< January 17	January 19 >

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fishguard and Goodwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fishguard and Goodwick are separate places (Goodwick is nearby but much smaller) and this category only serves as an unnecessary extra step in the category tree. Fishguard is the major town by a long stretch and already has its own category. Fishguard and Goodwick share a community council, a rugby team and (maybe muddying the waters slightly) the main railway station for Fishguard (the ferry terminal is reached via Goodwick). However, Fishguard and Goodwick is a redirect to the railway station and I can't see the benefit of having a category named after a community council. Evidently the Goodwick article would need merging back to Category:Towns in Pembrokeshire if this deletion takes place. Sionk (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate the category -- The category needs to be upmerged, so that Fishguard (cat) and Goodwick go into Category:Towns in Pembrokeshire. Possibly Goodwick should also be in the Fishguard category, since it seems that Fishguard harbour is in Goodwick - if I understand the article correctly. The alternative would be to keep this and merge the Fishguard cat here, since share several things. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Eastern Orthodoxy and far-left politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Following on from the Catholicism and Far-left politics nomination, i propose this category be deleted on the same basis. Same problem with categorising a part of the political spectrum as a "scandal". The only contents about spies could happily exist without this container. Also note the absence of potential to populate other Christian denomination sets of Category:Far-left politics. Starting Category:Far-left politics and religion first and seeing where that goes is a much better way forward (and I doubt much diffusion would be warranted). SFB 23:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and consensus at Cfd for sibling category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for different reasons. The only thing in this is Category:Russian Orthodox clergy who spied for the Soviet Union which is already well-categorized, so this category doesn't serve a navigational purpose. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There may be articles on the relationship between other Orthodox churches and communist governments, but I do not think that is sufficient reason for retining this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Eastern Orthodoxy-related controversies. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are all, I'm pretty sure, categories created by a serial over-categoriser in 2013, for tiny rural communities (< 2000) in Wales. Some of these contain only the village article, all of these nominated contain only 3 or less articles (apart from the village itself). Often these categorised articles shouldn't be there anyway (for example rivers that pass through the village). These are simply category clutter that needs removing. They have no chance of further population, per WP:SMALLCAT. Sionk (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Straight deletion of these categories would leave articles like Henryd unparented. Such articles should be placed in alternative categories before the deletion or the nomination should de changed to upmerge instead of deletion. DexDor (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I've gone through each one and added back the "Villages in..", "Communities in..." or "Towns in..." categories. Sionk (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small towns that do not warrant their own navigation. The town articles better fulfil this function for the topics. SFB 22:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - or rather upmerge to an appropriate county or other parent category, where necessary to avoid orphans. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, with the caution to ensure that articles which aren't already appropriately categorized by county get that replacement category added rather than being left uncatted. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Films distributed by Paramount (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Films distributed by Disney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_20#Category:Films_by_studio_or_distributor and subsequent Cfds. I believe we have a clear consensus not to categorize by distributor -- as films have multiple distributors across the world, and via different distribution channels (theatrical, TV, VOD, etc.). Is there a reason to make an exception for these two major studios? That's not a rhetorical question. I don't see a reason as yet, though maybe this is a distinct case, for some reason. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Distribution without contribution to the content (the purpose of this category) is not useful for categorisation as it doesn't really group like things that people would expect to see together. No opposition to listify if anyone wants to keep the info. SFB 22:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But in fact, certainly in the case of the Disney category, these seem to be solely films that Disney or its subsidiaries have produced. But if you're a true Hollywood major, as both are, you do self-distribute as a matter of course. So again, I'm back to not understanding purpose of having a separate branch for the distribution activities of Disney/Paramount. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If a film was produced by Disney or Paramount, then it should already be in the appropriate production category anyway (or added to the appropriate production category if for some reason it isn't.) But the distributor of a film, a quite separate activity which sometimes corresponds to the production company and sometimes doesn't, isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the film or a useful point of categorization. And since films rarely have a single distributor in all contexts, but instead have different distributors in different contexts (different countries, theatre vs. home video vs. VOD, festival circuit vs. general release, "anniversary" rereleases by a different distributor than the original one, etc.), this scheme would just lead to extreme category bloat. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 08:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:16th century in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:16th century in the Kingdom of Kongo

