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. (non-admin closure) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 23:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Victims of Sikh terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not an expert on this subject, but it seems like an inappropriate overcategorization. I don't think we should sort categories by the religion of those who killed them. TM 22:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a member of Wikiproject Terrorism, I can tell you that we keep categories such as these as it helps in finding the related pages [1]. We also have Category:Victims of Islamic terrorism as a similar category. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to match the other categories in the category tree. Though Sikh terrorism is currently a redirect to the Khalistan movement. Secessionists who wanted to create their own state out of territories of both India and Pakistan.Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• How about a rename to Category:Victims of Sikh terrorism? DexDor ^(talk) 20:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per DexDor. Consistent with Category:Victims of Islamic terrorism. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @DBigXray and Dimadick: - Will you support the rename proposal? Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Anomalous+0, IMHO, there is nothing wrong with the current title, but for homogeneity with other categories, I am fine with the rename. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also fine with DexDor's proposal. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 16 February 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.

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 for now, without prejudice of recreating this category as a subcategory of Category:Islamophobia if properly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Discrimination against Muslims to Category:Religious discrimination

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, the subcategory Islamophobia. Rathfelder (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Recat. This should be a subcat of Islamophobia and of Religious discrimination. Incidents of discrimination should go here, while articles relating to Islamophobic attitudes/publications/whatever that are not about incidents of discrimination would not go here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roscelese! What if there are more/enough articles fitting "Discrimination against Muslims"? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: I'm afraid I don't understand your question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: Hey, your rationale is that the category has only one category and I meant to say that there are more suitable articles for it. Moreover, Islamophobia is a sort of discrimination but every discrimination is not Islamophobic. There are plenty of subjects which are specifically related to discrimination against muslims. That's why we can have a separate Cat for 'Discrimination against Muslims'. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: I'm sorry, I still don't follow. I'm advocating keeping the category and just putting it in a better place in the category structure. "Islamophobia" should be the parent category of "Discrimination against Muslims," not vice versa. Discrimination against Muslims is ipso facto Islamophobic discrimination, but not all our articles on Islamophobia are about discrimination. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Roscelese: Just recatting the way you describe would merely result in creating an empty category, I can't imagine that this is your intention. So what is your full idea, which articles would you move to this category after recatting? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, probably Category:Islamic dress controversy in Europe, Flying imams incident, 2009 Swiss minaret referendum, Trump travel ban, and Ban on sharia law? But this is mostly off the top of my head. There are also some redirects that could go in this category, like Discrimination against Muslims in France which goes to the "discrimination" subsection of Islam in France. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge not because it is not important, but because it is a one-member category (for Category:Islamophobia, with little scope for expansion as it does. The better answer might be to downmerge to that, but the effect would be the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 9 February 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.

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ruthenian voivodes to Category:Voivodes of the Ruthenian Voivodeship

Nominator's rationale: rename, this category is not about an intersection of nationality/ethnicity with a general type of official, but instead this is about people in a specific office, they were the heads of the Ruthenian Voivodeship. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:27, 11 February 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.

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. nomination no longer qualifies since the article has been moved as a result of an RM discussion (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:McClatchy publications to Category:The McClatchy Company publications

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is The McClatchy Company, and it's also a subcategory of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:The McClatchy Company. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Speedy discussion is available here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reason given above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the main article and consistency with the widely applied category naming convention that category naming should follow article naming except when the article name is ambiguous and more (not less) disambiguation is required. McClatchy is, unsurprisingly, ambiguous. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That logic is not consistent with widespread current WP:CONCISE practice for category naming (see: Amazon, Ford, Georgia, World Bank, many many others). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @UnitedStatesian: I am not sure what you mean. Category:Amazon and Category:Georgia are disambiguation pages, Category:Ford Motor Company corresponds to the article Ford Motor Company, and Category:World Bank corresponds to the article World Bank. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Falcon: It is in the subsidiary categories where, when obviousness makes the disambiguation completely unneeded, WP:CONCISE trumps and the cat name does not slavishly match the parent article name: Category:Georgia in the Roman era, Category:Ford vehicles, Category:Amazon hardware (but Category:Amazon mythology), Category:Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C., etc. So Category:McClatchy publications should also be fine. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I see your point, but there are plenty of counterexamples: Category:Ancient history of Georgia (country), Category:American Civil War forts in Florida, etc. And while Ford and Amazon have near-universal brand name recognition (although "Ford" is ambiguous with Ford Tractor Company), and one would be hard-pressed to imagine rainforest hardware, McClatchy does not have the same recognition and is not as clear-cut. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Per WP:VENUE We need to blindly follow the naming choices of the article space in CFD or we'll continue to have mismatches between articles and categories, which impedes navigation. Whether or not the article name is lousy (and here it is), that's a matter for a requested move. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @BlackFalcon, UnitedStatesian, and RevelationDirect: Based on the previous comment I started an RM for the article title. Feel free to join that discussion too. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Black Falcon: - Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Defer To the outcome of the RM consensus whether I agree with the outcome or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this as well. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• RM Outcome @Armbrust: The outcome of the requested move was Moved to McClatchy. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 10 February 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.

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 11:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Germanic people to Category:Germanic peoples

Nominator's rationale: Hesitant why this is split? Either as proposed, or perhaps merged which Category:Germanic ethnic groups‎? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Split between Category:Historical Germanic peoples for ancient and early medieval Germanic peoples, e.g. Cimbrian people, and Category:Germanic ethnic groups‎ for modern peoples that speak a Germanic language, e.g. Afrikaner people. The nominated category is an odd mix of those two targets. By the way, I'm not sure whether Germanic ethnic groups is a good description of its contents, but that is yet another discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Splitting between the Ancient Germanic tribes and modern groups is a good idea. However, Category:Germanic peoples is maybe still a better name than Category:Germanic ethnic groups‎ for the second group. Category:Germanic ethnic groups‎ currently has in it, besides articles about actual ethnic groups such as Baltic Germans and Afrikaners, a lot of nationality-based subcategories for people from countries usually regarded as Germanic without regard to ethnicity. For instance, Category:Austrian people is for people of Austrian nationality, not perceived Austrian ethnicity, and for instance contains Ryan Moseley, Austrian male sprinters born in Barbados. Place Clichy (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  For the second group I agree that Category:Germanic peoples is a better name than Category:Germanic ethnic groups‎. However Category:Germanic ethnic groups‎ should then be merged or deleted in a later stage. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarify that I agree in substance with splitting the content of current Category:Germanic people along the lines of @Marcocapelle:, between a group called Category:Historical Germanic peoples and a second group which, in my opinion, should be named Category:Germanic peoples. Place Clichy (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There is a split because the categories cover different topics.

