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 biographies. In terms of deletion, it seems there's a consensus to make sure Category:Female gender nonconformity is considered as well. This should be the subject of another joint nomination. bibliomaniac15 18:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Male gender nonconformity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This category seems to group any random man who has ever publicly worn a dress for any reason. None of these men publicly identify as gender nonconforming. Trillfendi (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment: Category:Female gender nonconformity should probably be nominated in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• At least purge the biographies, this is not a set category. If the category is not kept, there should be a manual check that the content that is relevant stays in the tree of Category:Gender nonconformity. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge biographies -- They should either be in a subcategory or not in at all. If a person regularly cross-dresses as a chosen lifestyle, it may be legitimate to put them in a category for that. Equally actors who regularly take parts requiring that. However male comics who play pantomine dames should not appear as that is a mere PERF category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge biographies cross-dressing as part of film acting never should alow to set this category. --Just N. (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Can't a man wear a dress without being labelled gender nonconforming? What's wrong with a bit of cross dressing? Category:Female gender nonconformity should probably be nominated in conjunction. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 08:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia sign-up lists for subscription delivery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:MassMessage delivery lists. A merge is not necessary since every single entry in this category is either already in that one, long-defunct, or both. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If the statements are correct it's only rational. --Just N. (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 18:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Signature songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted once before over 10 years ago. Because consensus can change, I'm bringing this relatively recent recreation to CfD. Previous arguments point to the subjectivity of one's signature song with I believe some confuse with biggest hit (which can also be subjective). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:OR. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. List of signature songs does the job, why this category which can be misleading and subject to abuse? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overly subjective.--Mvqr (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Petroleum companies by year of disestablishment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. Energy companies is good enough. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (An unsigned comment left here about ship names has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_2#Category:United_States_Navy_Alabama-related_ships.) – Fayenatic London 11:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an isolated tree with only one member despite having existed for several years, indicating it truly hasn't caught on. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, well, "Energy companies" is only "good enough" if it can be found. Energy companies by year of disestablishment was hidden away under "Chemical companies". I have now moved it up into Companies by industry and year of disestablishment. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @WilliamJE: what was your rationale for thinking that Category:Non-renewable resource companies by year of disestablishment was "Not a category for this page"?[1] Petroleum companies very clearly do fit in categories for Non-renewable resource companies. Please self-revert on any similar edits. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Diamond, iron ore, gold, silver companies aren't energy companies. They are a non-renewable resource company. This point was raised first[2] by another editor. Not all non-renewable resource companies are energy companies. Besides if you looked closely oil companies are categorized both energy and non-renewable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other editor took Energy out of Non-renewable resource – that's fine. But Petroleum belongs in both of those. – Fayenatic London 11:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made a mistake with that petroleum category. Mistaken edits by me aren't uncommon and I fix them if I discover them (or after being notified[3] by another editor) and usually with a edit summary of 'Oops' like here[4]. Trout slap me for the petroleum edit if you want. I deserve it. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:18, 8 February 2022 (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 , but a split to Category:Fictional medieval European people is clearly in order. – Fayenatic London 23:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional medieval people to Category:Fictional Medieval European people

Nominator's rationale: consistency with parent category. --Nigoyyakot (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would expect it to be "medieval" instead of "Medieval". Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- One of the people is clearly Asian. The problem is that the category is misparented. If anything the subject should be a child of the target, not vice versa. However much of the content needs moving to the target, which is more specific. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Peterkingiron. And Marco as well is right about "medieval" instead of "Medieval". --Just N. (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:HK LegCo Members 2020–2024 to Category:HK LegCo Members 2022–2025

Nominator's rationale: The actual term is 2022–2025. 119.237.103.149 (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:HK LegCo Members 2016–2020 to Category:HK LegCo Members 2016–2021

