Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 1

< October 31	November 2 >

November 1[edit]

Category:Films originally rejected by the censors in Britain[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:Films originally rejected by the British Board of Film Classification. MER-C 09:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films originally rejected by the censors in Britain to Category:Films originally rejected by the BBFC

Nominator's rationale: More specific name. Trivialist (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but expand the acronym; per MOS:ABBR and WP:PRECISE (though at the cost of some WP:CONCISE, I would rather see the full name of the organization, since the acronym is meaningless to almost everyone outside the UK. I agree with nom that the current title is vague. It's kind of amateurish. Reminds of when people blame "the government". :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films originally rejected by the British Board of Film Classification. No acronyms in categories, as they are too ambiguous. Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially a category for films banned in X country, but worded differently. A previous discussion was delete. Films are banned/censored in many different countries, and this would create category-clutter if applied to each and every country. Also, this seems to be WP:NONDEF to most, it not all, of the articles currently in the category. Several I've looked at (The Wandering Jew, La Grande Bouffe, Minnie the Moocher, etc), don't even mention the BBFC, let alone refer to it in the article's lead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts and WP:CATDEF. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested by Dimadick. Oppose deletion. Yes, some members fail WP:CATDEF/WP:CATVER, but for others, being banned in Britain seems to be a significant aspect of their history, and is supported by RS: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre § Release, Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom § Censorship, The Wild One § Reception. There's something to Lugnuts' concern of category clutter if we categorized widely-banned films according to every country in which they were banned, but use of these categories should always be limited according to WP:CATDEF, as determined by reliable sources. It would be surprising if a film were commonly and consistently described by secondary RS as being banned in Britain, and as banned in Russia, and as banned in Liechtenstein, and etc. If there does end up being consensus against keeping this cat, I think it should at least be selectively upmerged to Category:Censored films, though I prefer the specificity of having country-specific subcats where appropriate. Being banned in Britain and being banned in the UAE have very different significations. Colin M (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Dimadick. The nom is right in principle, but the use of abbreviations in category names is discouraged (with some exceptions, e.g. MPs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

University of California, Los Angeles xxxx[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: do not rename. MER-C 17:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni -> Category:University of California, Los Angeles, alumni
Category:University of California, Los Angeles buildings and structures -> Category:University of California, Los Angeles, buildings and structures
Category:University of California, Los Angeles faculty -> Category:University of California, Los Angeles, faculty
Category:University of California, Los Angeles fellows -> Category:University of California, Los Angeles, fellows
Category:University of California, Los Angeles images -> Category:University of California, Los Angeles, images
Category:University of California, Los Angeles people -> Category:University of California, Los Angeles, people
Category:University of California, Los Angeles staff -> Category:University of California, Los Angeles, staff
I recently – on October 24 – proposed renaming these awkward two-part category names by recasting their names, because they currently violate WP:Copyedit#Punctuation. The comma kind of separates "Los Angeles" from "University of California", while the lack of a closing comma rather appears to tie "Los Angeles" closer to the last part of the category name. This is odd, because the whole expression "University of California, Los Angeles" is the modifier. That proposal was opposed, which leaves us with this alternative. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks better to me. Oculi (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - MOS:GEOCOMMA supports the existing comma for the geographic location. But MOS:COMMA does not support adding an unnecessary extra comma. There is no confusion over the title continuing after the geographic reference which needed one comma. Ikluft (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is always interesting when people cite something which undermines their position: MOS:COMMA says "Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.
Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands." (This is a parenthetical comma.) Oculi (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the same usage. The example was quoted out of context where it allowed for a parenthetical grouping of commas. But I'll add an additional reason to oppose over inconsistency - drill down from Category:University of California and you'll find no other UC campus uses such extraneous commas. Ikluft (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the consistency can be fixed later. You cannot possibly demand that I tag hundreds of categories in a CFR that might fail. If it goes through though, I will tag them too of course. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that shows this renaming is unnecessary is that it's trying to fix a personal style readability issue which is fine without the change. But considering the hypothetical case if it had been the right change to make, then dozens (probably not hundreds) of categories would be included. If it had been the right thing to do, then for consistency it would have to cover all the relevant categories. I'm not making this up - I was the nom for a 76-category CfR in 2009 which passed. Ikluft (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on consistency grounds. And, as one of the longest-term "surviving" MoS regulars, I can say that this isn't a case that MOS:COMMA really addresses; it's essentially the same kind of case as the one recently brought up at WT:MOS, about commas inside titles of works (e.g. Girl, Interrupted). The comma in this case is part of a literal string (a proper name) and is not serving a bracketing-or-parenthetical-commas function within the structure of the sentence. By contrast, the commas in "Portland, Oregon, police officers" would be such an instance (the ", Oregon," sub-string is a clarifying identifier, a form of disambiguation – in everyday English, not just in WP page titling). But this is not the case with "University of California, Los Angeles" (which would more sensibly, less confusingly have been "University of California at Los Angeles", which is probably why more universities seem to use the "U of X at Y" pattern). The university's name is simply the university's name. The sentence (well, phrase) structure is "Organization staff", not "Organization, City, staff"; if the organization changed its name to Del Valle University, the string would read "Del Valle University staff", not "Del Valle University, Los Angeles, staff". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: regarding a similar construction, but in an article name, please see the move discussion here, in particular the last "Support" point, commented by me as "good one". It was a similar problem, but the solution was different. The problem is that in the flow of reading, we use the commas as cues to what belongs together as a unit, so to speak (which is the very purpose of punctuation), and without the commas, the reading becomes awkward, regardless of whether this is (as you state) what MOS:COMMA addresses. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both for consistency and because the extra comma just looks like bad, grammar to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative suggestion Category:Alumni of University of California, Los Angeles. This avoids the awkwardness of the second comma or lack of it. I guess this is preferable to Category:University of California (Los Angeles) alumni. I am not insisting and remain neutral, but thought I should suggest this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We already discussed that one; see the nomination. It was opposed because the convention on Wikipedia is to use "Alumni of XXX" primarily for British and former-British-colony universities, and to use "XXX alumni" primarily for American universities. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Robotic pterosaurs[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 11:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: There is only one page in the entire category, and even that is a redirect. This category is needless. Delete this. JIP | Talk 12:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge is needed as the redirect is rightly in one parent and its target page is rightly in the other. – Fayenatic London 20:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Al-Nahda[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 11:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Al-Nahda to Category:Nahda

