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

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Seven Wonders of Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: runs afoul of WP:TOPTEN, the 15 top 7 wonders published and revised from time to time.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tourist brochure rubbish. We should throw Seven Wonders of Serbia to AfD while we're at it. – Joe (talk) 08:53, 5 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:A-League National Youth League templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: only contain one item Hhkohh (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 07:59, 5 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:National Premier Soccer League season by team navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: pending the result of the deletion discussion regarding Template:2014 NPSL season by team, if deleted the category will be empty and unlikely to be filled. Jay eyem (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the deletion discussion for the template is here. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if the TfD result is keep, because only one item. Hhkohh (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 07:59, 5 June 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. Timrollpickering 11:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Languages of medieval Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, we have very few other languages by geographical region categories and we have no other language by region category at all that is specifically confined to the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Macedonia may be either a region or a nation state; and our languages by country tree is confined to the languages that are/were spoken there even prior to the establishment of the nation state (e.g., Punic language, extinct by 400BC or so, is in Category:Languages of Sicily, a grand daughter of Languages of Italy, a country founded in the 19th century). Hence, languages that were spoken at some time or another on the territory of what is now the (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia to be grouped somehow seems reasonably in accord with our categorization scheme. See Category:Extinct languages of Denmark. Whether we want to divide these categories further by time and then have each of them placed in the appropriate Category:Languages by time and its children by century or period (including, Category:Medieval languages) all having (grand-)daughter categories of the form Category:Languages of medieval XX is really the question. I think it's too much unnecessary categorization and leads to ahistoric category names and concepts. Medieval period has little to define its scope outside Europe and the Mediterranean worlds. It also would be somewhat bizarre to have such categories as Category:11th-century languages of Canada to show the language spoken by the Norse settlers, given that Canada didn't exist as a nation state until the 19th century nor did its territory include the Norse landing site until 80 years later or so. I think it best to not slide down that slippery slope. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 09:38, 9 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Grain elevators in the United States to Category:Grain companies of the United States‎

Nominator's rationale: Two names for the same thing. Elevator means not just the physical equipment but also the organisation that surrounds it. Rathfelder (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are three by-state subcategories here (Category:Grain elevators in Minnesota, Category:Grain elevators in New York (state) and Category:Grain elevators in Oklahoma), a parent category (Category:Grain elevators), a sibling category for Canada (Category:Grain elevators in Canada) and a by-province subcategory of that (Category:Grain elevators in Alberta) which all need to be moved if this is, because the same rationale applies equally to all of them. So I don't necessarily object to the proposal in principle, but I definitely object to moving this in isolation so that it's named differently than the rest of the tree is — this isn't about an ENGVAR variation from country to country, but about shifting the point of categorization from the physical structure (the elevator itself) to the corporate entity that owns it, which isn't an ENGVAR issue. Grain elevators are certainly owned by grain companies, but they're not the same thing as grain companies — so these categories are not automatically redundant to each other. What you're proposing is that we shift the point of categorization from the structure to the corporate entity that owns the structure — and while there may be a valid reason why we should do that, you haven't provided it. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose! They are not two names for the same thing, any more than a locomotive is the same thing as a railroad. And I'm not buying ENGVAR here, as there is no sign of that in the grain elevator article. Most if not all the members are NRHP-listed buildings; dumping them in with Archer Daniels Midland makes no sense. Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - a bizarre nom. Saint Paul Municipal Grain Terminal is clearly a grain elevator, not an organisation. Oculi (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose clearly not the same thing as a reading of the articles involved shows; read their categorization also Hmains (talk) 01:53, 5 June 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. Timrollpickering 12:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tourist traps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category was discussed without consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_25#Category:Tourist_traps. It has now been emptied of all contents except the lead article Tourist trap, which is already also in the parent category, so it does not need merging. For the record, it would be appropriate to document what happened to the other contents, e.g. were they merged to Category:Confidence tricks?