• Category:Germanic people is a container category for Germanic individuals (People by ethnicity).
• Category:Germanic peoples is a container category for the Germanic peoples as a whole (Ethnic groups by language family). Krakkos (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Germanic peoples. The argument above that a category is needed for individual people of Germanic "ethnicity" is a joke, and the result is a category placing people of supposed Burgundian, Thuringian, Cimbrian, Saxon ethnicity, which are peoples of the Antiquity rather than "ethnicities" in the modern sense, on the same level with categories purely based on nationality regardless of ethnicity such as Liechtenstein people, Luxembourgian people, English people etc. If I may dare to bring it to Godwin level, even the Nazis, who knew a bit about Germanic ethnicity, considered that their ethnicity was Aryan rather than German, Germanic, Thuringian, Saxon or Liechtensteiner. None of these can be considered ethnic groups for the categorization of individual people as defined by WP:ETHNICRACECAT. The groups as a whole such as Cimbri, Jutes, Saxons, Danes, Flemish people etc., though, are definitely worthy of encyclopaedic interest, and should be categorized in Category:Germanic peoples or a subcategory. Place Clichy (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The addition "or a subcategory" is very important in this case. Half of the content should be put in Category:Historical Germanic peoples, hence my earlier split vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the nominator (changed username). Thanks to arguments presented I now support the solution of Marcocapelle and Place Clichy. PPEMES (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia has categories for Gothic people, Frankish people etc. Uniting these catogories and others in Category:Germanic people is both senseful and helpful. For a similar reason, we have Category:Turkic people, Category:Slavic people etc. This is not a joke. Krakkos (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Aleksandr Grigoryev, Blomsterhagens, RainbowSilver2ndBackup, Brandmeister, User:Peterkingiron and User:Greyshark09, who have participated in earlier related discussions. Krakkos (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Merging a category about individuals to one about ethnic/tribal groups? How does that even make sense? Dimadick (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Krakkos -- one is about individuals and the other about ethnic groups. The two names sound similar, but the content is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Merge - the two articles are about very different things, one is about individuals another is about groups of people. Merging these two therefore would be highly inappropriate. The validity of the categories can be discussed further in individual cfds, but merging is clearly the wrong option. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, don't want to influence vote directly, but in my perception peoples is not common English word. The article about Germanic peoples deals mostly with medieval Germanic tribes/clans. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:46, 11 February 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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Office comedy television series to Category:Workplace comedy television series
• Propose merging Category:American office comedy television series to Category:American workplace comedy television series
• Propose merging Category:British office comedy television series to Category:British workplace comedy television series
• Propose merging Category:Office comedies to Category:Workplace comedies

Nominator's rationale: There isn't a clearcut genre distinction between "office comedy" and "workplace comedy". It's certainly true that not all workplace comedies are necessarily set in offices per se (e.g. there are shows like Superstore), but it's not at all true that "office comedies" and "non-office-workplace comedies" get analyzed as two distinct genres of television show that would need to be separated from each other within the category system. There is, for example, an entire minigenre of thinkpieces on the internet about how Superstore is basically the direct successor of the canonical "office comedy" series, The Office (e.g. [2], [3]), and once you factor for the slight distinction of setting the "genres" largely put the same kinds of characters in the same kinds of stories and plots. Not to mention that in most cases, the "workplace comedy" categories exist only to parent the "office comedy" categories, rather than to actually contain distinct content — with one exception, which really highlights the absurdity of this distinction, being that Yes Minister is in the British workplace category, rather than the British office category, even though it's very much both things at once. Bearcat (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Office comedies & non-office workplace comedies aren't different genres, but I'd say that office comedies are a subgenre of workplace comedies. Whilst it's true that some shows have copied The Office US, it is a remake of The Office UK. Also, the format of The Office is a variation on previous workplace comedies such as Fawlty Towers. I disagree that most workplace comedies are office comedies. There are many, including Fawlty Towers, Taxi, Cheers, Dinnerladies, Scrubs, No Angels, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Party Down, 2 Broke Girls and Clipped whose settings are very different to offices. Jim Michael (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, not your own gut instinct, is who would have to tell us that "office comedy" is distinct enough from "workplace comedy" to require two separate categories. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete do we have Office comedy or Comedies in offices or some such article to show reliable sources consider this a notable genre? There have been many comedies that have been set in (or partially set in) "offices" going back years. But there are many that are set in work places of all sorts and all sorts of places where some "work" is done (such as restaurants, hotels, apartment buildings). None of these have proven to be real genres by reliable sources and they often compete with comedies of other "genres" for the same awards. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It is far from clear that office comedy television series is a notable genre. "Office" just refers to the setting. If kept, rename to Category:Comedy television series set in an office. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or change to Category:Comedy television series set in workplaces (or without the "comedy" if there is a need for non-comedy as well) which is continuing the naming style of the parent category Category:Works set in workplace (which should be "workplaces", similar to the plural of the other categories - Category:Works set on airplanes, Category:Works set in monasteries, etc.) which is placed in Category:Works by setting. --Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As my nomination — which is a merge proposal, not a deletion proposal — already made clear, all of the "office comedy" categories are already paralleled by "workplace comedy" categories that already exist. So we don't need to rename these to new reduplications of categories we already have, we just need to merge them into the categories that already exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is certainly worthwhile to consider a rename of the current targets to a "set in workplace" format in a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• An alternative would be to merge all content (except those in Category:Office comedies) to Category:Television series set in offices with no further diffusion, along the lines of Category:Television series set in restaurants. With that being said, I support the merge proposal as office TV shows are still workplace TV shows, although it should be ensured articles are placed in an appropriate Category:Workplace comedy television series by decade subcategory. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge settings of TV series are often defining, but office is getting too specific. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete people have put the cart before the horse here and we lack reliable sources to show this is a genre. For what it is worth Get Smart started as essentially an at work/workplace comedy, but morphed into something else over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 5 January 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.