Nominator's rationale: I'm not an expert on Congolese history but I think that the relevant geographic entity was the Kingdom of Kongo at the time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The one article in the category is Mwata Yamvo, the founder of the Kingdom of Lunda, which is separate from the Kingdom of Kongo. (Kongo was on the coast; Lunda was inland.) Both were in terriority that is currently in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Maybe this should just be upmerged to Category:16th century in Africa? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a good idea to have a nation by century that just contains a person. The categories I've added to that biography are more appropriate as it is and remove a need for the above proposed upmerge too. SFB 23:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have List of rulers of the Lunda Empire, but almost all the potential articles are red links. Mwata Yamvo is supposed to be the first, but does not have a blue link from it. We currently have little enough on Luanda, so that I do not think we need categories for periods; certainly not until we have a lot more content in WP. The one article already has 16th cnetury African people as a category, so that there is no need to merge anything. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this was a more populated category, I'd suggest a move to Category:16th century in Central Africa, but as it stands, I think it'd be safe to delete it. Good Olfactory is absolutely correct in saying that Kongo =/= DR Congo (in fact, it's more like Cabinda and the Republic of Congo...).—Brigade Piron (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an ahistorical categorization scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Per the discussion below and the discussion for the previous version of this category Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 29#Category:Straight Wikipedians, I am closing this as a "snow delete", i.e. on the merits. I could also have speedily deleted it as G5 but that might have given rise to a discussion in the future about whether recreations under this or similar names would be eligible for speedy deletion under G4. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Hetrosexual Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category created by a new user who has few edits outside of user space and who created this category solely to populate it with his user page. Safiel (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This si far too common to be noteworthy. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedian" categories exist to facilitate collaboration on specific topics, not to simply advertise any individual characteristic that the Wikipedian possesses. This has about as much collaborative value as "Wikipedians who have red hair" or "Wikipedians who have had an appendectomy" — both categories that would be deleted for failing to be collaboration-oriented (actually, hair colour categories have been tried and deleted for that very reason) — so delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't aid in collaboration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose As LGBT Wikipedians, Gay Wikipedians, Lesbian Wikipedians, Bisexual Wikipedians, Transgender Wikipedians user categories exist, I see no reason this one should not. An argument could be made that since it only has one member it should be deleted, but the category itself is less than one month old. It would be discriminatory to delete this category when other types of sexual affiliations are allowed. I disagree with koavf that it doesn't aid in collaboration. If someone wasn't heterosexual they might value the opinion of one, or a heterosexual may want to seek the opinion of someone with whom they share a sexual preference. Bearcats argument's could be used against any of the other categories I cited which are currently in existence. Peterkingiron arguments could be used against Christian Wikipedians or Atheist Wikipedians both very common affiliations that may not be that noteworthy, but are allowed to exist. I've added my name to the category, so the nominator's (Safiel) rationale no longer holds any weight. Now a renaming request might be in order, but that's a more sophisticated matter. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying oneself as L, G, B or T specifically flags an interest in collaboration on LGBT topics, so no, the argument against "heterosexual" doesn't wash against them too. (I know of several Wikipedians who happen to be LGBT but aren't all that active on LGBT topics in particular — those people generally don't include themselves in the categories.) But we don't have any specific set of heterosexuality articles for which labelling oneself as heterosexual flags any particular collaborative purpose — it effectively just serves as a "because I want to" marker, not a tool for collaboration on anything specific. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there is not currently a LGBT type series of topics for Heterosexuality (possibly due for a lack of need for one), it could still be potentially beneficial for certain topics. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "we don't have any specific set of heterosexuality articles..." there is, for example, Category:Birth control. DexDor (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those should go, too; someone care to be bold? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was Just deleted, then a banned user attempted without success to recreate. Now here it is again, with a new wording. What a waste of time. How many times will we need to go through this before these terms are salted and we can move on? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've G4'ed it. I can't see any reason to go through this exercise, just weeks after it was deleted at Cfd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the previously-deleted category was not deleted as a result of the discussion, but because it was created by a sockpuppet, G4 doesn't apply. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's dance I find Hetros very sexy, whatever Hetros are... SFB 23:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole thing stinks to high heaven, imo. An indef banned editor fails to reestablish an identical category, and then a brand new SPA account is created to create only this category, days later. The thing was trending towards delete in the last Cfd when it was closed G5, and that is my position here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there enough history to make a sock puppet review worthwhile? Oh, and DeleteRevelationDirect (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I never know, myself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've initiated one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Evlekis#19_January_2015. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4 (see previous discussion) and WP:G5 (see above-mentioned SPI) and salt. This is wasting everyone's time. Ivanvector (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not helpful in creating an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been confirmed at SPI that this category was created by banned sockpuppeteer User:MariaJaydHicky. It's unknown whether this socker is the same as the banned editor who created the other version of this category. So, really, an incredibly useful and beneficial category, created by people with the finest of intentions. Hooray for us straight people. Whoopie. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Per WP:G5, content from banned user, per SPI above. @Shawn in Montreal:, thanks Shawn. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete - I'm also deleting the then empty parent Category:Deaths by city in the United Kingdom. And upmerged the remaining 2 categories of its parent Category:Deaths by city and making that a category redirect to Category:Death by city. No prejudice against nominating Category:Death by city and its subcats. - jc37 02:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Deaths by city in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Also propose deleting- Category:Deaths in London, Category:Deaths in Aldershot, Category:Deaths in Bath, Somerset

