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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another attack category. Even though this one doesn't attack the people included within it, it still by implication attacks a certain group of people. "Victims of TERF violence" uses the term "TERF", short for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist", which obviously expresses a POV hostile to one particular strand of feminism. Categories should be neutral and encyclopedic; they should not reflect controversial opinions or take sides in arguments for or against feminism or anything else. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nominated. We already have several long-standing categories in this area, such as Category:Gender identity related violence, Category:Transphobic violence and Category:Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes. I don't see how this category is conceptually different. Also, if this category is to be removed, then its contents should be merged othercategs such as those listed above. However I am not aware of any policy which guides us to avoid causing offence to perpetrators of hate crime (or any sort of crime). WP:NOTCENSORED. There may be other, more policy-based reasons, to remove this category, but the nom's rationale comes across as itself taking sides. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, the category is "conceptually different" because it attacks a group of feminists by labeling them "TERFS". The word "TERFS" is not a generally accepted English term, of the kind one finds in dictionaries. It is a slang term, used by a particular group of people with opinions about sexual politics, to attack another group of people with different opinions about sexual politics. It is manifestly prejudiced, and it damages Wikipedia's reputation to include this kind of rubbish within it. The fact that some people might be offended by the use of the term "TERFS" isn't the relevant point; the relevant point is that "TERFS" is a non-neutral, attack term only ever used by one group to attack another they dislike. The other categories you mention simply are not similar in this respect. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But terms such as "neo-stalinist" are also not used by the people so labelled, yet we have Category:Neo-Stalinists. We categorise people in that way only if there are sufficient reliable sources. Is there some deficiency in the sourcing of the articles in this category? In this case, no biographical article is being categorised as a "TERF". So any attack is at best indirect. "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" gets 39 hits in gscholar, so its not some sort of neologism and not as you claim a slang term. When the term has scholarly use, WP:NOTCENSORED seems esp relevant. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't obscure the exact term that is under discussion here. "TERF" as such is a slang term, even if "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is sometimes used in scholarly literature. So strictly speaking, you should be arguing for category called "Victims of trans-exclusionary radical feminist violence", except that presumably there is no real scholarly literature discussing this as an actual topic, making the category an obvious piece of POV crap? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"TERF" is an acronym for the scholarly term "Trans-exclusionary radical feminis[tm]". If you like, the acronym can be expanded.
And do read that list of gscholar hits. There is plenty of real scholarly literature discussing this as an actual topic ... unless your definition or "scholarly" excludes works by people you disagree with. I'm getting a sense here that your username doesn't entirely reflect your approach to academic writing. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have forgotten what is actually under discussion? We are discussing a category called "Victims of TERF violence". Is there scholarly literature specifically discussing "TERF violence" and its victims, as opposed to simply "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" in general? Because for this discussion, only sources specifically about "TERF violence" and its victims matter. Condescendingly telling people to read the scholarly literature does not actually show that "TERF violence" has received discussion and is not a substitute for evidence. You ought to be able to list real academic articles about it, if they exist, instead of simply providing a list of supposedly relevant Google hits. Besides that, it pays to remember that academic writing can be and sometimes is lacking in neutrality, such as in cases where the academics concerned are involved in a political or ideological dispute. In such cases, some extra measure of caution is required in using academic sources appropriately, in order for Wikipedia to avoid taking sides in an ideological quarrel. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before we move onto that narrower ground, @FreeKnowledgeCreator, please can you clarify whether you are withdrawing your claims above, i.e. "TERF" as such is a slang term? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a term that is not part of standard English. I believe that is the relevant point. It is associated with a certain select group of people who are very concerned with sexual politics and it reflects their views; its meaning would not be apparent to ordinary people. The category is thus inappropriately named, even if there were a need for it, which I don't believe there is, on the basis of the evidence produced so far. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as well as WP:SMALLCAT as there are only two articles in it, and it does not appear to be defining for either of them. JDDJS (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to Feminist_views_on_transgender_and_transsexual_people#The_term_"TERF" not providing tight defining definitions, let alone speaking to definitions of being a violence victim, let alone to name specific examples. If mainspace doesn't name examples of such people under the parent article, then it is quite a stretch to start categorising by it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many people who self-identify as TERFs are going to assault others with that as the admitted reason? Vanishingly small. