< March 31 April 2 >

April 1

Category:Coma patients

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 Category:People with disorders of consciousness. While everyone proposes different methods of going about this, there is wide agreement that this category should not be kept at its current name and that there should be some category out there to cover disorders of consciousness. This fits into existing category trees that categorize patients by their disorder or disease. There is no consensus on the issue of whether there should be a subcategory for persistent vegetative states. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a specific type of patient is not a defining characteristic of a person, so categories should not (and generally do not) contain the word "patient". Instead, the common Wikipedia categorization for people with diseases is "People with X" - see Category:People by medical or psychological condition. (For full disclosure, there are currently 2 other "patient" categories, located in Category:Patients. These will also be brought to CFD.) In cases where an illness is defining of a person, the article should be categorized in "People with x", where x is the illness causing the altered state. "Coma" is a non-specific term that does not define a person. Any person on mechanical ventilation is in a medically-induced coma, and adding all people ever on a ventilator to this category doesn't make sense. Additionally, many people who have had traumatic brain injuries or hypoxic and ischemic brain injuries have been in a coma. For people that have been in a coma for a brief time after an injury/illness, I do not think they need to be categorized under "coma". I think the intent of this category was for people in prolonged comas, which by definition are actually persistent vegetative states or maybe minimally conscious states. These entities fall under the umbrella of disorders of consciousness. These types of people are better categorized in disorders of consciousness. I have reviewed all of the articles currently in Category:Coma patients, and they now all have other, more-specific categorization relating to their medical issue relating to coma. Therefore, this category can simply be deleted. Scott Alter (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That must be one boring film. (-: I'm open to some sort of compromise but it would be good to have a medically based time cutoff so we don't run into WP:ARBITRARYCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current Category:Coma patients is not a useful category as it stands now. It is currently a combination of people in "long-term" comas, medically-induced comas, and brief (few days or less) comas. People are not defined by having been in a coma. I went through all of the articles in Category:Coma patients, created and populated Category:People with disorders of consciousness with "long-term" coma patients. This new category contains people only notable for being unresponsive for a prolonged period of time. Everyone else should not even be in a category for "coma," since it is not defining of those people. I created the new category, since "Disorders of consciousness" is actually fairly specific - probably more-so that "coma." Since the current Category:Coma patients has lots of inappropriate articles, I didn't think a straight rename would be appropriate. I don't think we need both Category:People with disorders of consciousness and "long-term coma." Since "long-term coma" has no medical meaning, I would advise against that name. Additionally, creating an arbitrary cutoff for the category also seems inappropriate. That's partially why I think "Disorders of consciousness" might work. If anyone has a better name than this, please advise. So no one has to go through the articles in Category:Coma patients again, I'd suggest deleting Category:Coma patients and renaming Category:People with disorders of consciousness to whatever the group thinks is best. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing renaming a reduced Category:Coma patients; who knows what else is in Category:People with disorders of consciousness? If they all had comas, ok. But add Sunny von B, and Michael Schumacher. I see it is a subcat of "People with brain injuries" - is that medically correct? Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I created Category:People with disorders of consciousness, I went through Category:Coma patients, and only put in patients who actually met criteria. Disorders of consciousness is a defined entity, so you shouldn't have confusion about this. They all had "comas," but after a while, most were categorized as a persistent vegetative state. Both persistent vegetative state and "long-term" coma fall under the category of "disorders of consciousness." In order to have a disorder of consciousness, you must have had an insult to the brain. Thus yes, everyone who is in this category (or "long-term" coma, whatever that means), has had a brain injury. There are 2 types of brain injuries: traumatic and non-traumatic. I have also tried to clean up this category structure a bit, which is separate, but somewhat related to this category. Previously, there was only Category:People with brain injuries, which contains Category:People with severe brain damage, which contains Category:Coma patients. There is no technical definition of "severe" brain damage, so I think this is a likely useless category that should no longer exist...but that's a CFD for another time. As subcategories of Category:People with brain injuries, I created the more-appropriate Category:People with traumatic brain injuries and Category:People with hypoxic and ischemic brain injuries‎ (maybe better named as Category:People with non-traumatic brain injuries, but that is not an actual medical term or diagnosis). I then diffused Category:People with brain injuries between these two categories. Anyone with a permanent disorder of consciousness (ie not a medically-induced or "short-term" coma) was not placed in this category, but was placed in the appropriate brain injury category. While a brain injury may lead to a disorder of consciousness, it may not and the person may fully recover. If a notable person has a brain injury causing a disorder of consciousness, then they should be categorized in both places. If a notable person had a brain injury and fully (or partially) recovered, the brain injury may or may not be a defining characteristic and should be categorized appropriately. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are actually different medical conditions (or can be), with different ICD codes etc - see the articles. I don't think we should do a mass re-diagnosis. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - they are different. "Disorders of consciousness" should cover them all though. Thus, why I chose that name. And since "long-term coma" is not a medical term, nor is it defined anywhere, I would not use that name at all. Any other suggestions are welcomed. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2016 (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:Wikipedians who use Chrome