Nominator's rationale: The term was extended to 2021. [5] 119.237.103.149 (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2022 (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: Draftified. The good faith assumption is that a novice editor meant to create this as a draft. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Laura Dzhugeliya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Promotional/spam. Drakosh (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Empty category. Could have been tagged CSD C1. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete C1 – appears to have been created in error by a new editor. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Empty and maybe an error creation. --Just N. (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2022 (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 them all. (non-admin closure) Jehochman ^Talk 17:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:College athletic coaches in the United States to Category:College sports coaches in the United States
  • Category:Lists of college athletic head coaches in the United States to Category:Lists of college sports head coaches in the United States
  • Category:Lists of college athletic coaching records in the United States to Category:Lists of college sports coaching records in the United States
  • Category:Junior college athletic coaches in the United States to Category:Junior college sports coaches in the United States
  • Category:College athletic coaches in the United States by team to Category:College sports coaches in the United States by team

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:College sports in the United States and Category:Sports coaches.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2022 (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. The rename proposed by Peterkingiron could be given due consideration in a separate discussion. This question has not been addressed by a sufficient number of editors to form a consensus as yet. (non-admin closure) Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Islamophobic publications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is a contradiction in itself: it is not possible to add any articles into that category as the parent category category:Anti-Islam sentiment forbids categorising "persons, groups and media" under it. This follows from the category description and a RFC from 2011 here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories. Therefore, this category must be necessarily empty - and should be deleted. Mvbaron (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would not oppose this category as a matter of principle but I note that the categories are populated by articles that do not have Islamopohobia as a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The nomination is based on a discussion from 2011, that does not seem to represent current consensus. Dimadick (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but purge -- category:Anti-Islam publications. Some of the content relates to publications that are specifically and mainly ant-Islam. Others (such as Chick tract) are specifically promoting something else and have on occasions taken a swipe at Islam; another was a Hindutva publication promoting Hinduism and the ideology of BJP and its RSS militant affiliate. Where an organisation's main objective is to oppose Islam, it should be categorised as such; where it is about promoting another ideology, it should not be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I see that Category:Anti-Catholic publications is already being considered for deletion as well. Category:Antisemitic publications, which contains the most entries out of all these categories, seems to be left out of this round of discussions. Snuish (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  yep you're right, I simply forgot to nominate it - and in any case all these are included in the above mentioned RFC. Mvbaron (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The category serves important purpose for readers to know such publications which are self declared anti to a particular religion or community. This serves better purpose. Penandpencil2021 (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 01:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping Per suggestion of Tavix I am pinging the RFC participants who have not yet expressed an opinion here: Slatersteven, Herostratus, nableezy, Redrose64, Markbassett, Pincrete, DGG, Dimadick, Mlb96, FOARP, Inter&anthro, DeFacto, SnowFire, Fieari. Please add your opinion if you wish. Please also consider the next several discussions, which are closely related. Jehochman ^Talk 02:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not sure exactly what I said previously, but since WP is not censored, and covers negative and unpleasant topics, it has to organize them appropriately.I think that categorization of topics such as these is essential to our users, and can be done unambiguously for the obvious cases. , Of course, the categories should not be applied when it is not fully justified by excellent sources and explained in the WP article--and when it's a significant characteristic of the publication. But making these decisions is the same for all categorization. Of the ones listed in this group, most of them clearly qualify, while a few are incidental or just general far right wing. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We go by what RS say, if RS say it is islamphobic so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it remains my opinion. I think we have to look at the larger picture here. Yes you can have a publication that is Islamophobic, and neutral sources saying so. OK fine for some given individual case. The problem is, it doesn't scale. It's a constant headache to monitor stuff like this, and a damaging thing to ever get wrong, and an attractive nuisance for more-heat-than-light arguments about this fraught subject.

What's the purpose of a category? Mainly (not only, but mainly) so that readers can quickly find a list of closely-related articles. So, when a reader goes to this category page, is she looking of a list of Islamophobic publications, or a list of what various Wikipedia editors at various times and with various justifications using various interpretations of what sources are truly "neutral" or "have standing" (that is, sufficiently important for the reader to be notified of what they say), and (occasionally, sadly) various agendas, have elected to put in that category.