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, opposed at Speedy page as pasted in box below. The move appears justfied by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). @Recruos: please comment. – Fayenatic London 10:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Al-Nahda to Category:Nahda – WP:C2D Recruos (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy Only recently renamed and without discussion, so C2D doesn't apply. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:THE. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2B and borderline WP:C2A. No articles in category names unless strictly indispensable. Place Clichy (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Superhero "film characters"[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 11:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fantastic Four (film series) characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Daredevil (film series) characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Spider-Man (2002 film series) characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These characters are not from superhero films or film series. Wikipedia does not categorize comic book characters by having appeared in adaptations. It's a non-defining feature of all these characters.★Trekker (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:OVERCAT and WP:NONDEF. The characters are defined by the larger comics theme. Ikluft (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Imdadkhani gharana[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 9#Category:Imdadkhani gharana

Category:Fictional characters with psychopathy personality disorder[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 11:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters with psychopathy personality disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Psychopathy personality disorder" is not a thing that exists, it is not an existing disorder and the words "Psychopathy" and "Sociopathy" are not even used in psycology and never really has. There's also the issue that this category is just filled up with articles of "super eviiiiiil" characters, not characters that have actually been diagnosed with a disorder. It's completly non-defining. ★Trekker (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition These issues concerns its parent category Category:Psychopathy in fiction and sibling categories Category:Films about psychopaths‎ and Category:Novels about sociopathy‎ to come extent as well.★Trekker (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I checked a number of articles and it seems this is a matter of WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support No real disorders with these names. Dimadick (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wydad AC footballers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 10#Category:Wydad AC footballers

Category:Naskapi communities in Quebec[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 11:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Naskapi communities in Quebec to Category:Naskapi and Category:Indian reserves in Quebec
Propose merging Category:Naskapi communities in Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:Naskapi and Category:First Nations reserves in Newfoundland and Labrador

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support these dual upmerges, per nom. By why do two of the targets have inconsistent names? We know that "First Nations" is the preferred term in Canada, so "Indian reserves in Quebec" should probably be speedily CfRed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official name appears to be Indian reserve. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Social discovery websites[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 11:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Social discovery websites to Category:Social networking websites