• @Gilliam, JarrahTree, Shyamsunder, Carlossuarez46, Mangoe, Marcocapelle, and Johnpacklambert: Pinging previous participants. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment All the original contents were already in Category:Confidence tricks, so I simply removed the inappropriate tourist trap category. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​ OK, thanks. – Fayenatic London 20:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not particularly happy about the removals (see WP:FAIT), but a category of one shouldn't really stay. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not really a fait accompli - after all, if we would insist Mangoe's removals could be reverted - but apparently there weren't any articles about Tourist traps that weren't about Confidence tricks. So delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this one's interesting just for the subtle variation in meaning between WP:ENGVARs. In British English it seems odd that this would be a synonym for Category:Confidence tricks, as Category:Tourist traps is just a slang term for Category:Tourist attractions, anywhere that tourists assemble; there's no sense of "entrapment" in a criminal way. Or even in a marketing sense - somewhere like Stonehenge would be regarded as a classic tourist trap, but was obviously built without any intention of appealing to tourists. So from a British perspective this is a horribly vague, slangy term that has no place as a category name regardless of the issues mentioned above. Le Deluge (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not think this is an Engvar issue, at least if it is, the Engvar issue is a rare one where British and American English agree. At least every time my Mom described something as a "tourist trap", she did not mean that the people running it were engaged in shoddy business practices per se. She just meant it was set up to attrack tourists, and maybe lots of merchants specifically catered to the needs and desires of visitors. This sounds like exactly how Le Deluge is describing the term. Niagara Falls, Las Vegas and Orlando Florida all qualify as such, but so to does Nauvoo, Illinois, and by some measures Salt Lake City, Utah. The extreme problem is however demonstrated in Salt Lake City, Utah. The number one destination of tourists in Salt Lake City is Temple Square, yet as they proclaim as you tour temple square, there is no where on temple square to buy things. There is a high end restaurant at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, which is part of the post-1999 temple square by some measures, and there is the City Creek Mall just across South Temple. This is not a term with a workable definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm specifically not saying it's "set up to attract tourists, and maybe lots of merchants specifically catered to the needs and desires of visitors". It can be that, in a slightly pejorative way, but it can also be used more neutrally, just for anywhere that tourists assemble. I've been involved with institutions that positively discouraged tourists, but they came regardless! Anyway, not that it really matters, it looks like this one is heading for deletion. Le Deluge (talk) 23:19, 5 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Annelids of Indonesia to Category:Annelids

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining for the two articles in it ("found widely in Southeast Asia ..." and "found in various tropical regions, including..."). Note: Most annelid articles have not been categorized by country/ies. DexDor ^(talk) 11:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge we should stop trying to use categories to cover things that are much better covered by a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge this is yet another non-defining intersectional category created by the same editor. In addition, "Indonesia" is a poor unit for any kind of organism distribution category, since it is split by the Wallace line into two major biogeographical areas. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:47, 5 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 10:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not enough content and what content there is has more appropriate subcategories without need of an eponymous parent. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:19, 7 June 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: Rename. Timrollpickering 11:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Imperial generals of the Holy Roman Empire to Category:Generals of the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: rename (and remove cat main header) since hardly anyone in this category has been specifically a general of the Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire). An alternative nomination was opposed at CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Imperial and Empire are redundant. Place Clichy (talk) 09:44, 9 June 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: No consensus. Timrollpickering 22:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Open world video games to Category:Open-world video games

Nominator's rationale: Hyphenate compound used as adjective.

Alt title: Category:Open-world games, since video is perhaps overly restrictive in the modern age. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, while both open world and open-world are used, the article title is open world. Assuming reliable sources use that term, so should we, whether or not it's grammatically incorrect. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soetermans: In matters of style, we don't follow sources, but our own WP:Manual of style. The relevant part here is MOS:HYPHEN, which indicates that we do hyphenate compound modifiers. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, It’s a really pointless change. I’ve seen it spelled both ways by many different articles. With and without the hyphen. Just leave it as is.24.228.215.81 (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — The non-hyphenated spelling is the most used one. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 11:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I reckon that MOS:HYPHEN falls under WP:C2B as a speedy renaming criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 12 June 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: Rename. Timrollpickering 22:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:U.S. military bases named for Confederate soldiers to Category:U.S. Army installations named for Confederate soldiers
• Propose renaming Category:United States military medical facilities to Category:Medical installations of the U.S. Department of Defense