And after all, even if Time magazine calls a publication Islamophobic, it's still just their opinion. It's different then when Time states the publication's street address. And nobody's going to argue that Time is biased for or against Islam regarding the street address. For stuff like this, they sometimes will.

We don't have this problem with most categories. Category:Airplane crashes for instance. It either crashed or didn't. Sure, lots of categories have questions at the margins -- does USS Alaska (CB-1) belong in Category:Battlecruisers? It's debated. But in or out, including it can't unjustly insult and damage the reputation of the Alaska. It doesn't care. Being unjustly (or marginally, debatably unjustly) accused of Islamophobia is different. It is potentially libelous, actually.

Sure, we lose a little bit of value by not using this category or others like it. It's worth it not to make headaches for other editors and just have a generally annoying running sore, to my mind. And... I mean, it'd be a disservice to the reader to include the Alaska in Category:Battlecruisers, but not that huge a deal. But falsely informing her that a publican is Islamophobic when that's debatable... that's a problem.

Problems are bad. Let's not have them when we don't have to. Herostratus (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As I recognize that my opinion is counter to the RfC on the policy in general, I will not bold a !vote here, and leave this as a comment instead. I still believe that "bias categories" should be allowable for people and organizations that have been explicitly described as such in multiple reliable sources (and if they haven't been described as such in multiple reliable sources, then the article should be immediately removed from the category, as per any unsourced "fact", and also per BLP policy). This is not current wikipedia policy, which is frustrating to me. Per current wikipedia policy, I guess the category must be deleted, but I don't agree with it. Fieari (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, "then the article should be immediately removed from the category" doesn't mean "then the article will be immediately removed from the category". That's the rub. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My argument still remains as follows: Say that someone adds a bias category to an article, but no one notices it to remove it. Under the policy, nothing happens, because no one has noticed. Then someone notices it! Under the policy, it's removed immediately, but under how I think it should be done, it can be critically examined at this point and argued for or against. Before someone notices it, however, there's utterly no difference between the policy and not having the policy... noticing it is a prerequisite for ANY action, whether that be summary removal or otherwise. Fieari (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The RFC has been closed and leaves only one conclusion for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Islamophobic publications are very much a real phenomenon (though obvious that Western/Eurocentric types wish to deny the existence of such) and should not be denied. We do not deny the Holocaust or the fact that Holocaust denial publications and websites exist. Why is there always a double standard when it comes to Islam and Muslims? Denial of the existence of Islamophobia is wrong and as the phenomenon of publications advocating for violence and genocide against Muslims is real and cannot be denied, we should absolutely maintain this and similar categories. Laval (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but purge if necessary. Sorry for !voting so late after I was tagged, going through the articles included I think this category is at least partially valid. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2022 (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. This one is just barely a keep. (non-admin closure) Jehochman ^Talk 17:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Anti-Islam political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Anti-Islam political parties in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This whole category (and all related or similar categories) are supposed to be necessarily empty, as the parent category Category:Anti-Islam sentiment in Europe forbids filing groups and organisations under it quoting this RFC from 2011: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories. As this is supposed to be an empty category, it should be deleted. Mvbaron (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, also per WP:OVERLAPCAT, these political parties are sufficiently categorized as nationalist parties. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The nomination is based on a discussion from 2011, that does not seem to represent current consensus. Dimadick (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but purge -- Some of the parties categorised are specifically pro-Christian, in the sense of promoting the traditional values of a country. Unless the part is specifically anti-Islam and says so, it should not appear in the category. I found an Australian party that was pro-Australian values; and a Korean one that was merely ultra-nationalist, with noting being said of what it was against: South Korea is strongly Christian, but the traditional religion is Buddhist. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 01:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with the same careful judgment as for other similar categories. The RfC �was 11 years ago, and it cannot be assumed to still have the same consensus. We've gotten better at handling these topics since then. (or is it just that such organizations are now more prominent and clearer about their purposes, and therefore can be categorized more accurately. ) DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Copied from similar CfD above, Comment - As I recognize that my opinion is counter to the RfC on the policy in general, I will not bold a !vote here, and leave this as a comment instead. I still believe that "bias categories" should be allowable for people and organizations that have been explicitly described as such in multiple reliable sources (and if they haven't been described as such in multiple reliable sources, then the article should be immediately removed from the category, as per any unsourced "fact", and also per BLP policy). This is not current wikipedia policy, which is frustrating to me. Per current wikipedia policy, I guess the category must be deleted, but I don't agree with it. Fieari (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The RFC has been closed and leaves only one conclusion for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Anti-Catholic publications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Anti-Catholic organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Anti-Catholic activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a category that must be necessarily empty: [[As per wikipedia consensus (apparently, but no one upholds it) you are not allowed to categorise people, groups or media as "anti-catholic" yet this is a category for exactly this. Either this category needs to be deleted or we re-evaluate the consensus. --Mvbaron (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would not oppose these categories as a matter of principle but I note that the categories are populated by far too many articles that do not have anti-Catholicism as a defining characteristic. Two positive exceptions are e.g. American Freedom and Catholic Power and Preservative against Popery; these articles may well be moved to Category:Works about Catholicism. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The nomination is based on a discussion from 2011, that does not seem to represent current consensus. Dimadick (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it’s based on the widespread descriptions of virtually all categories of this sort, which links to a discussion from 2011. Mvbaron (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Anti-Catholicism is a properly defined viewpoint and groups such as the Ku Klux Klan made anti-catholicism a core piece of their ideology at one time. Whatever the previous consensus, these categories should be kept as defining. If we need to prune it to remove unrelated articles, then that is a different situation.--User:Namiba 11:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Namibia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Name-calling is not a good use of Categories, neither useful nor pragmatic and just seems slimy. Limit such categories to be it's defining behaviours or events and not as subjective judgements put by WP on people or organizations. Have content in their article text, as supporteable, but do not insert them into categories that oppose WP:BLPSTYLE or WP:LABEL. There was the 2011 discussion of bias labels and individual one Individaul discussion of Category:Homophobia - and nothing seems changed as to this being a bad thing to do. Delete the sub-categories specific to labelling activists, publications, and organizations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but purge -- Some of the articles are not specifically about antagonism to Catholics, but to ethnic or other groups who happen to be Catholic. Thus I find among the content a group that was anti-Ukrainian (but also persecuted Pentecostals) and an American one opposed to Irish immigration to America at the time of the potato famine. In both cases the underlying basis is ethnic, not religious. This similarly applies to loyalist (or Orange) organisations in the Northern Ireland troubles. There is a genuine place for these categories, but principally where the distinction really is theological, not ethnic/community. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Will ping RFC participants who haven't expressed an opinion yet, per discussion with Tavix.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. with the same careful judgment as for other similar categories. If we cover thre topics, we need to organize them. The RfC was 11 years ago, and it cannot be assumed to still have the same consensus. We've gotten better at handling these topics since then. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Copied from similar CfD above, Comment - As I recognize that my opinion is counter to the RfC on the policy in general, I will not bold a !vote here, and leave this as a comment instead. I still believe that "bias categories" should be allowable for people and organizations that have been explicitly described as such in multiple reliable sources (and if they haven't been described as such in multiple reliable sources, then the article should be immediately removed from the category, as per any unsourced "fact", and also per BLP policy). This is not current wikipedia policy, which is frustrating to me. Per current wikipedia policy, I guess the category must be deleted, but I don't agree with it. Fieari (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The RFC has been closed and leaves only one conclusion for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - at the very least for Category:Anti-Catholic publications and Category:Anti-Catholic organizations, for example Chick tract and Know Nothing were well known for promoting anti-Catholic views, this is mentioned in the lead for both respective articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2022 (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.