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and frankly I'm not seeing too much violence (or victims of violence) in the one article that is in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; I support keepingCategory:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists for reasons described below, but it's one thing to identify, objectively and with RS's, that a particular academic espouses a particular, well-defined position; it's an entirely different thing to reliably and objectively link a particular violent event to that particular subset of academic thought, over and above any other. Violence rarely comes with a clear statement of intent and agreement among accounts. While there are certainly instances of violence that can be reliably and objectively linked to TERF ideology, the category invites much fuzzier cases – and while some fuzziness is tolerable in some categories, a topic that creates as much passion as this one simply cannot be fuzzy. —swpbTgo beyond 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename. The only person listed in the category is Sandy Stone (artist), nowhere in whose article can I find an explanation of how she has ever been a victim of "TERF violence." Also, the term "TERF" is a pejorative exonym and therefore WP:POV. EIN (talk) 02:52, 29 January 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:delete , WP:SNOW. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The problems here are obvious. The category obviously appears as though it is designed to attack or denigrate people whose articles are included within it, implying that they suffer from some horrible condition or prejudice called "biphobia". Category should be deleted for BLP reasons. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A BLP-dangerous classification, and Biphobia (parent article) does not name individual. The characteristic is not yes/no, but will cover a spectrum, it would required a tight definition before being suitable for classification, even if it were BLP-acceptable. Support applying WP:CSD#G10, as BLP unacceptable unless, at least, done carefully following discussion and a clear consensus. I am reminded of my old opinion that category-creation should require a special permission of a level that the creator of this category would not be granted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a made-up label for opponents. No objective criterion is available for its use. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason we don't allow Category:Racists or other categories that are intrinsically accusatory. — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:39, 19 January 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:Delete, at least for now. The vast majority of commenters are reacting to "TERF" as if it is a slur imposed by those endorsing one side of a complex argument; that it might've not been originally intended as one doesn't change whether or not it is now perceived as one. We have almost always banned categorizing individuals into categories like "Antisemites" and "Racists," and most commenters seem uncomfortable with making a Category:White supremacists-like exception for this emotion-fraught term. So deleting at least for the moment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I would have thought the problems with this one were obvious. "Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists" seems like a clear case of a category designed to attack or denigrate people whose articles are included within it. What constitutes "trans-exclusionary" is a matter of argument, and the very term seems to express a POV. Category should be deleted for BLP reasons. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose is disingenuous. The category "Trans-exclusionary radical feminists" isn't like the examples you mention as it inherently reflects one side of a political or ideological argument, as a term used only to attack or discredit one's opponents - it is inherently non-neutral and unencyclopedic in the same way that "Stooges of capitalism" or "Zionist collaborators" would be inherently non-neutral and unencyclopedic categories. There is a difference between including terms that some might find offensive and including terms designed specifically and only to be offensive. The former is OK, the latter isn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cats you mention are for people who self identify as such. I doubt that and of the people in this cat self identify as this. JDDJS (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, is it the "radical feminist" or the "trans exclusionary" which you object to be used as a label? Because members of this cat are only too happy to attract either of these (WP:PRIMARY), and there is ample robust secondary coverage to cover them too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The objectionable part is "trans exclusionary", which is only used as an attack by people involved in one side of an argument. It inherently conveys disapproval or disagreement with their views, which is why it's not an appropriate category. (In contrast, people obviously label themselves radical feminists, and no one is objecting to the term, whether they support radical feminism or not). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term TERF was not coined as a slur - it comes from Viv Smythe, ten years ago, who stated at that time that it was no more than a subset of radical feminists. If Jeffreys, Moore, Burchill or Bindel have attracted opprobium since for their attitudes within this term, that's their doing.
Do you seriously dispute than Bindel is "exclusionary of transexuals from within feminism" (under whatever term you'd like to apply)? Because Bindel herself seems pretty clear on the subject,[1] and shows no sign of having moved from that viewpoint since. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @JDDJS:: not so. Neither Category:Islamists nor Category:Neo-Stalinists are restricted to people who self identify as such. You should have checked that yourself before posting an inaccurate assertion.
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" gets 39 hits in gscholar. Please can you identify reliable sources to support your description of it a term used only to attack or discredit one's opponents. On the face of it, this is a descriptive term for an an ideological position, denoting a subset of the accepted term radical feminism/Category:radical feminists ... so your assertion of hostile intent needs robust evidence.