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 Category:Government in the United States, but rename Category:Government of the United States to Category:Federal government of the United States. I will make the target page a disambiguation page. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Government in the United States to Category:Government of the United States

Nominator's rationale: I don't think the distinction is clear here; the category text claims that the "in" page is for state/local governments and the "of" page is for the federal government, but the contents suggest that isn't being clearly followed; many of the subcategories of both overlap with federal and state topics (for example "Impeachment in the United States‎" and "Public services of the United States" both have federal and state topics). If it's necessary to have a separate category for the federal government perhaps that category should be moved to Category:Federal government of the United States. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Subnational government in the United States and purge of anything that becomes misfiled as a result. There are a few other category pairs for other countries that are using the "of/in" distinction to separate the federal government from the subnational levels of government below it — but while technically defensible on a grammatical basis, it's a very opaque distinction to the end user (who may not necessarily always be a grammar expert or even a native English speaker at all.) For instance, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Government in Canada and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Government of Canada are also two separate categories, but have very large areas of overlap too. That said, there is a relevant distinction here, it's just not one that's adequately conveyed by the "of/in" thing — so it should be renamed for clarity rather than simply being merged. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt rename, the distinction will become much clearer this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support different rename - I propose that the category reflect the intention more clearly: ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:State / Local government in the United States A really paranoid android (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case it would be clearer if the category is split into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:State government in the United States and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Local government in the United States. But both those categories already exist, so in the end a merge turns out as the best solution after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom, but Rename target to Category:Federal government of the United States and make it a subcategory of nom. I would not oppose splits for state and local government. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not change Category:Government in the United States as it is a good solution to contain its current contents; rename Category:Government of the United States to Category:Federal government of the United States per its main article Federal government of the United States Hmains (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron and Hmains: Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. Please take into account that not everything in Category:Government in the United States refers to federal government only. For example the law enforcement and the elections subcategories contain a mix of federal, state and local level. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Government of the United States to Category:Federal government of the United States and rename Category:Government in the United States to Category:Government of the United States. The idea that local/state government is not part of public government is wrong. Having a mother category at Category:Government of the United States split into federal, state and local levels when relevant, while keeping common topics at the root level, is the best option. It is also more consistent with similar categories for other countries. Place Clichy (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose proposal to merge categories - In fact, Category:Government in the United States should become the parent/umbrella category for everything else. (See further comment below) Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE - I just posted a CFR notice at Category:Government of the United States regarding the proposal to RENAME it to Category:Federal government of the United States, which I strongly support. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment & recommendations - In the course of pondering how to proceed here I thought it might be helpful to have a look at how things were handled at some other countries' government categories, starting with Canada and Germany, both of which have Federal government systems somewhat like that for the U.S. Sorry to say, but they, too, are both something of a jumble.

I then took an extended excursion thru Category:Government by country, sampling an assortment of other countries, including some more with Federal systems, as well as a variety of other arrangements. I ended up checking into a total of 20 different categories, for the following countries: Australia‎, Brazil‎, Canada‎, Colombia‎, Ethiopia, France‎, Germany‎, India, Indonesia, Philippines‎, Russia, Sierra Leone‎, South Africa‎, Spain‎, Switzerland‎, Taiwan‎, Thailand‎, Tuvalu‎, Venezuela‎, Zambia‎. I also looked into Category:Federalism by country, as well as a slew of other categories.

To my complete NON-surprise, they were ALL something of a jumble, with some in better shape than others, but all of them needing work. I certainly won't pretend to have a total, comprehensive plan. But I did arrive at some basic conclusions:

• Most countries (except the very smallest) have a mix of national and sub-national governments. Therefore, the primary/umbrella categories should take the form "Government IN Country Xyz", rather than "Government OF Country Xyz".

The next rung should consist of a whole set of categories for national governments, which would be called either "National government OF Country Xyz" or "Federal government OF Country Xyz", depending on the particular country.

The "Government IN" umbrella categories will also include all of the sub-national government categories (states, provinces, etc), along with the local government categories -- and, of course, ALL of the other categories, i.e. ministries, judiciary, legislatures, etc. etc. (all of which are currently contained in the "Government OF" categories).

Okay, I guess that's about it. I really have to run now! Anomalous+0 (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if the current situation is really a problem. By far most articles about government are either wholly about national government or primarily about national government but also applicable to subnational and local government. Not surprisingly these two types of articles are mixed. Apart from that, there are some articles specifically about subnational or local government which each (can) have their own subcategory. Separating national government from government in general sounds like an unpractical way to go. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• First, thanks for giving some thought to my remarks. Here's the thing: I spent at least an hour-and-a-half looking through and carefully examining all those categories I listed, and the confusing welter of sub-categories and articles that mix all levels of government in together makes it very difficult to navigate and locate items that may be of interest -- even when a person is fairly familiar with the country in question, but all the more so when it is an un-familiar country.

This problem would be greatly alleviated by separating out, to the extent possible, the state/provincial & local material from the national/federal stuff. A big job, to be sure! Sorting things out for the whole complement of categories will require a massive, hands-on effort -- more than any one editor can realistically deal with. Perhaps a "Task Force" could take it on. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, but for the United States (which we are currently discussing) this is just a matter of further populating Category:State government in the United States and Category:Local government in the United States which both already exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per User:Anomalous+0, whose comment is spot on: Most countries (except the very smallest) have a mix of national and sub-national governments. Therefore, the primary/umbrella categories should take the form "Government IN Country Xyz", rather than "Government OF Country Xyz. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 9 March 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.

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 all, without prejudice to any subsequent proposal to delete any or all of the categories.
The discussion was a bit disjointed, owing to renaming and deletion being both on the table. It's clear that there is a consensus not to keep the categories at their current titles, but unclear whether there is a consensus to delete any.
Pinging the contributors @Doniago, Carlossuarez46, Marvin The Paranoid, Mr. Guye, LaundryPizza03, Steel1943, Dimadick, and Roscelese in case any of them wants to follow up with a new nomination to delete or merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Rename Category:Mind control in fiction to Category:Fiction about mind control
• Rename Category:Hypnosis in fiction to Category:Fiction about hypnosis
• Rename Category:Brain-to-brain communication in fiction to Category:Fiction about brain-to-brain communication
• Rename Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction to Category:Fiction about memory erasure and alteration
• Rename Category:Amnesia in fiction to Category:Fiction about amnesia
• Rename Category:Zombie films to Category:Films about zombies

