - it is a term which encompasses series, specials, weekly/daily programs, sports events, movies, and so on. Its not a term we should use in an article about a specific show (we would use series, etc.), but it is fine to use when talking about the media broadly. For example, "NBC airs television shows every week night, such as The Wall, Sunday Night Football, and This Is Us." is just fine wording because you are broadly grouping a game show, a sports event, and a drama series. -- Netoholic @ 15:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I really think that's incorrect usage per WP:TONE and we should be talking about networks airing television programs. I realize that opens up the WP:ENGVAR debate but again, show is too informal for an encyclopedia. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think we can count on television show being a guide as to what we should call TV programs. Television program was moved to that location in December 2017 as the result of an RM that Netoholic started and which was attended by only 3 editors apart from Netoholic. One opposed and there was only one very weak reason provided for moving the article. the other support was just a "support per the first person who responded" vote. I can't see where the TV project was advised of the RM. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Holy aspersions, Batman! The TV Wikiproject is notified of all RMs under their scope at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts, just the same way they are notified of CfDs like this. "Show" is not informal nor against WP:TONE at all. As I pointed out in that RM, it is in fact the most common phrase used in book text. Let's also point out that "show" appears in related terms where "program" never does: showrunner, talk show, game show, parent show, sister show, clip show. It might be that "program" is growing in ambiguity due to the computer age, which may be a contributing cause to the decline I've demonstrated. -- Netoholic @ 19:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've been editing TV articles pretty regularly for three years now and that's the first I've heard of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts. A major change from "program" to "show" on that article title should definitely have warranted a section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television—very poor form that that wasn't done. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The convention is to post at WT:TV as most people don't watch the article alerts page. "Show" is certainly used as Netoholic demonstrates but it's informal and Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Accordingly it requires a formal tone not often (sadly) used today in normal speech. Just because people in the TV industry use informal terminology and made up words doesn't mean we should encourage the use in an encyclopaedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you are part of a WikiProject, but don't use the mechanism that is expressly for giving out alerts to discussions of interest to that WikiProject, then you're not going to get any sympathy and the "But I wasn't told about this!" defense isn't going to fly very far. WP:COMMONNAME is policy, and television show, no matter how informal you claim it is, it is the primary topic title in accord with that policy and the proper process was used to get it there. -- Netoholic @ 20:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • So very glad you brought up WP:COMMONNAME, which includes (and I quote) this relevant passage: Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. Britannica uses "television program", for instance. It's not like "television program" is obscure and would not be understood because it's an archaic way to talk about things. Also, as for my "defence": I think if both I and AussieLegend, who are frequent contributors to the television articles, bring up how you didn't follow project convention, and you combine that with how few people voiced opinions on the move, it's not just a case of "Wah! I didn't bother to pay attention and now I'll blame someone else!" There are actually times when people don't follow proper notification procedures as opposed to everyone else being checked-out/clueless; this would be one of them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the arguments above and that WP:TONE is about avoiding unintelligable slang, jargon etc which "shows" isn't (even though in article text other terms might generally be preferred). DexDor (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to avoid US/UK spelling/ambiguity. Pretty much the same rationale as the recent discussion about specifying which football an article may be about. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I guess there's no chance of this gaining consensus in support while the article is at Television show. I'd suggest that WikiProject Television members wishing to re-visit this first establish clearer consensus at the main article (especially since the latest move discussion was poorly attended). --Paul_012 (talk) 10:59, 1 May 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:Mount St. Mary's College[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 (WP:NAC). DexDor (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In 2015, this school's name changed to say "University" instead of "College", so this category and all subcategories should reflect the new article title of Mount St. Mary's University (Los Angeles). Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. Sounds good in principle, but the subcats should be named consistently. Either rename them all or rename none ... and the since the subcats are not listed, they can't be renamed via this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:04, 8 April 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:Mayors of Herzliya[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) 06:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only has one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:SMALLCAT: part of an established series, and capable of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hebrew Wiki has articles on several Mayors of Herzliya, including the incumbent Moshe Fadlon. They just need to be translated.