It is especially important that you provide evidence in realiable sources for your assertion that "Trans-exclusionary radical feminists" is designed specifically and only to be offensive. That very extreme claim totally excludes any possibility of non-malicious use. Does your exclusion of any possibility of non-malicious usage reflect the balance of scholarly work on the topic? Or is it your own psycholanalysis of motivations of the scholars and journalists who use the term? Or does it perhaps indicate that you are pushing a POV here? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BHG. There is ample sourcing for the existence of TERFs. FreeKnowledgeCreator is currently busy edit-warring at Julie Bindel (perhaps the most well-known and self-identified as such, per JDDJS' comment) to remove them from this category. This is probably not a complimentary category, but this is very clearly Bindel's position on such matters and, as such, she gets to own the label too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What sourcing? Literature attacking one group of people based on their opinions about sexual politics, by a different group who disagree with them? If that were adequate sourcing, then one could just as easily create unflattering categories designed to attack those supportive of transpeople. Wikipedia simply should not be doing that sort of thing, per common sense. You are missing the point that categories need to be neutral. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" gets 39 hits in gscholar. Are you claiming that academic papers you disagree with are attack platforms. Do you routinely characterise academic debate as "attacking"? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of nonsensical question is that? Of course academics can attack each other, as well as non-academics, in or outside of debates. Where did the idea that academics don't attack, or that debate excludes attack, come from? Using scholarly literature is fine, but it is necessary to keep in mind that it may be lacking in neutrality when the scholars concerned are involved in some kind of political or ideological dispute, and hence we need to be appropriately cautious and conservative in employing sources, in order not to take sides where some controversy is being played out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. So you really do characterise academic debate in scholarly papers as "attack", and you apparently think that scholars are supposed to be "neutral". Oh dear. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood me, whether deliberately or not. I did not suggest anything about whether scholars ought to be neutral, which would of course have been irrelevant and off-topic. The point is that we Wikipedia editors should be neutral and should not support one side in a scholarly argument or dispute as though it represented a non-controversial consensus. The problem with "Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists" is that it does exactly that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. The term is now used exclusively as an insult, which makes it inappropriate as a category, especially for living people. See "What is a Terf? How an internet buzzword became a mainstream slur", New Statesman. What would be the criteria for adding it to an article? If one RS repeats that a single person or single group has described someone as a terf, would that be sufficient grounds to add it to the person's BLP? It would be like creating Category:Misogynists. We had discussions years ago about not creating this kind of cat, but I don't know how to find them. SarahSV(talk) 01:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I haven't looked at them. WP:CAT says: "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate."I wouldn't support List of misogynists either, so that last point isn't very helpful, but the rest of it is relevant. This cat will always be controversial. SarahSV(talk) 01:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SarahSV, if you haven't considered the scholarly usage, and decline to do so when pointed to it, then your assertion that the the term is now used exclusively as an insult amounts to little more than personal POV-pushing. As you note, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial"; it does not say "must always".
I see no dispute that, for example Julie Bindel and Sheila Jeffreys are a) radical feminist; b) trans exclusionary. Nor do I see any argument that these are not WP:DEFINING attributes of their work.
The fact that they choose to label a scholarly term as "abuse" does not make it so. I am astounded at the insistence that 4 non-abusive words describing core attributes are being dismissed in this way despite their use in the most reliable scholarly sources. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Malik Shabazz: it serves to describe an ideological position analysed in detail in scholarly sources. That is v clearly a purpose other than disparagement. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, @Malik Shabazz. "Men-hating" describes a presumed state of mind or emotion, which could be assessed only by a psychiatrist (and they are professionally debarred from making public diagnoses). "Trans-exclusionary" describes a policy position which these people have advocated; afaics there is no dispute that this is their policy position. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. I say otherwise. "Trans-exclusionary" is as subjective as "man-hating", which is also "a policy position [some] people have advocated". — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 03:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is not a basis for creating categories. I think some people are racists and antisemites, but I'm not going to create Category:Racists and Category:Antisemites. And whether I can find sources that disprove a negative about two people I've never heard of has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia should have this category. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 03:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can call it a policy position if you'd like, but it's no different from racism or antisemitism or man-hating. Those are some people's policy positions as well. Do you dispute that racism and antisemitism exist? (Do you see how silly that is?) — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 03:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The silliness here is your refusal to distinguish between terms defined in dictionaries as hatred (e.g. OED: anantisemitism, and policy stances. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'"Trans-exclusionary" is as subjective as "man-hating"' is a false statement on its face. Exclusion can be be proven by whether the positions advanced by someone/something exclude or include a category explicitly; "hating" can only be proven by either magical psychic brain-reading powers or by someone's statement actually including the word "hate" (or a derivative) in reference to that category, and that's virtually never going to happen in the work of reputable writer. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl. 2Q (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dangerously labelling. Lacks a parent category to provide definitions/explanations to what it means. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In case anyone here is interested, I've opened a discussion at AN/I about the account that created the cats. SarahSV(talk) 04:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a made-up intersection to create an attack category to label opponents. What reliable source shows this concept has been used in scholarly works? Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there may be some biographies in which discussing an accusation or label of "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is appropriate, this is effectively never appropriate as a category because categories are, by definition, not nuanced - if you are in the category, Wikipedia is making a factual statement that you are this thing. Such categories may be appropriate where there is a clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources (such as categorizing Richard B. Spencer as a white supremacist) but I don't see the evidence that there is such a consensus of sources using this term. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also relevant is Category:Antisemitic people, which was deleted in 2007, and the 2011 discussion about "bias categories", the result of which was "Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. This has been a lengthy discussion but both the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations." SarahSV(talk) 04:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason we don't allow Category:Racists or other categories that are intrinsically accusatory. — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per long standing consensus that categories are not the place for baldly accusatory statements. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-identification must be sourced, so if this exists, it needs to be a list, not a cat. See also JzG, Warren. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT. It would have been a different issue if Radical feminists would have fallen apart in two distinct groups, Trans-exclusionary radical feminists and Trans-inclusionary radical feminists, with each of the two groups having their own ideology. But in this case it is just an opinion about one of many possible issues, and the opinion happens to be labelled. That is not enough for a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TERF is not an ideology that people ascribe to themselves, but a term that's used by their opponents to label their views on transgender issues as objectionable. Which, I'll grant, they often are, but the term is just as frequently used in an attempt to shut down the TERF's right to speak on any other issue unconnected to TERFism too. This should not exist, for the same reason that we don't categorize people as Category:Racists or Category:Homophobes just because they sometimes get called by those epithets in public debate — it's an WP:OPINIONCAT, not necessarily a WP:DEFINING feature of their ideology. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, we cannot and must not use perjorative terms to categorise human beings. fish&karate 09:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BHG and others. First, it's well established that a term does not need to be self-applied, or always dispassionately used, to be a valid basis for categorization – it just needs to have a consistent definition that allows membership to be clearly delineated. If a particular self-identified RF explicitly endorses TE policies as supported by RS's, then they are objectively a TERF, whether they consider that an attack or not. Trans-excluding policy is a major and distinct area of debate in radical feminism, with individuals who have staked out distinct positions with respect to the divide, and those individuals' positions are of encyclopedic value to those studying the topic. The fact that the term "TERF" is considered offensive by some to whom it is applied is a red herring: the underlying concept is objectively defined, real, and distinct, and therefore a legitimate basis for categorization. Any name given to this concept is going to acquire huge amounts of baggage, and that does not make the underlying category any less legitimate. —swpbTgo beyond 18:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has not at all been established that a term "just needs to have a consistent definition that allows membership to be clearly delineated" for a category to be based on it. It has been noted repeatedly that an appropriate category is neutral in character and should not be something created to (for instance) take sides in a political or ideological dispute. TERF is a pejorative label that is used to try to discredit the views of the people it is applied to, and its presence in scholarly sources does not in and of itself justify its use in a category. It represents one side of an argument and not uncontroversial scholarly consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an inherently pejorative name. The fact that people who are so labeled are accused of "violence" because they speak ill of the intentions of someone, which is not violence at all, shows how much the perpetrators of this term have little connection with reaqlity. It is inherently meant to delegitimize politicial opponents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Logically invalid argument. The people who abuse the word violence to mean 'disagreement with my dogma in a way that upsets me' also use it that way about racism, capitalism, homo- and trans-phobia, misogyny, and 100 other things, and we will not delete the articles and categories about them. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism but remove "radical" per detailed rationale offered at its CfD. This will permit us to use, and categorize by, a reliably sourced term when RS tell us someone or something belongs in the category, without having to label them as an "-ist". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:12, 22 February 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.