Nominator's rationale: As with my past CFRs of this nature, make it clear that these categories are only to be used when the element of fiction is primary rather than incidental to the work. DonIago (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all suffer from all the problems of Foo about X type categories. How much about X must the Foo be for inclusion (and who decides that threshold question), and what reliable sources tell us that the Foo is at least that much about X? All WP:OR categories basically. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to echo @Carlossuarez46:'s comment - who gets to decide whether a fictional work is primarily (for example) about amnesia? If there is ambiguity, do we err on the side of inclusion or exclusion? Is a work like Memento (film), where amnesia is key to the plot, about amnesia, or about the difference between a deductive view of the world vs an objective one? But I'm not sure I'm firmly committed to the "Delete" viewpoint either; I can imagine that someone who is fascinated with Hynosis, wanting to read / listen / view more works on that topic, so perhaps there is value to these categories - and in that case, the Rename makes perfect sense. A really paranoid android (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that if there's a dispute about a specific work then that could be discussed at the Talk page for that work? In any case, I think a discussion about whether these types of categories are appropriate would need to be handled on a much larger level; this is the fourth (or more) CFR of this nature I've opened up (all of which have passed to date), and it's safe to say there's a vast number of categories of this nature. I think an RfC would be necessary to make a broad decision to delete them. DonIago (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Zombie films as it does tend to be a defining characteristic of many movies, including most if not all of it members. No comment on the rest.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also keep current name of Zombie films because IMO that title more strongly implies that Zombies are the primary topic than the alternative. I also am in favor of Deleting Category:Amnesia in fiction as too similar to the less subjective Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction. Again, no comment on categories I haven't mentioned. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Clearer scope. Though I am quite puzzzled at the supposed difference between "brain-to-brain communication" and telepathy. Dimadick (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Zombie films as is. That's how they're usually referred to as, it's extremely defining, and there are 12 subcats of it, most of which would also have to be renamed if we change the parent category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Here are some thoughts about the individual categories:
  • Category:Mind control in fiction: Rename either to the proposed title or Category:Fiction about mind control or hypnosis, depending on the decision made below. I would prefer "or" as the coordinating conjunction as that would make it clear that the members do not need to include both elements.
  • Category:Hypnosis in fiction: Rename as proposed, unless the distinction from Category:Mind control in fiction is too unclear (I'm thinking about the precise mechanism of the mind control tech in Incredibles 2), then merge into above.
  • Category:Brain-to-brain communication in fiction: Delete since the distinction from Category:Fiction about telepathy is unclear (per Dimadick) and it contains only the aforementioned category and two articles.
  • Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction: Rename either to the proposed title or Category:Fiction about memory erasure and alteration or amnesia, depending on the decision made below.
  • Category:Amnesia in fiction: Rename as proposed or merge into above. The tricky part is sorting out cases where amnesia is a preexisting condition (e.g. 50 First Dates or Finding Dory), since these would definitely not belong in the above category. But where should trauma-induced amnesia go if it occurs during the plot? This may require a separate nomination per WP:TRAINWRECK.
  • Category:Zombie films: Keep as is per Mr. Guye and JDDJS.

Also, the current title format would be appropriate for category redirects, as has been done at the similar CfD on October 2, 2018. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Zombies/Delete All Others The zombie films seem defining, but the rest are common plot devices that aren't generally defining. No opinion on name for the Zombie cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• May want to strike this, as you !voted prior to the category being relisted. :) DonIago (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep zombies, memory, and amnesia. Based on the category contents, these seem to be central premises of at least many of the relevant articles, and scholarly work has been done on these topics. Delete hypnosis (and Category:Films featuring hypnosis): the contents appear to generally include hypnosis in a trivial way, and those articles where it is relevant can be categorized with the mind control articles. I'm not clear on what the distinction is between brain-to-brain and telepathy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 9 February 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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mosques in Acre, Israel‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Acre, Israel‎ Category:Mosques in Israel
• Propose merging Category:Mosques in Alexandria‎ to Category:Places of worship in Alexandria‎ and Category:Mosques in Egypt
• Propose merging Category:Mosques in Almaty‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Almaty‎ and Category:Mosques in Kazakhstan
• Propose merging Category:Mosques in Astana‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Astana‎ and Category:Mosques in Kazakhstan
• Propose merging Category:Mosques in Bandung‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Bandung‎ and Category:Mosques in Indonesia
• Propose merging Category:Mosques in Chiang Mai‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Chiang Mai‎ and Category:Mosques in Thailand
• Propose merging Category:Mosques in Colombo‎ to Category:Places of worship in Colombo‎ and Category:Mosques in Colombo District

