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 12:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist due to complete lack of any participation at all (not even a comment) in the first discussion on May 2. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:CRÉ (Regional conference of representatives) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a badly-named category created by someone who technically has a conflict of interest (User:Conférence régionale, which if you don't know French means exactly what it looks like), but that's not really the substance of why this should be deleted. The real substance of the problem is that a regional conference of elected officers is simply the type of government that administers the administrative regions of Quebec. What this category contains, however, is not standalone articles about the CRÉs as separate topics in their own right, but the main articles on administrative regions themselves — all of which are already catted in Category:Administrative regions of Quebec or an eponymous subcategory of that. By comparison, we don't add every city's or town's primary article to a "city councils" category just because it has a council; we use those categories to contain the much narrower array of cases where the city council has its own standalone article as a separate topic from the city or town itself. So for those reasons, this is just serving as an unhelpful duplication of another category that already exists, on a tangential detail that isn't a defining characteristic of its actual contents. If some or all of the CRÉs had standalone articles about the CRÉs themselves, then a renamed version of this would certainly be appropriate — but we don't need it if it's just sitting directly on the main articles about the regions instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I am convinced by Bearcat. We should not categorise places because they have a city council. If the council has its own article, it should go in a councils category. Similarly, we do not categorise by memberships. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2015 (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.

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 12:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: That a university/college is a member of this organization is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the university/college. E.g. many of the articles make no mention of the organization in the article text (e.g. University of Arizona, University of Cincinnati). This category could be listified (e.g. to North Central Association of Colleges and Schools or to a separate list page), but IMO it would be better to generate any such list from a WP:RS. For info: According to the article the NCA accredits over 10,000 institutions. For info: This is one of a series of CFDs for similar categories (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_20#Category:Consortium_for_North_American_Higher_Education_Collaboration). DexDor ^(talk) 16:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- We have deleted numerous categories for association memberships. They are a variety of category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Accreditor is not a defining charateristic. One major problem is categories are supposed to be permanent, but not only do many institutions pre-date the existence of the current accrediting system, but some change what organization they are accredited by, one example that comes to mind being Southern Virginia University.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2015 (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.

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 12:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Arthropods of Italy to Category:Arthropods of Europe (the endemic subcat should also be upmerged to Category:Invertebrates of Italy)

Nominator's rationale: That a species (e.g. Porcellionides myrmecophilus or Zodarion lutipes) is found in Italy etc is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. If it is found only in one country/island then an endemic category can be used. Example of previous similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_21#Category:Spiders_of_Corsica. DexDor ^(talk) 16:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per previous discussions: an endemic category is useful, but lists are better methods for displaying non-endemic life, in order to avoid exhaustive and less defining categories. SFB 17:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above - the sensible growing consensus. Neutrality^talk 00:22, 24 May 2015 (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.

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/delete as specified. MER-C 12:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:States and territories established in the 1st millennium BC

• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 4 BC to Category:4 BC establishments and Category:States and territories established in the 1st century BC
• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 14 BC to Category:14 BC establishments and Category:States and territories established in the 1st century BC
• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 18 BC to Category:18 BC establishments and Category:States and territories established in the 1st century BC
• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 20 BC to Category:20 BC establishments and Category:States and territories established in the 1st century BC
• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 22 BC to Category:22 BC establishments and Category:States and territories established in the 1st century BC
• Propose merging Category:States and territories established in 25 BC to Category:25 BC establishments and Category:States and territories established in the 1st century BC

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, in nearly every instance there is only one article per category. (The categories in the bottom of the list will become empty as a result of the proposed merge.) This is a proposal to merge year categories of establishment of states and territories into century categories, which gives a nice amount of articles per century (starts with ~20 articles in the more recent centuries, ends with ~10 articles in the more ancient centuries). There is not even enough content for decade categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this structure is not helpful to navigation and fails to group similar material on shared characteristics. The merge will somewhat resolve this issue. [Anon]
• Support -- Some of the target categories will probably need merging in due course, but that process has only reached the 8th century so far. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2015 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:African American to Category:African-American society
• Propose renaming Category:Asian American to Category:Asian-American society
• Propose renaming Category:Korean American to Category:Korean-American society
• Propose renaming Category:European American to Category:European-American society
• Propose renaming Category:Slavic American to Category:Slavic-American society