Nominator's rationale: We categorize by where somebody is from. As to where they died, its not defining of a person. People die at a location because they're in the hospital. That might be their only connection to there. ...William 16:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect that this is a category tree largely relating to historical figures, from a period when most people were buried where they died, which was where they had lived in their latter years. Even where people die in hospital, it will commonly be theri local one. Bath was a common place to retire to. I suspec that this is part of a much larger tree: we need to fell the whole tree or none of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (procedural). The subcats are not included so the proposed deletion would leave, for example, Category:Accidental deaths in London without a London parent. I might support a proposal to delete the whole tree or rename it to "People who died in London" etc. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Death in London can easily serve this purpose. SFB 15:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The simple location of someone's death is not a definitive feature and nor does it group people who truly have much in common – if people are from that place or it has importance to them, they will be in the "People from X" category already. I do not see why the London subcategories (which, as extraordinary deaths, are probably more reasonable to have) need this parent and can't just sit happily in Category:Death in London. SFB 00:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I can understand an interest in where a well known person is buried, it is often not where they died. We don't have "People born in..." categories either, do we? Sionk (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is certainly overlap with where a person lives and where they die, but it is much more likely to be in a city with a hospital which is really what this unintentionally categorizes. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep where someone died may be defining, and it may be purely accidental. However, like where one is born it is inherently encyclopedic as most biographies start with where and when a person is born and when and where they die. Where one dies is probably more likely to have been influenced by his or her actions than where one is born (over which one has virtually no control), and is therefore of more value than birth places; which I sense will never be nominated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Carlossuarez46: Note that we don't have any categories of "People born in X" because "People from X" ensures an identity connection to the place, not just an incidental one. There is not reason why "People from X" can't fulfil the same purpose on the other side of the life cycle (i.e. if you're not relevant enough to be a person from X, then why should we care if you died there?). SFB 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but the mere serendipity of being born somewhere satisfies being "from" there -see the descriptions at innumerable "People from XXX" category pages... I think that for the most part mere association with a death place may or may not be defining, but since it is a vital statistic (like is dying in a particular year defining of one's life? Is one's life fundamentally changed if one dies on 12/31/14 vs. 1/1/15? hardly), but it is one of the few absolutes of one's lifes on which categorization makes some sense. Theoretically, we could remove all places/dates of birth/death categories and refer readers to lists, but I think this is better. Just MHO.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that being born somewhere necessarily means that someone is "from" there, regardless of how many category descriptions like to claim that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being born somewhere can be described as "being from there". Many people are categorized here by birthplace (apparently contrary to the pertaining guideline, but supported by almost universal consensus) because many people stay where they were born and become closely associated with that place. Other people leave their bithplace but are always some way or the other connected with their birthplace throughout their lives (for example "Scottish-born American soccer player" etc.), be it only that it's written in their passports, or that you need to write it in forms every time they go to some public department. So, it is quite defining where someone was born. The birth year and death year categories serve to identify bios, especially BLPs, which is important for some questions of policy here on Wikipedia. So, although it doesn't make much difference to somebody whether he died on December 31, 2014, or on January 1, 2015, there must be necessarily a year stated in the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraxler (talk • contribs)