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories contain 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Marcocapelle: WP:SMALLCAT only applies where there is no hope for the category expanding. Just because categories may only have one or two members doesn't mean they should be deleted. The city I checked first, Manisa, has two members right now, but I'm not buying the assertion that a 300,000+ city in a Muslim-majority country, there are only 2 notable mosques. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultimately every category has hope of expanding, the question however is by how much and how soon. Categorization aims to help easy navigation between similar articles and it is not helpful for navigation now to have a whole lot of 1 or 2 article categories which may be expanded to 5 articles each in the next 50 years of Wikipedia existence. If it would concern a state capital with 2 million people more than two notable mosques might be expected but in this case with Manisa two mosques isn't a really exceptional low number. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, @Marcocapelle: - you completely misunderstand how WP:SMALLCAT is meant to work. It is for categories which cannot ever expand beyond a few articles, e.g., ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Presidents of the Confederate States of America. If it is plausible that small categories can be easily expanded beyond having only a couple of members, WP:SMALLCAT does not apply - as it says in its description. Grutness...wha? 12:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose These categorization is a starting ground/place for further expansion (either slow or fast). My usual rule of thumb is, if there are at least two worship place in a particular city, then it is worth to make a special category for it (e.g. Category:Mosques in city ABCD). If there is only one mosque in that city, then only I will move it up one level (and not make the category for that city) and put it into the country categorization (e.g. Category:Mosque in country AB, in which ABCD is a city in that AB country) Chongkian (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Many contributors to this forum use a rule of thumb of at least 5 articles in a category, rather than at least 2. I have been very conservative in that respect. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the merging of the Category:Mosques in Acre, Israel‎ and the Category:Mosques in Tel Aviv‎: both could easily be expanded to 5 mosques (and, one day, hopefully will be). Just because I, or anyone else editing in the area haven't gotten around to making these articles does not mean that they will not be done, For Tel Aviv, read Petersen, 2001, pp. 161−175 (under Yaffa), for Acre, read Petersen, 2001, pp. 68 ff., As for the the other cats: I have no opinion, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: for Tel Aviv (Yaffa), we have commons categories of three mosques which presently do not have any articles on English Wikipedia: (and all 3 are treated in the Petersen book): Ajami mosque, Jabaliya mosque and the Siqsiq Mosque, Huldra (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - despite the considered approach by the nominator, and it is to be commended, - there is quite a considerable disincentive for editors in the Indonesian set to see or understand the regional approach to features that articles can be made about - when the locality to country shift in this proposed change might occur. I believe in the southeast asian context to revert to country level denies complexity of regional issues. Not necessarily a cogent reasoning for cfd territory - but for understanding context - the opportunity to expand from a lpace name than a country name is something that should be encouraged rather than reduce. JarrahTree 23:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about this comment. Of course the mosques in e.g. Chiang Mai should remain Category:Buildings and structures in Chiang Mai, and therefore the local link will remain. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The assumption here by some seems to be that all mosques are default notable. That is not true, so for now we should categorize based on the article we have, not the articles that people dream may one day exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All of these contain 1 or 2 articles and don't aid navigation. It's not clear these cities have many more notable mosques but, if the article count ever gets up to 5 or so, no objection to recreating.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose Yet again, a complete misapplication of WP:SMALLCAT which is - quote - [for] categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members and does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth [...] may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. Unless these cities/regions have no other mosques worthy of articles, they don't fall into those criteria. And given that Wikicommons has images of at least five mosques in Acre, 12 in Alexandria, five in Bandung, seven in Manila, seven in Jhelum, five in Makhachkala, seven in Doha, six in Moscow, and 17 in Tripoli, it seems clear that these categories are expandable. If the consensus is to delete, then there should be no prejudice against them being recreated at a later date when there are more existing articles. Also, in the case of Tel Aviv, if it were expanded to cover the whole Tel Aviv district, or even just Tel Aviv-Jaffa, it may already pass your five article criterion. Grutness...wha? 12:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Having an image in Wikicommons does not imply at all that the mosque is a notable subject. Places of worship are mostly notable because of their historical value, and only a minority of places of worship actually have historical value. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per User:Grutness. - Darwinek (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all per nom. If somebody gets around to creating 5 mosque articles per city, then feel free to re-create the category. Until then, let's avoid crystal ball gazing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:49, 6 February 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.

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:People from Sainte-Foy–Sillery–Cap-Rouge. The older category Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City, which will become a sub-cat of this one, is well-populated, and may be worth keeping; if anyone thinks it should be merged, please start a new nomination. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Births in Sillery to Category:People from Quebec City

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not use the category system to segregate people who were born in a place from people who moved there after birth. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator. Per the long-standing guidance at WP:Categorization of people#By_place "People are sometimes categorized by notable residence", but birth in a particular place is explicitly ruled out as a basis for categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (1) Merge, however with Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City and rename the latter category as its current full name as an administrative territorial entity (Q56061) — Category:People from Sainte-Foy–Sillery–Cap-Rouge — with Sainte-Foy–Sillery–Cap-Rouge being one of Quebec City's six arrondissements. Or instead, if possible, option #2:

(2) Delete and still rename Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City as Category:People from Sainte-Foy–Sillery–Cap-Rouge. When this discussion is completed, I can make the proposal for the renaming of Sainte-Foy's category, as it appears that this would need to be addressed separately. Cap-Rouge, Quebec City, the location of the first French settlement established in North America, as Charlesbourg-Royal in the year 1541, was previously an independent city, as well, until the 2000–06 municipal reorganization in Quebec.

Rename. Thank you for your proposal, as I erred in its naming. I should have followed the categorization and naming conventions exemplified by Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City on the English language Wikipedia, and which was created as the Wikidata item and claim of Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City (Q13284499), employing the property category of associated people: Property:P1792, which combines person related to this place (Q19660746) and Sainte-Foy (Q14875569). Sainte-Foy, Quebec City is directly, geographically adjacent to Sillery, Quebec City. Both were formerly independent municipalities of the province of Quebec, in addition to being human settlements and parishes dating back to the 1600s of New France, and legally independent from Quebec City, until 1 January 2002. However, Sillery was the only one of the two aforementioned municipalities to retain an administrative status — as a French: quartier and its residents are legally represented by the French: conseil de quartier de Sillery (See conseils de quartier (in French).) Therefore, I propose that Category:Births in Sillery be renamed as Category:People from Sillery, Quebec City.

As an aside and FYI, if one is not aware, there is a Wikidata property, category for people born here: Property:P1464, which is utilized to make the claim of Category:Births in XYZ, for place of birth (Q1322263) XYZ, e.g., Category:Births in Thuringia (Q8076345). Several other language wikis utilize these Wikidata birth location category claims as categories on their respective wikis, e.g., Catégorie:Naissance en Thuringe, and are used on Commons, e.g., Category:Births in Thuringia, but it appears that the en wiki does not. Dcflyer (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dcflyer: Note that "people from" is much broader than "people born in". Category:People from Quebec City will probably also contain people who lived there as an adult but not as a child. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: I realize that there is a distinction between "people from" and "people born in," hence the two separate Wikidata claims regarding these two distinct facts. The category currently under discussion contains seven individuals whom were born in Sillery, as well as having had spent significant portions of there lives there, including it being the place of their death and/or burial, according to cited sources. There are other individuals whom are the subjects of additional English language Wikipedia articles whom meet the criteria of "people from" this location, when it was a legally recognized independent city, as well. Following the logic and speculative nature of your statement, "Category:People from Quebec City will probably also contain people who lived there as an adult but not as a child," Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City should be deleted, as well. Dcflyer (talk)