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 and redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Chrome is a short from for Google Chrome and as the Google Chrome user category is more populated I am proposing that the Chrome user category be merged into it. --Devin Murphy (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2016 (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:7th century in the Rashidun Caliphate

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 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The caliphate began and ended in the same century (632−661). This sub-classification is redundant. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2016 (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:Rashidun

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 10:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Umayyad caliphs and Category:Abbasid caliphs. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Links @Al-Andalusi: See WP:RM for the templates for a requested move. If successful, he category could then be speedied through WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2016 (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:Sahabah favored in Sunnism

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 to Category:Sahabah; mark Category:Sahabah favored by Shias as WP:non-diffusing. – Fayenatic London 12:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Sahabah (companions of Muhammad) are all favored by Sunnis, otherwise they wouldn't be referred to as Sahabah. That would be like saying "Disciples favored by Christianity". Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2016 (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:Ebola patients

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a patient with a specific disease is not a defining characteristic of a person, so categories should not (and generally do not) contain the word "patient". Being a patient generally assumes that one is undergoing continuing medical care for the issue. Instead, the common Wikipedia categorization for people with diseases is "People with X" - see Category:People by medical or psychological condition. (For full disclosure, there are currently 2 other "patient" categories, located in Category:Patients. These will also be brought to CFD.) For most infections diseases, people either die from them or are cured of them (with the major exception being HIV/AIDS). For Ebola, the defining characteristic is either death from the disease or survival from the disease. People with Ebola aren't active patients for long. Either they die or they recover. Both the "deaths" (Category:Deaths from Ebola) and new "survivors" (Category:Ebola survivors) categories are more specific (and IMO better) categories than a generic "patients". This schema parallels established categorization with similar rare or potentially deadly infectious diseases: Meningitis (survivors/deaths), Smallpox (survivors/deaths), and Syphilis (survivors/deaths). Scott Alter (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2016 (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:Baseball players from Brisbane