Delete all of the "Death in XYZ" categories. WP:Categorization of people#By place says "The place of death is not normally categorized..." These categories are contrary to the pertaining guideline. Also, the place of death (as such) is undefining, and there has been consensus about not categorizing it. I've been writing bios since 2006, and had not seen before categories like "Deaths in XYZ". Place of death is usually only categorized when it happened under notable circumstances, like "Suicides per place", or "Disease deaths per place", but never just plain deaths. All these categories should be speedily deleted. Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many comments before, especially SFB's: people in a category like this essentially have nothing in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely defining, it is the lede in every obituary and in every paper encyclopedia article, and the lede in the German Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would mean that the fact is absolutely notable, not absolutely defining. That is, when one thinks of a person, one typically does not think, "oh yeah—that guy who died in Aldershot ...", even though it would mention in a biography that he died in Aldershot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not convinced that place of death is defining. In fact, I'm quite convinced that it is not defining, even though it is of course notable and will invariably be mentioned in an article about the person. We have long agreed that place of birth is not defining, and I think even that is much closer to being defining than place of death. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAME. - jc37 02:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Quantified human groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category groups together a vast array of groups based on an incidental feature: that they are named the "Five Foos" or the "Three Bars" etc. The Three Musketeers have nothing in common with the Gang of Four and as such this category is not definitive of the subjects or useful to categorisation. SFB 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest the articles should appear by the number, not a letter. This will require signifciant work. Neuf and Nine should appear under 9, not N. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A form of WP:OC#SHAREDNAME. DexDor (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain (category created by me). Looks like I'm being out-voted, but for what it's worth I can't see any harm to WP in keeping such admittedly trivial cats. It does lead the reader into other areas of knowledge and arouses curiosity, surely not a bad thing. I don't think a cat of people called Jackson (per WP:SHAREDNAME) would draw the reader on in the same way. This cat is about a bit more than just shared names, it's about groups of people who made an impact for whatever reason, and were recorded by history as such. I can see uses for the cat by certain readers or external researchers, journalists etc. Just browsing through it is interesting in itself, unlike looking through the phone book under Jackson. Also, it appears the cat has proved quite popular with WP editors and has been well populated, the number of members has grown significantly since I started the cat with a few items. Agree with Peterkingiron above that would be better using numerical sub-cats, which may be time-consuming, but it may be a job someone will perform one day.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
- @Lobsterthermidor: The problem with using the category system this way is that more rational and definitive groupings get as much prominence as trivial ones on the article. Perhaps try creating a list of these things instead? My worry is thouth that that will also be challenged. I can understand the interest angle, but it's simply counter to the categorisation culture. SFB 21:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Marcocapelle makes a good point below. Let's credit the reader with the intelligence to sort cats by order of triviality. After all, one of the most commonly used cats for biographical articles is date of death, pretty useless and uninteresting as a criterion in most cases.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Keep as a humorous category while we don't have too much humor in Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious to everyone that this isn't rational and serious so I wouldn't bother too much about WP:SHAREDNAME in this very particular case. Upon request, I'm willing to subdivide the category by number. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very generous offer, please consider such request made by me, if this cat survives the current discussion process!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

SFB 22:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this, I think preserving something like this serves a community purpose, even if it's one that seems a little trivial. I'd be happy to listify this in some form. The name would surely have to change though as it's more abstract that you would expect. SFB 23:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be content with an outcome to "userify" this as a list for User:Lobsterthermidor who has found some value in it. SFB 23:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for the category name to be changed to something better if anyone has a suggestion.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Delete This is a basic example of shared name. We do not categorize by name, but by what something is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OC by shared name characteristic...what's next Category:Television show titles with numbers in them? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Artist collectives to Category:Artist groups and collectives
Propose merging Category:British artist collectives to Category:British artist groups and collectives
Propose renaming Category:Canadian artist collectives to Category:Canadian artist groups and collectives