      @WilliamJE, please do re-read the first sentence of WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To both of you- First of all the articles at Hebrew Wiki are irrelevant. This is an English Wiki category and CFD. Two- Hebrew wiki articles or not, Mayors of communities (93K) have never been considered automatically notable. Three- BHG you are being disingenuous and it isn't the first time. Mayor of Foo categories have been deleted time after time again when they have just 1 or 2 entries and as somebody who takes part in CFDs regularly you should know that. See this CFD[1] for just one example and what Bearcat writes in his nomination and what Peterkingron says in support. You BHG do some reading again....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, @WilliamJE. No, I am not being disingenuous, and you should both WP:AGF and (as I suggested above) re-read the first sentence of WP:SMALLCAT before you start casting aspersions.
So lemme run you through this one:
  1. WP:SMALLCAT begins Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members. So the test is whether this cat has a reasonable prospect of expansion.
  2. Herzliya is a smallish but significant place in Israel, notable in recent years as a v wealthy subsurb. As such it gets a lot of media attention ... so its liklely that its mayors would also get coverage.
  3. A quick google for "Mayor of Herzliya" threw up lots of hits, mostly about the current mayor Moshe Fadlon. Clearly notable, and it'd be easy to write a quick stub on him.
  4. A little further research found the category full of other mayors of Herzliya on he.wp, ready for translation
  5. the CfD on Langley, BC seems perverse because it gives little consideration the possibility thav other mayors of Langley would be GNG-notable (note: not automatically noatable). I don't know what conclusion would have been reached if that had been done in Langley, but in Herzliya we clearly do have at least one and possibly several more notable mayors.
  6. So this cat clearly does not meet the WP:SMALLCAT test of "will never have more than a few members". Sadly you choose to focus on the assessments of other cats of mayors, rather checking the facts of this one ... and your dismissal of the wp.wp pages as irrelevant is plain silly, because they are clear evidence of possible expansion.
So ... please WilliamJE, can you please get beyond this simplistic assssment of "mayors and number of existing articles", and look at what WP:SMALLCAT actualy says? Note that the size of the town is no part of the guidance in WP:SMALLCAT. Sure it may be one relevant indicator, but it is not and cannot be determining as you claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Brown Haired Girl. In the future we'll see the category surely more populated. - Darwinek (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The Hebrew category has 9 members, which would be enough to keep if we had English WP articles on all. Unless populated before closure, the appropriate outcome is Full upmerge also to Category:Mayors of places in Israel, or such like. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when enough articles exist to support it. We do not keep a "Mayors of City" category for one article just because it might eventually become more populated than it is now — the baseline for creation of such a category is not how many articles might eventually exist, but how many articles already exist today, and the minimum number of articles required to already exist today before a dedicated category for them becomes justified is five. So if and when five articles do exist on the English Wikipedia, then yes, it can be recreated — but we can't keep it just because five articles might eventually exist at some indeterminate point in the future, because they also might not. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bearcat: you say "how many articles already exist today" ... but the long-standing guideline at WP:SMALLCAT contradicts you: a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then that's outdated. When it comes to the actual working consensus of actual CFD discussions in actual cases of "Mayors of city" categories coming up for discussion is "five mayors need to already have articles before a dedicated category for them is warranted." Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or, to put it another way ... two editors who have not been doing the long-required scrutiny before deletion now object to anyone else carrying out that scrutiny, and prefer their own rigid numerical formula to the nuanced assessment supported by a deacade-old consensus — even when they don't dispute the actual findings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think the main point of disagreement concerns the word notable in the guideline. A mayor of a place like this on any other place of the world is not (automatically) notable, but because there is (to be expected) a lot of media attention to this particular place, articles about notable mayors may be expected after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 16 April 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:Schools of medicine[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And also...
*Category:Schools of medicine in Afghanistan‎ to Category:Medical schools in Afghanistan‎
Nominator's rationale: This is probably C2D, but I'm doing a full CfD as it's been standing for a decade. Medical school is by far the more common and natural term, and is used by the main Medical school article. I don't see why "schools of medicine" should be preferred. Paul_012 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes perfect sense.--Darwinek (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Odd that these have not been renamed long ago, especially as many of the subcats use 'medical school'. School of medicine is a red-link. Oculi (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's a redirect now. Support all. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Medical school is much more common usage now. Rathfelder (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support but nomination is incomplete. It only goes down to the country level. For example, we also have the cat and all the subcats of Category:Schools of medicine in the United States by state to deal with Hmains (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subject to a follow up (speedy?) for any other similar subcats. This is a much better format, as schools of medicine might involve those advocating different medical practices. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 15 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_8&oldid=871694631"