• Marcocapelle's point is that we do not use the category system to separate "people born here" from "people who were born elsewhere but lived here as adults" into two separate groups. We use one category to contain all people who belong to either group, and do not create separate categories for the born-in vs. lived-in-later distinction. So no, the arguments against this do not also apply to Category:People from Sainte-Foy, Quebec City — that may perhaps need to be merged as well, but the reasons for or against it will be completely different from the reasons for or against this. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I recognize, as I previously stated, the distinction between "people born in" and "people from," as well as the :en: wiki's utlliization of the latter category as a singular one which is based upon both of those biographical data, despite the fact that Wikidata makes clear distinctions between the two. Consequently, "born in," "people from," and "died in" Wikimedia categories are created on Wikidata, as was the case with Sillery, Quebec City, and these three categories are utilized on Commons, and to the best of my knowledge, on most or all of the non-English language Wikimedia projects, as well. The issue that I was actually addressing in my reply to Marcocapelle was the statement, "Category:People from Quebec City will probably also contain people who lived there as an adult but not as a child." I misinterpreted the statement in terms of Quebec City's relationship to Sillery, and I further added to the confusion by addressing Sainte-Foy, Quebec City's :en: wiki category, in the same context. For that I apologize, and did not mean any disrespect for the constructive input added to the discussion.@Marcocapelle: _____ Dcflyer (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2018 (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: containerise/delete as nominated. This follows the recent precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_1#Category:American_people_of_African_descent. Here are links to the diffs (containerise, 1,672 pages;[4] delete, 235 pages[5]) in case editors find scope to expand parent categories such as Category:Afro-Bermudian. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Containerize Category:Antigua and Barbuda people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Argentine people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Bahamian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Barbadian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Brazilian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Canadian people of African descent
• Containerize Category:Colombian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Cuban people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Dominican Republic people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Haitian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Iranian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Latin American people of African descent
• Containerize Category:Martiniquais people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Mexican people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Panamanian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Peruvian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Puerto Rican people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Saudi Arabian people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Surinamese people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Uruguayan people of African descent‎
• Containerize Category:Venezuelan people of African descent‎
• Delete Category:Bermudian people of African descent
• Delete Category:Bolivian people of African descent
• Delete Category:Costa Rican people of African descent
• Delete Category:Curaçao people of African descent
• Delete Category:Dominica people of African descent
• Delete Category:Ecuadorian people of African descent
• Delete Category:French Guianan people of African descent
• Delete Category:Grenadian people of African descent
• Delete Category:Guadeloupean people of African descent
• Delete Category:Guatemalan people of African descent
• Delete Category:Honduran people of African descent
• Delete Category:Nicaraguan people of African descent

Nominator's rationale: containerize (or delete if there aren't any subcategories), it is perfectly fine to keep these categories as container categories with subcategories for Gambian, Moroccan, Kenyan etc. descent, but having articles directly in them implies a mere racial use. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion which is still open for discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl, DexDor, Necrothesp, Hmains, and Dimadick: pinging contributors to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Containerise all per nom. I regret that this is necessary, because it prevents these categories being used where there are reliable sources where the origin is too vague for by-nationality categorisation, e.g. "mother emigrated from West Africa in the 1930s" ... but it's the only way to prevent them being used a proxy form of racial categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Containerise/Delete all per nom. These categories are for people of specific national descent, not general ethnicity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the mother category is Category:People by ethnic or national origin so both are equally applicable. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Specific ethnicity, yes, but not just "he's black so he must be of African descent" (or equally, "he's white so he must be of European descent"), which is the issue here! That's far too generic to categorise here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See articles such as African diaspora, Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Americans, Afro-Arabs etc. These are specific ethnicity. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See categories such as Category:African-American people, Category:Afro-Brazilian people, etc. Highly recognised ethnic groups like this already have categories. They do not need to be here as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• First choice would be Delete all, because no one has shown that having (how distant?) African (how much? from which part? and for how long?) descent is meaningful. Cleopatra was African by birth, Macedonian by descent, would her descendants - had she any - belong in these categories or is someone using OR by looking at skin color as proxy for descent (no one has put Elon Musk in Category:Canadian people of African descent for example; does he not belong? what Reliable Sources say so?). These are even more screwy because we all have African descent (no more than 70,000 years ago, and 100% if we're homo sapiens), right? Alas, Containerise and Delete is a first step toward normalcy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Containerize/delete per nom. This stuff is really not helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all descent categories per C46 above and per non-defining, DNWAUC etc (some of the articles, e.g. Chakib Hocine, have categories for countries that aren't mentioned in the article text). Containerizing would be a small step in the right direction. DexDor ^(talk) 23:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course someone's descent is defining as long as it's recent. Where someone's parents, grandparents or even great-grandparents came from is generally pretty defining to them. Where their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents came from probably less so! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone may consider where their parents etc came from (and also things like being married, being tall, ...) defining to them, but that doesn't mean it's a defining characteristic of the subject of the article. DexDor ^(talk) 21:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary intermediate categorization level. Intermediate descent categories by source or destination continent or region have burgeoned lately out of nowhere, that's where they should go back imho. Place Clichy (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also agree with deleting these intermediate continent categories and retaining only individual country categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or containerize all per above, and per precedent of deleting "descent" categories. Catrìona (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - sources are not always available on the specific country of origin that the individuals are from. Therefore it isn't necessary to containerize. If there aren't reliable citations to prove ethnic origin, than the articles shouldn't be in the category in the first place. The delete !votes above, in particular SMcCandlish and DexDor, display a lack of understanding of WP:COP and are little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT Inter&anthro (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If you take the effort to check the articles that are in these categories you will notice that nearly all of them lack reliable citations. These categories simply serve as a magnet to classify people by color of skin. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Inter&anthro: If the specific country of descent cannot be sourced, then the article should definitely not be in any descent category. Au contraire, if an ethncity is mentioned in reliable sources for an individual, and it has a significant role in their biography, the article can (should) be placed in the relevant ethnicity category instead of an of African descent category. There are plenty, such as Category:Afro-Brazilian people which you cited. Place Clichy (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In a lot of these countries well over 80% of the population is of African descent. We should get rid of these categories for the exact same reason we do not put people in the category American people of European descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which countries exactly? Because with the exception of the Caribbean countries people of African origins do not constitute more than 15-20% in any of the other countries based on census data. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - from a practical perspective, I'm at a bit of a loss how to proceed. Back in the dark ages, we had Category:Afro-Trinidadians (an ethnic group). That was CFD'd and replaced with Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Black African descent. Which was CDF'd and replaced with Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of African descent (possibly after some additional intervening steps), which is now up for deletion. We seem to be going in circles. Note that this category is part of Category:Trinidad and Tobago people by ethnic or national origin, which includes parallel categories like Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Indian descent. Now while I have reservations about the current system, it is what exists. Now granted, in a Trinidadian context, "of African descent", "Afro-Trinidadian" and "black" aren't always parallel terms (someone of African descent can identify as black, African, Spanish, Dougla, Chinese, "red", or in some cases, "Trinidad white"), and people can identify with more than one category. Obviously, ethnicity is far to complex to reduce to a few categories - but that's what people use. And in a society where political parties draw much of their support along ethnic lines, it can be a very useful categoriser.
  It isn't helpful to keep going around in circles every few years. I don't care what we do, but I would like something that's consistent and that's stable. Because I'm tired of these popping up every few years. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There is actually no need at all to place every single black person in an ethnicity category, or for any other ethnicity. Wikipedia categories are in principle reserved for DEFINING characteristics that have a significant bearing of the life of an individual. In this case, if a Trinidadian is famous for reason A or B or C, but that being black did not otherwise influence their life more or less than any other Trinidadian, they probably categories Trinidadian A, B or C are sufficient. Place Clichy (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Place Clichy: Yes, I'm well aware of that. I've been grappling with this issue on Wikipedia since c. 2004. The point is that (a) ethnicity can be important enough of an identifier to require these categories, and (b) if these categories exist, people will populate them (and if they don't exist, people will create them). And CFD seems to be sending us from A → B → C → A. Guettarda (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guettarda: Consensus can change, and I would not take a 2008 CfD with only 2 opinions as policy carved in stone. In this case, Afro-Trinidadians and Tobagonians definitely seem to be a subculture and worthy topic eligible for a dedicated category according to WP:EGRS, which in fact exists at Category:Afro-Trinidadian and Tobagonian. This has nothing to do with a descent container category for all people with ascendants in any African country from Cape to Cairo regardless of culture or ethnicity, which is what is discussed here. Place Clichy (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware consensus can change. I'm annoyed that it has gone in circles. Guettarda (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - I am of the view that we ought to get rid of descent categories altogether, and that it was a colossal error to adopt Xian people of Y descent as our standard naming convention, but those are topics for another discussion. Simply put, many of the nominated "descent" categories are misnamed ethnicity categories (cf. Category:Afro-Brazilian people) that should be pruned and renamed, not purged or deleted—e.g. Category:Bolivian people of African descent → Category:Afro-Bolivian people (see Afro-Bolivian), Category:Honduran people of African descent → Category:Afro-Honduran people (see Afro-Honduran), etc. These categories need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and a mass nomination like this one simply does not afford that opportunity. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• While that would be a good solution in theory, the mentioning of - and sourcing of - Afro-fooian ethnicity in the articles is very exceptional so in practice this will lead us nowhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It would still be preferable, in my opinion. If the article content does not support it, then the net effect is still to containerize the category, but without restricting the option of articles being added in the future. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, this discussion has been listed at the administrators noticeboard with a request to close. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in many of these countries this is a majority or vast majority of the population, we avoid such categorization by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you already !vote above? Anyway the argument that these countries have a "vast majoirty" of African descent population has already been debunked as well by taking a quick look at anyone of these countries cencus data. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- In many of these countries there is a black (or mixed race) majority. Immigration (by force - as slaves) was 200-300 years ago. Without detailed research it will not be possible to determine the origin of most people; and often the records probably do not exist, even as to which slaving port they were embarked from, let alone their tribe of origin. Furthermore we are now perhaps 8 generations away from that time, a stage at which an individual will have about 250 ancestors. Their descent from any one of these will be utterly NN. Descent categories are potentially useful within few generations of arrival, particularly where a community has remained separate from the majority, but not otherwise. I would not oppose containerisation. The question is however is whether any generalised "African" categories should be allowed to have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 9 February 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.