Nominator's rationale: Rename. When Category:African-American topics was renamed to Category:African American in 2007, nobody suggested adding the word "society"; see discussion. However, at the top level, Category:Society is the parent of Category:Culture, Category:History and Category:People, so it would match this structure if Fooian-American society was the parent of Fooian-American culture, Fooian-American history and Fooian Americans (the latter being for people). The lead article in many cases is e.g. African American, the name of which refers to the identity, or e.g. Korean Americans (just renamed) which refers to the people; but the scope of the category is the society of the ethnic group. – Fayenatic London 07:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: we should not use the plural form e.g. Category:Korean Americans for the society category, irrespective of how the lead article is named, because that sounds like a category for biographies (in this case, it redirects to Category:American people of Korean descent). – Fayenatic London 19:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if any other editor would like to add more categories to this nomination, that would be welcome. – Fayenatic London 07:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a fundamental objection, but the target just sounds a bit odd to me. I'd mainly use "society" with a geographical/locational adjective, e.g. American society or urban society. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This nomination was prompted by a discussion on the Speedy page, see below. – Fayenatic London 13:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the grouping under the society heading probably makes these categories a bit more intuitive. The simple statement of the ethnicity (e.g. African American) feels like a strange grouping method – certainly we don't use that method for major parts of the tree such as Category:American or Category:European. @Fayenatic london: we do have one potential question: are things like Category:Anti-African-American organizations a good thing for inclusion into "African-American society"? Also, there are tons of other categories that should probably have the same question asked (e.g. Category:Slavic, Category:Romani etc). Or should these categories be moved to the plural, as in Category:African Americans. SFB 17:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SFB: For American and European, we already use Category:American society and Category:European society. I think it is valid to keep an "Anti" category within a "society" category, as it is an external pressure on that society. For Slavs, the existing Category:Slavic is what I am calling the "society" category and Category:Slavic people is the people (biographies) category; for Romani, there are Category:Romani and Category:Romani people respectively. Almost all ethnic groups have categories corresponding to these two layers. The naming varies, either using the plural or "people" for biographies. We should therefore not use the plural for the "society" category, except perhaps for hard cases where we are really stuck for a better name. – Fayenatic London 19:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: Sounds like a reasonable arrangement to me. On that basis we should potentially include categories like Category:Uyghurs in the nomination and suggest a change to Category:Uyghur society as well. SFB 20:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That renaming makes sense to me, as many biographies are in it due to the ambiguous name, whereas they should be down in Category:Uyghur people. However, one step at a time, perhaps? – Fayenatic London 20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rjensen: I would like to know what you think about this proposal? I am currently on the fence about it, but leaning toward opposing it. It is not called Asian American society studies in colleges. It is called Asian American studies.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am opposed. It emphasizes sociology/demography, and ignores literature, politics, culture, religion and related topics. The current title is okay; also okay is "Asian American studies" Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the latter alternative, the category is not about studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The subject is "Asian American", not "Asian American society", therefore I oppose the rename being proposed in this move request. Furthermore, basing this move due to the move of Korean American article, closed by a non-admin, IMHO is poor reasoning.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Assuming "society" doesn't get sufficient consensus, is there an alternative noun we can use? What about "African American identity"? If there are no alternative nouns feasible, then we should rather leave the name as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, why does there have to be something after the subject of the race? Looking at "African American identity" there are only two reliable sources which have that as a subject of study. However, "African American studies" has over 9.48 MILLION uses, therefore the subject being studied are the race of African American. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME the category should remain the same as it presently is. And any change from that flies in the face of that guideline.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, you are mentioning a noun now: "race". Though I wouldn't suggest using this in the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Race and ethnicity in the United States, and this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So? Do you imply that the category should be named Category:African-American race? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did not, nor do I, imply what Marcocapelle appears to now be advocating. Please see the reliable sources regarding the subject. The singular form is used most commonly referring to the subject of the group of individuals. Groups of individuals are referred to in the plural, the subject of the group is referred to in the singular. This is why it is not "Asian Americans studies", but "Asian American studies". This is why it is not "African Americans studies" but "African American studies".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please note that I'm not advocating anything at this moment. I'm just checking if there's any noun suitable to be used as a category name. "Studies" for sure isn't appropriate as category name, since the category is not about the studies themselves, but about the topic of these studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support absolutely any topic encompassing move that adds to the present titling. The present titles are basically compound adjectives and are nonsensical on their own. African American what?. The main topic is Americans and all the following articles are subsets. Articles such as Americans, British people etc. have sections on culture and other issues and nothing needs to change. We also have articles such as Korean Americans, Spanish Americans etc. and, even when such an article title is written in the singular, the article text will typically present the plural in the introduction of the text. The easy option with the "... American" titles is simple pluralisation. Articles such as Black British that aren't so easily given to pluralisation may present a more permanent problem. A main article is Society of the United States which is fed by redirects such as American society. GregKaye 12:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Backed by what reasoning? Asian American, and African American are nouns in and of themselves. In common spelling they are not hyphenated. See. This can also be seen at the Center for Disease Control website.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way are Asian American, and African American nouns? In usage each term is used in the singular. A description of a single "Asian American" person is "Asian American". When this is pluralised this becomes "Asian Americans" or, in other cases, a term like "Asian American" will typically be used in a context with a pluralised word as in the case of the the article that you mention which presents "African American men" and the website where it presents: "Racial and ethnic minority populations are defined as: *Asian American, *Black or African American, *Hispanic or Latino, ...". Please note the word defined and that the purpose in our encyclopedia is not to present a dictionary. We present content and, in the cases mentioned, appropriate and sensible titles might be "Asian American ethnic population", "Black or African American ethnic population" or "Hispanic or Latino ethnic population" (as being viewed within the context of the United States of America).