Nominator's rationale: These sites dont seem sufficiently different from all the others to merit a separate category. Social discovery shades off into dating, marketing, hospitality etc, Rathfelder (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but manually disperse. Much of the content of this category seems to belong in Category:Online dating applications. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've taken the dating sites out there are 6 articles left, but they dont have much in common. Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is reasonable to upmerge the category with its remaining content. Only two of them are explicit social discovery websites. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom and Marcocapelle. This appears to have been misleading and verging on OR. (Categorization by personal misunderstanding of a website's operation and audience? I dunno.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

New Zealand association football 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: delete. MER-C 11:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting the following categories, all of which simply contain a player category and one key article. None of them are likely to expand beyond that level. The player categories can stay, but the club articles are unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 02:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support withdrawn, but not voting keep either. In general it may be useful to have something in place for managers and players subcategories that is similar to Template:Songs category and Template:Albums category, so that the two usual subcategories and the main article directly link to each other, without the need of a parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - all 4 categories have now been expanded with additional articles and sub-categories. Nomination rationale no longer stands. @Marcocapelle: might wish to reconsider. GiantSnowman 08:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They're still too small - two articles (one, in one case) plus a file isn't really enough to sustain these categories. Grutness...wha? 10:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Remember when you said "None of them are likely to expand beyond that level" and I added more articles, categories amd images? It's absolutely standrad to have a 'parent' categpry for a football club, see eg Category:Football clubs in England by county and related. GiantSnowman 10:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you can expand them to more than a couple of articles and a category, then fine. I checked the A-D section of the category tree you pointed out; of the 114 club categories in that selection, only five are of the same sort of level as the categories I've nominated, and only one (Category:Darlington 1883) is smaller than Category:Wellington Olympic AFC. In the case of Category:Wanderers Special Club we're talking about a defunct Under-20s development team which only existed for five years. I have no objection to football club categories if there's a point, but when they're that sort of size there really isn't. The file and stadium article (where there is one) are already lined in the key article, and the players category can easily be linked that way too. Where there is also a viable managers category, that's fine (and I've withdrawn those to nominations), but the remaining categories are still irredeemably small. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (including nom's later rebuttals of opposition, above). This is basically a WP:CONLEVEL matter. While the wikiproject might like to create pointless near-empty categories for every team in existence, the site-wide consensus against doing things like this trumps the one-topic in-crowd preference. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedians contributing under Dual License[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 or rename. MER-C 11:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC BY-ND 3.0‎ to Category:Wikipedians contributing under CC BY-ND 3.0‎

Nominator's rationale: According to the Terms of Use, all edits are automatically dual-licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. While editors do have the option of further multi-licensing their edits, it should go without saying (and, therefore, it is unnecessary to specify) that these multi-licensed contributions are also (dual-)licensed according to the Terms of Use. Honestly, I struggle to see the utility of this entire category scheme; however, for now I am just proposing to clean up these unnecessary splits. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This will also incidentally get rid of the Weird Over-Capitalization, too. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tango in Argentina[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: split. MER-C 11:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tango in Argentina to Category:Argentine tango

Nominator's rationale: This category is not about tango in Argentina. It is about the specific style of music and dance universally known as "Argentine tango". Someone may be surprised, but Ballroom tango is danced in Argentina as well, they even hold international ballroom competitions. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the category appears to be about tango in Argentina, and follows the convention in Category:Tango by country. Oculi (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't Category:Argentine tango just be a child category of Category:Tango in Argentina?★Trekker (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with this comment, hence split rather than rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Split per Marcocapelle, if there's enough content for an actual category on tango (of all styles) in Argentina. Nom is correct that Argentine tango is a style (danced by more people outside Argentina than within it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Split obviously. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:306 Records 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: delete. MER-C 11:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:306 Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Parent article 306 Records deleted. Almost all of these are redirects, and even the ones that aren't are only barely notable at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It would be useful for others to see the link to the AfD for the parent article, which I found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/306_Records. The deletion proposal wasn't even remotely controversial. Ikluft (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sierra Pelona Mountains[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 11:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sierra Pelona Mountains to Category:Sierra Pelona Ridge

Nominator's rationale: proposed category renaming to follow its main article which was renamed to Sierra Pelona Ridge, the name it should have originally used as supported by its USGS GNIS source: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Sierra Pelona Ridge. Ikluft (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename -- USGS GNIS source, standard name for this terrain feature. Antandrus (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per both of the above. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.