Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 18 July 20 >

July 19[edit]

Category:Genderqueer people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split. – Fayenatic London 07:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not everyone in this category explicitly identifies as genderqueer. We should follow the convention established in renaming List of people who identify as being genderqueer to List of people with non-binary gender identities (see discussion on that article's talk page). Note that there is a recurring and ongoing discussion regarding renaming the Genderqueer article to Non-binary gender, but this category rename discussion specifically concerns categorizing people appropriately, which is especially important for BLPs. Funcrunch (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this because I think "nonbinary" has become the favored umbrella term in preference to "genderqueer" and it's also clearer in meaning, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to have a mismatch between the category name and the article name. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative: create Category:People with non-binary gender identities as a parent category of Category:Genderqueer people. As we have an article named Genderqueer and people who self-identify as genderqueer there is no immediate reason to drop Category:Genderqueer people. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: I would be fine with this change too. Funcrunch (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would work. I think it would meet the needs of both those who love, or hate, being called "queer". - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Marcocapelle's alternative proposal. And as made clear with evidence in a recent discussion, "genderqueer" is still the WP:Common name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I am personally fine with terms with "queer" in them, this reclaimed usage is far more common among younger populations and in urban communities of the US. Older LGBT populations, rural communities, and those in other countries, in many cases still consider it a painful slur. In my experience I also have not heard "Queer" used in the traditional, indigenous communities that have Two Spirit people, but only among younger, urban folks. The longer names under consideration here, that use various forms of "non-binary" may be wordier and clunkier, but for the international and intergenerational scope of en-wiki they are probably more inclusive. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CorbieVreccan, to be fair, queer has its roots in Western culture, while third gender has its roots in non-Western culture, which is why we don't see "traditional, indigenous communities that have Two Spirit people" use terms queer and genderqueer. I'm not sure what you mean by "urban" above, especially since I'm used to "urban" and "urban culture" being used as a euphemism for African-American culture; I take it that you mean "urban area"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No euphemisms intended. I thought my usage of urban vs rural areas was clear, as I said "rural communities" and "urban communities" :) If I'm only referring to specific cultural or ethnic groups, I will make that clear. The reason I mention this lack of usage in traditional cultures, or it still being considered as a slur by some, is that I know we will find people being put in this category who do not identify as such, or who find it really hurtful to see that on their page. I've seen older folks be really traumatized by being called "Queer." It was used as a hateful slur against me as a child, as well. Yelled at me by bashers with twisted faces as their fists came at me. I've reclaimed it, was part of Queer Nation, etc., but I understand not everyone can. Anyway, mislabeling already happens all the times with these categories; I'm just trying to forestall some of the problems that tend to arise with this stuff, and the cleanup we wind up having to do in the aftermath. I'm just bringing it up now because I'd rather do this here than on the talk page or in email of someone who's upset at having that cat on their BLP. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am profoundly unhappy with the implications of the main article, which seeks to assimilate aspects of non-human biology, where species are agender or bi-gender, with the human intersex condition (where are individual has organs which have elements of both male and female) and artificially manipulated transgender people. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, I'm not sure what you mean by "which seeks to assimilate aspects of non-human biology, where species are agender or bi-gender, with the human intersex condition." Which article are you speaking of? The Genderqueer article, for example, only talks about humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling I was making a rod for my own back in my comments. I consider it wrong to assimilate people with intersex conditions with transgender people, whose organs are the result of surgery. I do not feel I understand the subject fully and am not voting. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with non-binary gender identities now created. I'm not sure how to formally close this CfD, but I've removed the CfD notice from Category:Genderqueer people and posted notices and a link to this discussion on that talk page and in edit summaries for both categories. Funcrunch (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. Participants in a discussion shouldn't close the discussion themselves, an admin will pass one of these days and will do that. You might want to add a comment withdrawn in bold font to indicate that the issue has been settled already but it's not essential. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Business services companies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 07:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do need this specific category for very few companies. Easily be deleted or solve the purpose in other categories. Light2021 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It is a huge category for a well-defined market segment, and the rationale lacks concrete detail on how to dispose of the members. Mangoe (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why we should keep this category separate from its parent Category:Service companies, i.e. no objection against upmerge. However in that case the subcategories may need to be merged or renamed as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep no reason provided for changing this; no obvious reason for doing so; controls many sub-categories and articles. Meets the purpose of categories: help readers navigate to similar articles. Hmains (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Performance consulting firms[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) 03:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Easily be job done. Unnecessary category is added. It only promote the corporate spam for some companies. Consulting or management consulting firms can easily be merged with one. Light2021 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per rationale. The parent article shows every sign of being a vacuous marketing buzzphrase and until there's some proof that this is a real thing, these can go back to being regular old management consultants. Mangoe (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Innovation consulting firms[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 to parent Category:Management consulting firms (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can be easily merged with other business category or not required a separate category for this one, Only purpose is solved to promote some non-notable companies making corporate spam. Light2021 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per rationale. Even more than the case just above, this gives no evidence of being anything more than marketing. Mangoe (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but where? Do you mean upmerge to all parents, which woiuld be my preference. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Police films[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 Category:Police films to Category:Films about police officers. I am not finding sufficient consensus about Category:Police comedy films, Category:Police detective films or Category:Police procedural films; all of these have other parents (e.g. Category:Police comedies, Category:Detective films or Category:Police procedurals and may be useful parts of those hierarchies; I am not persuaded that WP:NARROWCAT applies. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination if someone can see a clear way ahead for further steps that respect all the relevant hierarchies. I'm going to put Category:Police detective films within Category:Police procedural films for now. As for the parent Category:Films about law enforcement, it seems right to me that this now also includes Category:Prison films. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Potential delete as not a defining characteristic. I don't believe Die Hard for instance, would be considered a "police film", and I note that there's no article or indication of what constitutes a police film. If not delete, then as per this discussion I believe the category should be renamed to "Law enforcement films". DonIago (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, though that only strengthens my feeling that the cat should be renamed merged or deleted, as I doubt there's a significant distinction between "Police films" and "Law enforcement films" from the standpoint of categorization. DonIago (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, what about the subcategories? Deleting would leave them orphaned. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Police comedy films": rename to "Law enforcement comedy films"
  2. "Police detective films": rename to "Law enforcement detective films"
  3. "Films about police officers": merge to "Films about law enforcement"
  4. "Police procedural films": merge to "Films about law enforcement" or rename to "Law enforcement procedural films". I'm inclined toward merging.
I think they could all be reclassified as subcats of "Films about law enforcement" if all else fails. Would that work? Oh, and should I formally CfD the subcats? DonIago (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can just copy the CfD tag on Category:Police films to the subcategory pages and change "|1=" into "|1=Category:Police films" so that it links to the right section on this discussion page. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for the guidance! DonIago (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion I linked to in my nomination preferred "Law enforcement" to "Police" as the more generalized terminology. I feel the same reasoning should be applied to the subcats at that point, but am uncertain whether detective and procedural films are discrete enough to really merit their own subcats in any case; I'd like to hear from other editors on that one. That would leave "Police comedy films" as the only open item. Your point about COMMONNAME is well-taken there. I'll link WT:FILM over to this discussion. DonIago (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always value your input Betty! How would you handle things (if at all) vis a vis Category:Films about law enforcement? DonIago (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After doing the above I would leave Category:Films about law enforcement as it is with the reconfigured Category:Films about police officers as a sub-category, at least for now. I think the main problem is with the categories lower down and these need to be addressed first (because upmerges obviously have a knock-on effect). My recommendations would result in dropping/merging three categories and I think that would address many of the problems with the hierarchy. At the moment I would favor retaining Category:Films about police officers and Category:Films about law enforcement and see how useful the distinction is after correcting the problems lower down. Betty Logan (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be amenable to that. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge Category:Police comedy films with anything else but it can be renamed. Obviously, comedy is different than the films that purport to be realistic portrayals of law enforcement activities and personnel. Hmains (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:12th-century diplomatic conferences[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 12th-century, keep others. – Fayenatic London 12:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, diplomatic conferences were very rare in the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge 14th and 15th centuries. The 12th century contains one item a Concordat (i.e. treaty). No doubt every treaty resulted from a conference of some kind, but that does not mean that every treaty needs also to be in a conferences tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on the 12th-century article, so that category may be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) Withdraw nomination. In this case the benefit of merging only two categories does not outweigh the drawback that Hmains mentions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Greyhound racing competitions in the Republic of Ireland[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. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale This category should be in Greyhound racing competitions in Ireland and not the Greyhound racing competitions in the Republic of Ireland because in the greyhound racing industry Ireland refers to both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. This is similar to Six Nations Rugby etc. Northern Irish racing does not come under the UK banner and only comes under the Irish banner so the categories should be amended. An example of why it needs to be amended is the St Leger (Irish greyhounds) which has been held at both Republic and Northern Irish tracks. Many thanksRacingmanager (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If you'll list those that are both NI and the RoI I'll create a new category for them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Properly formatted proposal created by me following discussion with proposer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All entries are on an all-island basis. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This appears to be one of a number of sports that is organised on an all-Ireland basis. This should be reflected by having a single category, as is routine for all-Ireland and pre-partition subjects. This is a case where the split needs to be GB/Ireland, not UK/RoI. This also applies to Trades Unions and in some other cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stories within One Thousand and One Nights[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. Timrollpickering 11:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, perhaps the categories themselves are a borderline case of smallcat but the parent category is also very small; and in addition the categories don't fit nicely in a "stories" and a "locations by fiction" tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom The parent category has less than 10 articles. No need for subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- not enough content to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Service companies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can easily be merged with other categories/ Sub. nothing substantial to add as an encyclopedic value. Light2021 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What? Did you somehow make a mistake in the nomination? This is a significant division of companies in general, as opposed to primary-resource companies (mining, agribusiness, etc.) and manufacturing companies. Merging it anywhere would be quite confusing, and you're also confusing the nomination by requesting both merger and deletion. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This nomination is not particularly coherent, but OTOH the membership of this category is problematic. For instance I see Category:Military corporations which eventually (and correctly) contains Category:Weapons manufacturing companies, which certainly shouldn't be in the category being discussed. Some restructuring is in order. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Default keep per lack of sensible argument for deletion. Restructure membership BOLDly as needed. —swpbT 13:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential keep -- Service companies is a category used on stock markets. The problem is that the term is an amorphous one, whose bounds are ill-defined. It may well need purging. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep no reason provided for changing this; no obvious reason for doing so; controls many sub-categories and articles. Meets the purpose of categories: help readers navigate to similar articles. Hmains (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ministers for Agriculture Ghana[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, the category had been emptied already (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly named duplicate of Category:Agriculture ministers of Ghana —swpbT 15:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Major Vertebrate groups extinct during the Tertiary[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:Tertiary extinctions of vertebrate taxa within new parent Category:Extinct vertebrate taxa. The initial concern was that there were no parent hierarchies, but I have put the nominated category into Category:Cenozoic extinctions and Category:Cenozoic vertebrates (which is within Category:Extinct vertebrates). I have chosen a new name which is different from the suggestions below in an attempt to be more consistent with these hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 14:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For grammar, clarity, and to avoid arbitrary inclusion criterion. —swpbT 13:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to something or delete. This category is adrift in category space with no relatives that I can find. There is no Category:Vertebrate groups but we have Category:Vertebrate taxa, so we could start with Category:Extinct vertebrate taxa perhaps. Oculi (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Extinct vertebrate taxa - tertiary era, with a headnote explaining that its scope more clearly. This is a valid category. We may also need Category:Extinct vertebrate taxa as a sub-cat of Category:Vertebrate taxa, a tree that seems to have no branch for exitinct species. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Extinct vertebrate taxa - Tertiary period. I asked to create the category, my original intent was to facilitate discovery of groups that did survive K-Pg (and so are not in the K-Pg extinctions, which are well known) but didn't make it to modern times (and so are not in the extant groups, which are well known). It was prompted by my noticing that we might have well had another distinct modern reptilian group with a long history among us, the Choristodera, if only they hadn't become extinct relatively recently. I think this is a valid reason to have a category - otherwise the discovery of these groups is not at all easy. Sure, there could be a section on the pages of all major extinction events listing the significant groups that survived that event but not the next one. I chose Tertiary instead of Cenozoic because otherwise we'll soon have to include almost all post K-Pg megafauna. To avoid a longwinded title, I didn't exclude groups that arose during the Tertiary themselves, though I didn't link any. I also didn't know how to restrict this to major taxa, rather than include every species. Nor was I keen on restricting this to vertebrates, but I thought it best to go that way. All this is to say I don't have any special preference about the title, I'd welcome it if you'd use your experience to devise a better one. Also, if you think this kind of category is misguided, then you know better than me. I'd just hope the information wasn't lost altogether. 2001:8A0:F009:9A01:1CB0:3083:6BF2:BB (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Further problem as found in the Tertiary article: "The Tertiary is no longer recognized as a formal unit by the International Commission on Stratigraphy,...but the word is still widely used. The traditional span of the Tertiary has been divided between the Paleogene and Neogene periods.." Hmains (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Yes, there is currently no formal unit that aggregates the Paleogene and the Neogene. That's a lacuna in the system, as evidenced by the fact that the term remains in use - it designates something for which there is no alternative. On the one hand, the ICS is not some science-policing body with the authority to decide how geologic periods can be divided; on the other hand, neither does it purport to be; on yet another, its system is stratigraphy-based, and hence why the Quaternary has been included in the Cenozoic - see International_Commission_on_Stratigraphy#Publications for a passing remark on the fluidity of that choice. One could replace Tertiary in the category with Paleogene, but that would be somewhat artificial. One could replace it with Cenozoic, but that risks having to include most vertebrates a short while from now. Unless Cenozoic is redefind to exclude the Quaternary, which is a possibility but not currently clearer than just saying Tertiary. 2001:8A0:F009:9A01:70A0:255A:8FBE:7865 (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Neogene extinctions (or siblings or child categories if appropriate). It's no use setting up a new category (tree) if there is an appropriate tree already. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actresses from Scranton, Pennsylvania[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) 04:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT —swpbT 13:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Petscan shows 4 articles which could fit here, but I go by a minimum of 5. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it stays there should be a Category:Male actors from Scranton, Pennsylvania as well. Icarusgeek (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_19&oldid=1138410923"