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has only one entry. Also per multiple CFDs, here[1], here[2], we don't categorize baseball players by city. If a merge is the outcome of this CFD, an upmerge into Australian baseball players should be done for Brisbane also. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:42, 1 April 2016 (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:Individual crosses and crucifixes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to merge; as a result it is necessary instead to re-populate this category. Although the current contents of the nominated category are almost the same as Crosses by form, excluding only the top level of High crosses, the current contents are incomplete, as many individual crosses are currently only in Crosses by function and not in Crosses by form. Such pages should be added back into Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes. As for the sub-cats by form including articles that are not on individual crosses: there is currently no point keeping Category:Forked crosses as a sub-cat of "Individual crosses", as it only holds one individual cross; but WP:SUBCAT allows flexibility where most of the members fit within a parent category, e.g. 12 out of 13 within Crux gemmata, so that one can stay. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to all parent categories, only contains one child category so is an unneeded level of categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that wasn't too bad - take a look at it now. We now have about 60 articles on individual crosses, so this is very useful. But Bermicourt is a menace frankly. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree, but if one has to go it should clearly be the other, or there is no way to keep crosses in the "individual objects" category tree, which is an important and rather undeveloped one. Category:Christian crosses is probably not needed either. Certainly there are far too many layers here, but try pursuading Bermicourt of that. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the merge proposal as listed on top, the category was being kept in the "individual objects" category tree, because it said merge to all parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a mess, and categories for individual objects, as opposed to types, are a significant tree from which you deliberately removed all these. Rather obviously, it is not designed to "cater for the many articles of types of cross". These would have been far better kept together than micro-divided - few readers will bother to hunt through the new sub-categories you have set up. While it may be fun setting-up a bunch of new categories, it is frustrating for actual readers to attempt to find something in a forest of thinly-populated micro-categories. I have tried discussing your edits with you before, and while you are open to "explaining" what you think you are doing, you are not open to considering changing it. Deliberately emptying a category without discussion is clearly against correct procedure, but I doubt that will bother you in the slightest. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I happen to disagree with that point of view and simply acted in good faith to improve the categorisation. But I see why you are so cross: you created the category someone is now proposing to merge. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; sometimes things go the way we would like and sometimes not. But that's no reason to be uncivil or continue with personal attacks. I am open to discussion and change, but I also accept consensus. I encourage you to do likewise. Bermicourt (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, all editors have the liberty to boldly diffuse categories without prior discussion. Nobody "owns" a category. If you disagree because the new categories become too small, you can simply nominate them for upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT in this very forum. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously it is more than that - if it was merely diffused it would not now be nominated for deletion. Bermicourt was interested in one type of categorization. He achieved that and at the same time (completely unnecessarily) destroyed the existing type of categorization by removing and mixing the articles. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Proposal That works for me. I have no objection to re-creating a true individual crosses category, but if kept in it's current form though, it's false advertising.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Its current form, or its form when nominated? As explained, it was absolutely fine when created, containing only articles on individual objects, which it now pretty much does again. Unfortunately I don't think Marcocapelle's suggestion works, not least because the name of Category:Crosses by form isn't clear enough. Experience shows that a) Categories that contain only actual objects are very useful and important and b) if they aren't clearly titled as such they rapidly get cluttered up with other articles. None, not one of the 13 articles currently in the head cat of Category:Crosses by form are about individual crosses - understandably they are all about types of crosses. So it would be inappropriate to parent it to Category:Individual physical objects - "false advertising" as RevelationDirect puts it. Make no mistake about it, supporting this nomination is supporting suppressing a branch of the individual objects tree. The only sensible way of having a category for Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes is to have a dedicated one, called after its contents. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another problem with the current Category:Individual crosses and crucifixes. It includes articles in the sub-cats which are generic not individual objects e.g. Crucifix, Crux gemmata, Stone cross, Basalt cross, Forked cross, Celtic cross, Conciliation cross, etc. So they would need to be broken out and categorised separately, which IMHO is unnecessarily complicated and separates the generic article from examples of its type. For clarification I add below the template on which I based the restructuring of the categories. It wasn't designed by me, but I think it brings a clarity that the old structure didn't. Both template and category tree allow for future expansion. Bermicourt (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, more restoration to the situation before you got busy messing up the categories is needed. Yes, it is. The template has no articles on individual crosses at all, and is useless as a way of finding them. Just because you are not interested in grouping actual objects, it doesn't mean that our users aren't. Actually the template and current category structure have their problems too, but there's no need to further complicate this discussion. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't act as my spokesman - "you are not interested in grouping actual objects". In fact, you're wrong anyway, I don't mind object grouping at all, but it shouldn't rule out other ways of categorising, nor should it include non-objects. And please stop breaking Wikipedia's guidelines on discussion by attacking me personally "you got busy messing up categories" - it undermines your credibility and is frowned on by the Wikipedia community. Bermicourt (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If so, why did you devote so much effort to emptying this this category, and why are you voting now to delete it? You make no sense at all. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with your use of language. If you don't agree with other editors, say so, but don't imply they are idiots because their viewpoint differs or you can't understand them. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Marcocapelle's latest suggestion, this amounts to keeping the repopulated category we are discussing, but under a less clear name. If Category:Crosses by form (which is not well named in the first place, as many are divided by country etc rather than form) is the name, one would expect generic articles to be there. If it is, once again, to be for individual objects only, which is fine by me, the much clearer old name should be used, and this nom withdrawn. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, it is perfectly clear that Crosses by form contains individual crosses. If it wouldn't, hypothetically speaking, it should be called Category:Cross forms instead. By the way, I'm neutral about the word "form", am open to an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea why you think this is clear! It just isn't. Experience has shown that it wouldn't be clear even to other WP editors, who have always added generic articles to categories unless they specifically include "individual" in the name. You can't assume that readers spend as much time getting used to niceties of WP category-speak as you have. Johnbod (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're doing as proposed, Category:Crosses by form will become a container category and readers who don't spend time on categories will never see and use it, instead they will see and use its child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2016 (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:Roman-era students in Athens

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, these people are defined by their later occupation, not by their studentship. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case it's also not an alumni category of a particular school. (On the side, I would probably not oppose if someone else would nominate the entire alumni tree.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2016 (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.

Panhellenic Games

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 12:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in each category. No need to upmerge, articles are already in correct categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2016 (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:Bishops appointed by Julius II

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge (per C2B or C2C). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. DexDor (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2016 (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:Recursion

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.

Draft:Template:Humor icon An April Fools nomination

The result of the discussion was: Speedy keep, just no. kelapstick(bainuu) 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Everyone knows that a category can't contain itself. But this one has to, or it wouldn't make sense otherwise. Just delete outright and avoid the confusion. :P Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:18, 1 April 2016 (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:BMI songwriters

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 12:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic for any of these musicians/songwriters in this category. Plus, wouldn't this be true for almost any published songwriter these days? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:22, 1 April 2016 (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:Deaf educators

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: purge and rename. – Fayenatic London 12:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many of those listed here will be both, but educators who are deaf, but teach hearing people, and educators who aren't deaf but teach the deaf shouldn't be thrown together in a single category. PanchoS (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with that alternative proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2016 (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:Organizations named after people

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Organizations named after people
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME
This category groups a wide variety of organisations in different countries (no two articles are from the same nation), different purposes and different structures. The only thing they have in common is that they were named after someone. One is named after a long dead person the founders found inspiring (1), one was established immediately after the namesake's death based on their will (2), and yet another was founded by the namesake during their lifetime (3). So, even though they are all named after people, they have those names for different reasons. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified SoSivr as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Organizations. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2016 (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.
More