Nominator's rationale: This category type is not distinctive of the parent as "groups" and "collectives" are synonymous terms. The majority of the category tree is along the lines of "groups and collectives" so these should take the line of the rest of the tree (e.g. Category:European artist groups and collectives). I would like to address these singly as outliers, rather than debate the benefits of just "collectives" or "groups" over "groups and collectives" (which would be a wider nomination involved categories not mentioned above. SFB 15:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support all, considering I was yesterday trying to rationalise some of the Arts and Visual Art category trees, this proposal is welcome. Most people, I expect, would not know the difference between a 'group' and a 'collective'. It would be nice if Category:Performance artist collectives could be likewise renamed. Sionk (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Reverse Merge Clearly there should only be 1 set of categories; I'll defer to others for which name to use. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Merging the categories would require also merging the respective distinct articles, Artist cooperative and Artist collective. From what I could garner, cooperatives are legally established organizations, whereas collectives are less formal, loosely equivalent to what is called "band" for musicians (music band ~ art collective). See Collective and Cooperative. Counter-proposal is to insert see-alsos connecting the two categories and two articles. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgnievinski: I think the point is that the differentiation of whether a certain group is definitely a cooperative or a collective is often too blurred, thus why it makes sense to have a category including both to prevent needless duplication. SFB 22:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: I just realized there is also a Category:Artist cooperatives, so if you are going to merge Category:Artist collectives into the parent Category:Artist groups and collectives, you should do the same for Category:Artist cooperatives, which is all undesirable. What I do find misleading is the title of the parent category, Category:Artist groups and collectives; it should be generalized, to something like Category:Artist collaborations, renamed so as to avoid confusion with any of its member subcategories. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merging Category:Artist collectives into Category:Artist groups and collectives, provided that we split the latter's subcategories into a new parent Category:Artist collaborations, having as child Category:Artist cooperatives, Category:Artist colonies, Category:Art duos, etc., none of which should be subcategories of Category:Artist groups and collectives -- they were there just because of the lack of a better parent. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that! A 'collaboration' isn't necessarily the same thing. Artists may organise or assocoiate together simply because they are in the same location, or have similar objectives. I've never come across a group that describes itself as a 'Collaboration'. 'Cooperatives' have some sort of legal 'business' definition, so are different enough to warrant a separate category. Sionk (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sionk here in that a cooperative is quite a distinct economic unit that is easy to define and distinguish from non-cooperative groups. I think you are on to something though: perhaps "collaborative artist groups" would better summate the concept than the current title? I'm happy to support that if others are. SFB 23:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally suggested Category:Artist collaborations because it'd fit nicely as a child of Category:Collaboration. The current situation in which Category:Artist cooperatives is a member of Category:Artist groups and collectives is very much unacceptable. We only have to come up with a wide general name for the new parent category, in a way that it doesn't prescribe how tight or loose is the level of interaction. How about then simply Category:Artist interactions, for short? (Or if you prefer a longer name: Category:Artist miscellany aggregations -- just kidding about this last one...). Now looking for new parents, Category:Social groups might work as well -- how about then Category:Artists as a social group, or Category:Artists in society (not unline Category:Women in society)? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting Category:Artist collaborations would be a subcategory of Category:Collaboration, so that Category:Artist groups and collectives and Category:Artist cooperatives have a common parent category, am I right? Sionk (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk and Fgnievinski: That would be a useful title, but one that would be far broader from the nominated category as to be something completely different. I would expect to find works in that category tree. Hence my alternative, descriptive suggestion Category:Collaborative artist groups. That said, I'm not opposed to the creation of the collaborations category, just that it's entirely different concept. Also note that my nomination does not include any "cooperatives" category so I've no idea why it is featuring so prominently in the discussion. SFB 19:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this should instead be raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. Without a strong justification it seems an unnecessary additional layer of navigation. Groups and collectives are 'collaborations' by their nature. I'm surprised the original renaming proposal is so problematic. Sionk (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all has been cleared now, please proceed with the merger. I've taken the liberty of moving some subcats out of Category:Artist groups and collectives, now that I've found an existing suitable parent category, simply Category:Artists. This arrangement mimics that of Category:Musicians (which seems very well organized). I'll leave it up to you guys/gals to decide if articles Art collective, Art colony, Art commune, Artist cooperative (and respective categories) should remain at the base of Category:Artists or put in a new Category:Artistis interactions. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support all per nomination. What happened here is that the plain "collectives" wording actually predates "groups and collectives", but for some reason was kept as a subcategory of the newer one instead of being merged or CFRed as it probably should have. Nominator is absolutely correct that in this context, the distinction between a "group" and a "collective" is too fuzzy and ill-defined to be appropriate as a point of separation at the category level. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Jewish group structuring to Category:Jewish organizations