Barring Wikipedia the only place where I have otherwise seen "African American" as a stand alone title is in a dictionary such as in this definition from the "American dictionary", Merriam-Webster, Inc., a subsidiary of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. who present their article on the subject as "African Americans". This also applies to your See reference where the Oxford Learner's Dictionary presents: "African American (as a singular) noun (with the presented meaning) a person from America whose family come from Asia, especially E Asia" GregKaye 06:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the hyphenation issue I am also curious as to how you found the quoted Oxford definition.

I did a search on "African American" OR "African-American" OR "Asian American" OR "Asian-American" and the dictionary definitions that I sequentially found were:

• African-American - Merriam-Webster
• African-American - Wiktionary

then adding search term "define"

• African-American - The Free Dictionary
• Urban Dictionary: african-american
• Urban Dictionary: african-american
• African-american | Define African-american at Dictionary.com
• Asian-american | Define Asian-american at Dictionary.com
• African American dictionary definition | African American ...

I had to go along way to move from compound adjective hyphenated definitions and get to singular noun definitions. Beyond issues of usage I think that we have a duty to get things right on topics such as grammar.

GregKaye 08:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphen will be needed if the category name changes, because of Wikipedia's Manual of Style; it does not depend on external usage but WP:DASH. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here comes WP:DASH again. -sigh- Please see manual of styles regarding "Asian American", see MOS for several organizations such as John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, American Anthropological Association, Purdue University, American Library Association, Association of American Colleges & Universities etc. The noun for the subject is singular not plural, the noun is not hyphenated. While some dictionaries still use the hyphen (as what use to be common (such as in this NYT MOS)) that is not how it is used most commonly today, and among those who study the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No hyphen is used in the noun African American. However, when it is used as a compound adjective in "African-American society", it must be hyphenated. That's all I meant. If "society" is not added, then the category should stay unhyphenated. I think we all agree on this; sorry I wasn't clear. – Fayenatic London 05:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• At second glance I think it could just as well be downmerged to Category:African-American culture etc., but since it's too late to discuss that by now, I'm willing to support the nomination as the most reasonable alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as the current category names are too easily confused with their plurals, i.e., Category:European American with Category:European Americans (even though it is a redirected category). Funandtrvl (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2015 (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.

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 06:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Bible accessories‎‎ to Category:Bible‎‎

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles that already refer to each other in the text of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Doesn't seem like this can expand enough to become useful. Bible accessories is hardly a field of study in its own right either. SFB 20:33, 17 May 2015 (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.

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 10:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bible scribes‎‎ to Category:Biblical manuscripts‎‎

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. This one article seems to fit in Category:Biblical manuscripts‎‎ since the article is more about the manuscripts than about the scribe, though I'm open to other merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the category, rather than merge a biography where it doesn't belong. Instead, create a redirect in article space, Eadwig Gospels, to Eadwig Basan, and categorise that in Biblical manuscripts instead. – Fayenatic London 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good suggestion, I'll do that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with delete now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom. The one article has enough categories for a full upmerge to be unhelpful. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fay L. Neutrality^talk 00:19, 24 May 2015 (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.

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 12:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose downmerging Category:Bible organizations‎‎ to Category:Bible societies‎‎

Nominator's rationale: downmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article next to the target category. I have no objection against a reverse merge, though I think that Bible societies is the more common term. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No doubt many denominations, churches, seminaries and parachurch organisations would claim to be Bible organisations, but it would be unhelpful and non-neutral to collect them under "Bible organisations". – Fayenatic London 13:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per potential for confusion/broadening of term as stated above. SFB 20:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Reverse merge would be unhelpful and give rise to the US/UK selling conundrum. The question may be whether the one article in the subject actually belongs in it. It distributes bibles and certain otehr Christian books: that reminds me rather more of Scripture Gift Mission (now Lifewords) and Gideons International. The latter is categorised as a Bible Society, the former only as a Christian Mission. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2015 (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.

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 12:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Historical theories on Biblical events‎‎

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Upmerging to Category:Bible is not needed, the one article is already in two other subcategories of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the existing sub-cats cover what is needed. – Fayenatic London 13:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the one article is already in Category:Biblical archaeology. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion. Editor2020, Talk 01:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above; amply covered by other categories. Neutrality^talk 01:12, 23 May 2015 (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.