Category:Anglo-Catholic church buildings in England[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: While there was a recent discussion to clear up categorising church buildings, these categories are not about the buildings (as categories about location and listed status are), but about the church community. A church building can't be Anglo-Catholic or any other religious tradition, any more than a building can have a political philosophy. I am proposing that the above categories are reverted back to "churches" from "church buildings". This has already been done for their sister categories (conservative evangelical Anglican churches) as per this nomination. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 21:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no mention in the article about the churchmanship of the church/parish being Anglo-Catholic, then it shouldn't be categorised as such. A building can't follow a particular religious tradition any more than it can follow a particular political tradition: its the church community within the building that follows a tradition/churchmanship. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 23:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the articles you mentioned, and I've added references details to three of them and removed the category from the article I couldn't find a source for. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 00:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are still predominantly about the buildings themselves. In any case, I named those articles as examples. The majority of the articles I sampled in those categories were like those examples - meaning you would need to do similar updates on a large number of the articles to changed them from being about church buildings. Most of the articles are still like St Peter's Church, Huddersfield and Church of St Matthias, Malvern Link - only mentioning the church activities in passing and being predominantly about the construction/architecture. Grutness...wha? 18:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly confused by this. Are you saying that if something is only mentioned briefly that the article cannot have a related category added to it? If the article mentions that the church's/parish's tradition falls within Anglo-Catholicism (or its various offshoots) then it should be categorised as such. These aren't articles about empty buildings (or at least most of them aren't), they are "living" churches being used by church communities and the best articles reflect this. Regardless, the reason why I proposing the rewording of the categories is because these particular categories aren't about the church buildings they are about the community within its walls or about the community and how that influences the decoration/ordering of the building. They aren't just about the building themselves and so the current wording is misleading/wrong. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 22:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that if a group of articles are each 90% about Foo and 10% about Bar you should perhaps consider separate and parallel Bar-related categories. You shouldn't simply take all the categories named Foo and propose changing them to Bar. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many people distinguish the concept of "church" from "church building". Church is ambiguous. If Church (building) must be disambiguated, so should derived subcategories. It is more important for catgory titles to be precise and consistent than short. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct: church is ambiguous, whereas "church building" is very clearly referring to the building. These categories are not about the building but the church community within its walls. Therefore the use of "church" rather than "church building" is preferable. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 22:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Most of the articles are about church buildings, not churches (congregations). It's also incorrect to say that a the denomination of a church has no influence on the building itself. The style, architecture, layout, orientation, location, choice of architect, interior design and many other factors are impacted by the type of church that originally commissioned/constructed and currently manages the building. WaggersTALK 10:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: the church community's tradition does have some impact on the layout, decoration etc of a church building. However, there is no "Anglo-Catholic architectural style", there is no set Anglo-Catholic decorative style, etc. Anglo-Catholics are people/communities who are linked by belief and ritual. These articles are not only about the buildings but about each church's past and present: whether that's who funded its construction, details about stained glass windows, a list of vicars, etc, churches (and their articles) are more than bricks and mortar. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 22:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Some churches have a long history of being Anglo-Catholic, but there is nothing fixed about this. They are all Anglican churches and may at one period belong to one trend of churchmanship and at another to a different one. The articles are often largely about the buildings, rather than the congregation. We have tended to move away from "church", becasue it can refer to a local church, the building in which it meets, a denomination, or all Christians. Category:Church of England buildings used by Anglo-Catholics would be accurate, but it is rather a mouthful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categories tend to concern themselves with major details about the article in question. If a church is currently, historically, or majorly linked with Anglo-Catholicism, it is worth categorising it as such. Whether a church was planted by Anglo-Catholics last year of has belonged to the tradition since the Oxford movement, that shouldn't effect whether we categories it as such: listed building status was only introduced in the 1940s, and so some churches have been listed for less than 5% of their life span, but it would be odd to argue that we shouldn't be categorising them by listed status as some have only recently been listed. Church is ambiguous and is therefore preferable to the cut and dry "church buildings" that leaves out the majority of what Anglo-Catholicism is about. This ambiguity is preferable because while it is mostly about the church (community) there is also sometimes and influence of this tradition on the church (building) itself. Your suggested alternative reads, to me at least, as if these are church buildings owned by the Church of England but used by a different group such as the Ordinariate of independent Anglo-Catholics. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 22:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While fully appreciating the Trojan effort that has gone into the nomination, I must reluctantly oppose as it goes against a consensus in this area (from church → church buildings) that has been evident in WP:CFD decisions for some months now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose re apparent consensus on churches to church buildings Hugo999 (talk) 06:36, 27 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: For many fish species (e.g. blue shark) being found in/near Florida is non-defining. Note: This is the only "Saltwater fish..." category in enwp. DexDor(talk) 20:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - are they all Atlantic fish, or are some of them only found in the Gulf of Mexico? Grutness...wha? 23:38, 18 January 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:merge. The discussion and outcome would have been different if Category:Governors of provinces of Chile didn't contain just 10 articles in total, so there is no prejudice to recreating these categories (and for other provinces) if the number of articles rises significantly. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-3 articles per category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SMALLCAT, which cites exactly this sort of cat as an exception: "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". (emphasis added)
Admittedly I forgot about this particular example in the guideline. An argument could be made that not every holders of political office category has equally realistic potential for growth, especially like in this case for governors of second-level country subdivisions the growth potential may be more questionable. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not know enough of Chile to know how notable the office of provincial governor is. I suspect (and BHG also thinks) this is notable office. If so, the solution is to tag the categories to be populated and to create a list article (or include one in each provincial article), which may encourage people to write the articles that should be in this category. Do they exist in the Spanish WP? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Spanish WP there are (only) 17 out of 54 provinces that have a governors category, and they are mostly very poorly populated too. I wonder about notability, the head of a second-level country subdivision of (on average) 0.3 million people may be considered to be of only local importance. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since the future population of the categories is questionable, and being categorized in the province categories and in "Governors of provinces of Chile" is sufficient. Agree with observations about list articles. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:SMALLCAT. These categories were made too early. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 25 February 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.
Support Much as it grieves me, as a biologist, to remove the ability to look up species from any region, large or small, the reality for a world encyclopaedia is to work on larger units, or we'll have unmanageable numbers of categories for ubiquitous taxa. That shouldn't prevent Categories for endemics from these smaller areas, or 'List of native species from...' pages' if relevant. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 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.
Oppose -- This is the second recent nom on this subject. The problem is that the 1689 article is about Scotland. Category:Jacobite risings should be a container-only for a series of different events. There is a semantic argument as to whether the 1689 etc events were risings or resistance by a Jacobite regime to William III's conquest of Scotland and Ireland. If the target were to be too much related to Williamite War in Ireland the Scottish material would not fit. There should be room for one category on William III's conquest of the British Isles. There is probably a scope for another on its battles, including both the Boyne and Killicrankie. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess for the second category you agree with SmokeyJoe's suggestion to merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support; Removing the 'First' reduces potential confusion, as many writers call the 1715 rising the 'First' (with the '45 being the 'Second'). And the new category name matches the categories for the other risings. I oppose the suggestion to merge into Category:Jacobite risings - it's not the case that there is a sole parent article Jacobite risings - that is little more than a disambiguation page, leading to articles for each of the risings over more than half a century from 1689 to 1745. These are discrete events, separated by intervals of many years, so it makes sense for the battles of each rising to have their own category too, not to be lumped together into a single Category:Battles of the Jacobite risings. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:03, 9 February 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 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 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 ... which in practice means "delete", 'cos the category is empty. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories like this should not exist for separate Indian film industries. That's why we don't have something like "Category:GA-Class Tamil cinema articles" or "Category:GA-Class Telugu cinema articles". Besides, this category was created by a now-blocked user. --Kailash29792(talk) 16:52, 18 January 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 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. Consensus reached on CFD and RM for the corresponding template. (non-admin closure)ⓏⓟⓟⓘⓧTalk 19:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to clarify that the purpose of this template is much narrower than the current title implies. It is only for redirects from the trade name of a drug to (or from) the International Nonproprietary Name (INN). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: It would be more succinct (by 3 characters), but includes the phrase drug trade, which could be misleading. Does a saving of 3 characters outweigh the ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point, and hadn't occurred to me. I've struck it. I can offer an alternative of Category:Redirects from pharmaceutical trade names, which is more precise but less simple. I don't feel strongly about it, and I would be fine with the original proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, @Tryptofish. I just took the terminology from the categ and template headers, but "pharmaceutical trade" is much more precise. However I hesitate a little before saying yes, because I think the categ and template names should be aligned. If they are both renamed to pharmaceutical, that would be ideal. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I think you could propose the template rename at WT:PHARM, and it would be an easy sell. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 19 January 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 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 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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT - eponymous cat containing only the eponymous topic. —swpbTgo beyond 14:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but also to "Krishna Consciousness temples". WP does not like abbreviations in category names (at least generally). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 19 January 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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT - only eight possible members, of which only one currently has an article. —swpbTgo beyond 14:19, 18 January 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:keep UK category and no consensus on the other two. – FayenaticLondon 21:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested C2C. Metro is an ambiguous term and "rapid transit" is consistent with similar categories and the category tree. feminist (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Metro", like "Subway", refer to a specific variety of rapid rail transit; "rapid transit" is the more ambiguous term, as it can be metro, other light rail, express bus, bus-in-causeway, etc. 2Q (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Actually, all but two of the subcats in Category:Metro stations in the United Kingdom refer to metros - the two that aren't are the Docklands Light Railway and the tram stops ones. I suppose an argument could be made that the Merseyrail underground isn't a metro, either, and the cat Merseyrail underground stations should just be a subcat of a Merseyrail stations category. In any event there are only two that are blatantly not metros, and those should be moved elsewhere, instead of deliberately ambiguating the cat name... 2Q (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
((yo|2Q}} the ambiguous term here is Metro, a disambiguation page with over 100 non-transport entries. The transport article is at Rapid transit. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Within the sphere of the subject of transport, though, "Metro" is hardly ambiguous. The article specific to railways (and nothing else) in dedicated guideways being at Rapid transit strikes me as strange, since the term "rapid transit" *is* also used to refer to express bus lines, bus-in-guideway arrangements, as well as other urban transit systems that are "faster" than regular busses or trams and do not use rights of way shared with other modes of transport... but eh. 2Q (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that rapid transit is too broad. In many big cities there are two rapid transit rail systems, one for the inner city and one for the urban region, e.g. in Paris the metro and the RER, in Berlin the U-Bahn and the S-Bahn. It doesn't make sense to lump the stations together. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is an article Metro station while Underground station and Subway station are redirected to the former. While a more specific term in the category name may be appropriate (as the more defining characteristic), I am not sure whether metro station, underground station or subway stations is the most suitable term in English language. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Hmmm. I haven't looked at the articles you mention, but it seems to me that having a separate articles for Metro station and Subway station is kinda redundant... if Underground redirects to Subway, then Metro should also be included in that triad, since all three are essentially the same thing. I think "Subway" and "Underground" should be made to redirect to Metro (which is just short for "metropolitan railway"). 2Q (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are redirected to Metro station already. The thing is, I wonder if the redirecting shouldn't be the other way around, and if so we should consequently change "metro" in the category name into either "underground" or "subway". Metro station doesn't sound like the most common term to me but I'm not a native English speaker. By the way, if this requires changing, it should be done for all countries in the world. But we can also use local designations. In that case "metro station" is alright in Spain, but in the UK it should be changed to "underground station". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree completely that the local designation should be used! 2Q (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in UK case Neural on rest. "Rapid transit" is not a routinely used term in UK. These are systems that are wholly or partly distinct from railways (heavy rail). Some are branded "Metro"; others are not. Some are officially "light rail", but heritage railways are also classified as "light rail". Metro is perhaps as good a general term for a series of separately branded systems. Underground is unhelpful, becasue even the London Underground is a surface railway in the suburbs. Subway in UK means a footpath under a road. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for U.K. And South Korea, Neutral for Spain. Metro is more commonly used in the two countries than Rapid transit, although I've been to South Korea and they call the system 'subway' so you might want to rename it to that. As for Spain's case it is not my familiar territory so I wouldn't voice my opinion so quickly. 1.02 editor (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to agree with the "go with national usage" and "'Metro' is the best we can do for the UK" arguments above. Consistency is not the answer when it's an artificial and confusing one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per leading article. Fine proposal for promoting category tree consistency. gidonb (talk) 00:59, 25 February 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:merge as nominated. No need for a dual merge, since both articles of this category are also directly in a category in the tree of Category:Fictional locations. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since they are fictional locations. My principle is "one franchise: one category". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, that makes sense, but in practice it could get messy. I wouldn't like to see all 800 Lord of the Rings articles lumped together, for instance. Same with Star Wars and Star Trek, which are both closer to 500 than to zero. Case by case... Grutness...wha? 06:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS - in this case, though, I agree... Merge. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 21 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to make a category. It doesn’t even contain the main article, Second Foundation. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:22, 18 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Too small for an eponymous category. Contains only the main article. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Warren. ‘ talk , 02:10, 20 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: I don’t see why we need a separate category for this when there are only 3 members. The parent has 18. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 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 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.