Nominator's rationale: The concept of "group structuring" is quite nebulous and it's not really clear in what way this is a subset of Jewish organizations. The parent "Articles about multiple people" is even more misleading and an indication of how confusing the definition of the category is. SFB 14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems, from what I can tell, to exist only as an arbitrary and poorly-defined container sitting between Category:Jewish organizations and three subcategories that should be sitting directly in Category:Jewish organizations instead of in here. Delete as unnecessary layer of complexity. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per nom. In addition (not necessarily to be discussed here) I would remove the child Category:Jewish religious movements from this organizations tree, since a movement is not an organization (rather on the contrary). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Warhol superstars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic for most of the subjects. For example, Jack Smith (film director) and Barbara Rubin would rarely be described by this descriptor. This broadly aligns with "people who hung about with Andy Warhol". This content is best grouped together in a list (as already done at Warhol superstars and is not suitable for a category. SFB 14:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (assuming it is unnecessary to listify). Being the subject of a portrait by an artist is a variety of performance, though a rather differnet one from the normal perfornace categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, this category appears to have become misused — it's been significantly expanded from the defined set of actual Warhol superstars to become a catchall for nearly anybody who ever worked with Warhol at all. (I'm assuming the only reason Lou Reed isn't in here too is because his article generates enough traffic that his inclusion wouldn't survive a date with the revert button.) So between WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCASSOC, this strikes me as a textbook case for where we don't need both a list and a category for the same set. Delete; the list is all we need in this instance. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this may be defining, but is both somewhat subjective and both WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCASSOC, as observed by Bearcat. This could be handled via interlinking the articles, which I think is done in the list at Warhol superstars quite well - so these are ultimately not needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. For Category:Second City alumni the decision was to listify, but two lists already exist. S0 even this one can be deleted without loss of information. I'll leave it to the users on how best to combine or redo the existing lists. @Bearcat: maybe you would like to get involved? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Second City alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:The Groundlings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:IO Theater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This grouping is not a defining characteristic of the comedians it contains. Mostly, it is a group they were associated with briefly or associated with at a time when they had not risen to notability. This isn't a well-defined group: it numbers into thousands and the people brought together otherwise don't really have that much in common to warrant a category. This category should be listified to List of Second City Chicago alumni (which is a reasonable presentation of the info) and the category deleted. The other categories all have the same issue, and I suggest the same solution, including listify. SFB 14:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the rationale, but must express the caution that not all of the people in Category:Second City alumni are alumni of the Second City's Chicago company — some of them are alumni of the offshoot companies in Toronto, Detroit, Las Vegas or Cleveland. So the listify target is not necessarily List of Second City Chicago alumni for everybody in that category; rather, it's List of alumni of the Second City, with the separate Chicago list being appropriate only for people who were specifically in the Chicago branch. (The Toronto branch has enough history and enough notable alumni that it could also potentially support a spinoff list of its own, but until a standalone list actually does exist they should at least be in the Toronto section of the non-exclusive list. The other three cities probably don't meet either of those two qualifications yet, and should be kept solely in the main list for the time being. But then again, we probably don't actually need a separate list for Chicago either, if List of alumni of the Second City is also keeping a Chicago section that's directly listing people.) Listify and delete per nom and WP:PERFCAT, but be careful with the Second City: listify it to List of alumni of the Second City rather than the Chicago-specific list, and take care to ensure that people are actually being listified under the correct city's section. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I meant to link the main alumni one not, the Chicago one. Cheers for picking this up. SFB 23:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Clicking through some bio articles, this was rarely in the introduction and the time in these three tended to be short, so I don't think this is defiing.. These already appear to be listified. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete for the Second City alumni. delete the others although they may be due a separate consideration. The Second City alumni category has been problematic due to its many offshoots. It is possible that the better categorization may have been to separate the SCa into separate categories by city. I might not object to new categories by city if I could see the ramifications.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I suspect that one of the main reasons this discussion still hasn't been closed is that the chronological/city-separated structure of List of alumni of the Second City is awkward and people are reluctant to take on the difficulty of actually sorting it all out. So I wanted to note that I have an alphabetized list ready to go at User:Bearcat/Second City, which is already inclusive of everybody in this category and everybody who's on the current iteration of the list but hasn't been added to the category. I've also proposed on the list's talk page that the list be converted to a straight alphabetical order instead of the current confusing structure. So if anybody's ready to close this, just go ahead and copy it from my sandbox page if you'd like. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That just sounds like an arguement for a sortable table : ) - jc37 03:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Especially second city. This was notably defining. If no consensus to keep, definitely at least listify. - jc37 03:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Western Australia uncategorised by location to Category:People from Western Australia