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. A majority of participants supported renaming, but no reason was offered to counter the objection by Black Falcon that this would make the nominated category inconsistent with the sibling cats of Category:Biota by biogeographic realm (and, I see, with the parent Category:Afrotropic ecozone). Since WP:CONSISTENCY is part of WP:AT (and thus of WP:Category_names#General_conventions, which says Standard article naming conventions apply), I count this objection to be well-founded in policy, and hence determining despite being a lone voice.
There is clearly support for the principle renaming from "ecozone" to "biogeographic realm", so a group nomination with included all relevant categories would likely have a different outcome. Pinging the nominator DexDor, who may wish to make such a group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Afrotropic ecozone biota to Category:Biota of the Afrotropical realm

Nominator's rationale: Reason: (1) To match the article (Afrotropic ecozone redirects to Afrotropical realm), (2) Consistency of category name structure with other species-by-region categories (e.g. Category:Biota of Africa). Alternatives (e.g. Category:Biota of the Afrotropic ecozone) could also be considered (personally I think "ecozone" is clearer than "realm").

Note: The category was originally named "Afrotropic biota"; the "ecozone" was inserted by CFDS.

Note: Any changes resulting from this CFD should also be made (e.g. by a subsequent CFD/CFDS) to other categories (e.g. the fauna/flora subcats). DexDor ^(talk) 18:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds reasonable. We do like them to match.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging User:Peter coxhead - I notice some categories say, for example, "This category contains articles about ... that have a Palearctic native distribution, rather than being limited to particular continents or countries.". If that's how (all) these realm categories should be (in which case any country etc subcats should be removed) then maybe these categories should be renamed (or replaced) (for clarity) to, for example, Category:Biota with an Afrotropical distribution. DexDor ^(talk) 08:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Much of the biota distribution category system is a total mess (partly due to now banned editors/socks NotWith, Caftaric, etc.) For plants (i.e. "Flora of ..."), there's a clearly explained system (at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions), but editors insist on creating categories that intersect these (like Category:Flora of Russia). For animals, a key problem remains that the boundaries of the continents used (see the map at Category:Fauna by continent) are not clearly defined, particularly that of Oceania. You can't combine fauna and flora distribution continental categories to produce biota ones, although editors have, because the two systems use quite different continents.

  I tried to produce something sensible at Category:Spiders by location, but so long as Category:Spiders of Russia exists, the system can't be hierarchical, because Russia is in Europe and Asia, which is why Category:Palearctic spiders has a subcategory, when it really shouldn't.

  So to return to the proposal and DexDor's question, in my view only a radical overhaul, which would be a major task, would produce a system in which sensible questions could be given sensible answers. But I agree that "Biota of ..." is more consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Peter. My strategy at the moment is to make small-ish changes each of which improves things a little. I've put some notes at User:DexDor/BioGeoCat - comments on that are welcome. DexDor ^(talk) 09:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on procedural grounds. While I support the overall rationale, this change would make the category inconsistent with the rest of Category:Biota by ecozone. I would be willing to start a group nomination for the affected categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment, this discussion has been listed at the administrators noticeboard with a request to close. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support/Expand The parent category's main article is Afrotropical realm so I'll support because having the same name in the article and catgory space helps navigation. However, that parent category (Category:Afrotropic ecozone) and a sister category (Category:Afrotropic ecoregions) should be renamed later.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:16, 10 February 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.