Nominator's rationale: This is essentially a clean up list that has been set as a content category. Where we don't have a more specific location to go off for the "people from" tree, we place the person in the parent location category. SFB 12:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- After merger, it will be possible to see that they do not have a precise location from being in the parent category, though some may be there because their home town is too small to warrant having a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since not every individual location in Western Australia necessarily warrants its own distinct "people from" category (some are just too small), an interim "unspecified location" category isn't valuable. Standard practice is that if the location is unspecified, then we just leave them in the parent category until a more appropriate subcategory becomes available, rather than creating a special "unspecified location" subcategory just to hold the entries that aren't already more specifically subcatted. (I think there's also a Canadian province for which this was tried once and deleted for the same reasons that this one should be, though damned if I can remember which one or when.) Upmerge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:OCMISC and Bearcat's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia media files with subtitles to Category:Wikipedia files with subtitles
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia media files with English-language subtitles to Category:Wikipedia files with English-language subtitles

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Wikipedia files and other subcats of that category. See also related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_7#Category:Wikipedia_media_files. DexDor (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename as creator. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Academic journals published by the government to Category:Academic journals published by governments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "By governments" is probably better in this context than "by the government", which implies a monolithic body. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Which government is "the government?" — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious misnomer. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (original creator). Fgnievinski (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I suspect that the US subcat (with two items in it) could conveniently be upmerged back into this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:C2E, author's request (see Fgnievinsk above).RevelationDirect (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Decentralized Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: While we do have an article on the generic concept of decentralization which contains a few words about decentralization in the context of software development, it contains nothing that would suggest any reason why being "decentralized" would be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the resulting software — and we categorize on defining characteristics, not on every individual trait that a given topic happens to possess. If a genuine reason can be provided why this should be kept, it would still need to be renamed to Category:Decentralized software per WP:C2A — though I still believe it's a delete, which is why I'm bringing it here rather than CFR. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This definition is basically any form of internet-based software that doesn't communicate with a central computer (many if not most of them). The article Decentralized computing shows just how broad this is, so I don't see it as useful for navigation. SFB 23:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. MER-C 08:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Presidents of Biafra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This country had only one president, and it's no more. This category would never be populated. Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the fundamental purpose of a category is to capture a defining feature of an article, and quite the most salient characteristic of C. Odumegwu Ojukwu is that he was President of Biafra. Oculi (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Presidents by country is a tree that requires a subcategory for every country that ever had presidents — even a country which only ever had one president still must have a place for its president in that tree — and WP:SMALLCAT specifically states that if a category is part of a "large, overall and comprehensive" subcategorization scheme, such as subdividing an overgeneral international category by country, then even a one-item category is acceptable in those circumstances. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT: this is a feature of category trees for navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very good example of SMALLCAT in practice. A well-populated, large and useful categorisation scheme is present. Readers would expect to find the presidents of every country in this group, not just the presidents of countries that have had enough presidents to satisfy Wikipedia category editors. SFB 23:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear country scheme. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it should be removed from Category:Presidents by country and left in Category:Presidents by former country, where it is (also) and properly belongs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Military installations in Bedfordshire

Nominator's rationale: There is no category for Military installations in England by county and the only content (RAF stations) is already in the appropriate categories, including Category: Military history of Bedfordshire Hugo999 (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. There is no need to merge as the one subcat is already in Category:Military history of Bedfordshire. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We could upmerge to Category:Military installations in England, but such is the small scope of that tree that the contents are already present in another branch of it. SFB 23:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 18

Category:Fishguard and Goodwick

Category:Eastern Orthodoxy and far-left politics

Category:Cefnmeiriadog

Category:Films distributed by Paramount/Disney

Category:16th century in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Category:Hetrosexual Wikipedians

Category:Deaths by city in England

Category:Quantified human groups

Category:Artist collectives

Category:Jewish group structuring

Category:Warhol superstars

Category:Second City alumni

Category:People from Western Australia uncategorised by location

Category:Wikipedia media files with subtitles

Category:Academic journals published by the government

Category:Decentralized Software

Category:Presidents of Biafra

Category:Military installations in Bedfordshire