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. This was a close call, and if the title of the head article was more certain, I would probably have closed this as rename. But the page currently titled MMR vaccine and autism has a lengthy recent history of page moves not based on a WP:RM discussion, and Talk:MMR vaccine and autism is forest of unclosed or inclusive formal and informal discussion on the page's title.

It is astonishing that the nominator here (User:JzG, aka "Guy") did not disclose in the nomination that the page was moved[6] to its current title by Guy only two days before this nomination. It is also astonishing that Guy did not disclose that this was done without a formal RM discussion, and that Guy later reverted[7] another editor's move as Non-consensus page move.

As an admin, JZG should know way better than to treat page titles in this way. He should know not to act as if he was an RM closer when he had been a vocal partisan in the discussion. He should know to disclose his prior role when making this CFD nomination.

If and when the two warring ideological factions in this dispute can bring themselves to drop the mutual and habitual WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct to a proper, formal WP:RM discussion which is closed by an independent admin rather than than short-circuited by a partisan ... then a new CFD nomination might fare differently. But what are the chances of good conduct in this topic area? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:MMR vaccine controversy to Category:MMR vaccine and autism

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent article, recently renamed as the word "controversy" is WP:UNDUE in context. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. The discussion on the article has not concluded, and there seems to be strong opposition there to the "and autism" title. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting, though, the close to universal opposition to "controversy". Guy (Help!) 09:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong oppose This nomination is part of a broad, totally rubbish NPOV pushing attempt to move article and category names away from conveying truth to conveying some sort of 11984-esque double speak. There is a controversy, and just saying it is settled and all is good is probably the perfect way to give more power to those who do not agree with you. There is controversy, and to try to write it out will not change that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This new name conveys a veneer of respectability to all those unfounded allegations of connection between MMR vaccine and autism. Ruslik_Zero 09:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- This was a case of bad science that ought to have failed to pass the academic refereeing process. The result is that it is now in the nature of a fringe theory. It was a controversy and the word is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per other comments, the proposed change is ironically both a part of a large-scale pro-vax** POV-push AND makes it sound more like MMR actually does cause autism. **By "pro-vax POV-push" I mean an attempt at editorializing and renaming controversies out of existence, stating the established fact[8][9] that vaccines don't cause autism is in no way a POV push. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Premature/Wrong Venue The article name is currently being discussed on the talk page. Once there is an outcome, then we should change the name to match whatever the outcome (whether I agree with it or not). RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The "and" wording is extremely neutral. It does not say there is or there is not a controversy. It is better than the current name regardless what name the article will get. There is no controversy within science, and there never was. There is a controversy between science on the one hand and ignorant fringe proponents on the other, and there have been unsuccessful attempts at replicating Wakefield's initial study. Categories for this type of "controversy" get their names either from the fringe idea only or, if it is less fringe, using "and".
  • Category:Holocaust historicity controversy, Category:Holocaust denial,
  • Category:Evolution-religion controversy, Category:Evolution and religion,
  • Category:Earth shape controversy, Category:Flat Earth theory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There is no genuine controversy, despite Johnpacklambert's counter-factual attempt to gin one up. Tornado chaser's rationale, on the other, is just plain baffling. --Calton | Talk 06:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Vaccine and autism is a much more precise definition. It does not rule out the idea that there is a controversy.Rathfelder (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Strong Support - Vaccines and Autism is a much more NPOV title and also reflects the consensus of scholars in the area. we can both describe the disbelief in a small subset of the population and also be NPOV. this renaming is the way to do that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This discussion was previously closed with the following note: The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (Non-administrator comment) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 14:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The discussion at Talk:MMR vaccine and autism has resulted in a clear consensus against using the term "controversy". The proposed title is neutral, and doesn't falsely imply a false equivalence between science and anti-vaccine propaganda. Bradv🍁 14:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Now Current main article is MMR vaccine and autism and the category should match to support navigation. Whether I agree or disagree with the name is always a place for Requested Moves and the main article Talk page, not in the CFD venue. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:27, 3 March 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.

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 (Talk) 14:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wildlife diseases to Category:Animal diseases

Nominator's rationale: The category doesn't make clear whether it's for articles about diseases that are only hosted by wild animals or whether it's intended to include diseases hosted by farm animals, pets, humans etc. If the former then most/all of the current contents should be removed (e.g. Giardiasis can be spread by humans) and it would be hard to define the category (e.g. once a disease is observed in a zoo would it need to be removed?).  If the latter then most of the hundreds of articles in Category:Animal diseases would  belong in this category.  All the other subcats of Category:Animal diseases by host are for specific types of animals (fish, birds etc) and that seems a better (e.g. more defining) way to categorize.  Other problems include that the name of the category doesn't make clear that it's specifically for animals (plants are also sometimes considered to be wildlife). DexDor ^(talk) 19:06, 5 February 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.

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. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Health-related timelines by country to Category:Healthcare-related timelines by country

Nominator's rationale: All the articles are timelines of healthcare, not health Rathfelder (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have no objections to swapping out the term "Health" for "Healthcare"; The important thing about this is the categorization of the articles. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If renamed, we would need to create Category:Healthcare-related timelines as an intermediate level between this category and Category:Health-related timelines. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we could manage without that. Or we could leave off "by country" in order to leave room for other sorts of timeline. The disease timelines actually include both epidemiology and treatment. Rathfelder (talk) 08:17, 7 February 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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:New Century Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation. New Century Foundation is a very small operation, and there is little prospect of any great increase in the number of articles beyond the current four (including the parent article). Guy (Help!) 09:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We have references on affiliated publications which do not have articles yet. There is scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Dimadick (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

These are not even discussed in the main article, so clearly a long way off ready. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So Jared Taylor publishes American Renaissance (magazine) and corporate entity he uses is New Century Foundation. It's not clear to me that the main article is even notable. (The 4th article, Pioneer Fund, just gave a grant to this outfit so it doesn't belong in the category, even if kept.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge (e.g. remove Pioneer Fund from the category), change category text (to say "about" rather than "related to) and remove some parent category tags (e.g. the 1994 category tag belongs on the eponymous article, but not the category) - or delete/upmerge. DexDor ^(talk) 06:38, 14 February 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.