• Propose renaming Category:United States Navy medical facilities to Category:Medical installations of the United States Navy
• Propose renaming Category:United States Air Force medical facilities to Category:Medical installations of the United States Air Force
• Propose renaming Category:Military research facilities of the United States to Category:Research installations of the U.S. Department of Defense
• Propose renaming Category:Military research facilities to Category:Military research installations
• Propose renaming Category:Military research facilities of the United Kingdom to Category:Research installations of the UK Ministry of Defence
• Propose renaming Category:Military research facilities of Pakistan to Category:Military research installations of Pakistan
• Propose renaming Category:Military research facilities of Canada to Category:Military research installations of Canada
• Propose renaming Category:Military research facilities of India to Category:Military research installations of India
• Propose renaming Category:Closed military facilities of the United States by country to Category:Closed military installations of the United States by country
• Propose renaming Category:Closed facilities of the United States Air Force to Category:Closed installations of the United States Air Force
• Propose renaming Category:Closed facilities of the United States Navy to Category:Closed installations of the United States Navy
• Propose renaming Category:Navy bases to Category:Naval installations
• Propose renaming Category:French naval bases to Category:Installations of the French Navy
• Propose renaming Category:Sri Lanka Navy bases to Category:Installations of the Sri Lanka Navy
• Propose renaming Category:South Africa Navy bases to Category:Installations of the South African Navy
• Propose renaming Category:Bases of the United States Air Force by country to Category:Installations of the United States Air Force by country
• Propose renaming Category:Bases of the United States Air Force in the United Kingdom to Category:Installations of the United States Air Force in the United Kingdom
• Propose renaming Category:Bases of the United States Air Force in South Korea to Category:Installations of the United States Air Force in South Korea
• Propose renaming Category:Bases of the United States Air Force in Morocco to Category:Installations of the United States Air Force in Morocco
• Propose renaming Category:Bases of the United States Air Force in Japan to Category:Installations of the United States Air Force in Japan
• Propose renaming Category:Bases of the United States Air Force in Germany to Category:Installations of the United States Air Force in Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Bases of the United States Air Force in Afghanistan to Category:Installations of the United States Air Force in Afghanistan
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in the United Kingdom to Category:Military installations of the United States in the United Kingdom
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in Thailand to Category:Military installations of the United States in Thailand
• Propose renaming Category:Military facilities of the United States in South Korea to Category:Military installations of the United States in South Korea

Nominator's rationale: 2015, and May 4, 2018 CFR nominations (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 15#U.S. military installations) continue cleaning up the mammoth category tree created in the merger of Category:Military facilities and Category:Military bases by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 12#Military bases and facilities of 2010. These are a few miscellaneous categories scattered around that need renaming from 'facilities' or 'bases' to installations. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Buckshot06: please keep looking – some of these have more sub-cats that have not yet been nominated. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 4 June 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: rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional organizations designated as revolutionary to Category:Fictional revolutionaries

Nominator's rationale: "Designated as revolutionary" does not make any sense as a term. I'm not sure if the categories fail WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They are all organizations so it should be "fictional revolutionary organizations". Bod (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional revolutionary organizations per Bod. Category:Fictional revolutionaries is for people, not organizations. Oculi (talk) 09:51, 4 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Exotic fruits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Horribly vague, Western-centric category that at best largely duplicates Category:Tropical fruit. No equivalent Exotic fruit article. Le Deluge (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - more specific than Category:Tropical fruit. Almost all pages in the category have at least one reference mentioning "exotic fruit". For acai, see this article Food trends "ancient grains" and "exotic fruit". Googling for "exotic fruit" turns up articles and videos from the last five years, showing the term to be trending. Bod (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Exotic" is highly subjective with respect to time and location. 60 years ago, kiwis and avocados were exotic fruits in the US. 150 years ago, bananas and pineapples were exotic. 300 years ago, oranges were exotic in the US and UK. English Wikipedia's readership is worldwide, with high numbers of readers form South Asia and the Philippines; what is exotic in the US and UK isn't necessarily exotic in India and the Philippines. And grocery stores in US neighborhoods with large Latin-American immigrant populations will have a different selection of fruits than stores in UK neighborhoods with large South Asian immigrant populations; Latin-American fruits may be more "exotic" in the UK and South Asian fruits more "exotic" in the US. Plantdrew (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after looking at what's in it, which is not much and nothing sensible. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - much less specific than tropical fruit. Any fruit is exotic (non-native) to somewhere. Oculi (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Let's introduce apples to the aliens and see if an alien Wikipedian recreates this for Earth fruits. Also, Mango and many other articles fit the inclusion criteria given, but are not in this category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Exotic" is subjective. --woodensuperman 13:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vague and subjective terms should not be used for categorization. Deli nk (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what's exotic one place is endemic somewhere else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are a number of lesser known fruits being marketed in the west in health food stores and other grocery stores, typically but not always from tropical areas, that are promoted as "superfoods" or having other health benefits or medicinal properties. Is it the consensus of Wikipedia that there should not be a category for these specially marketed foods? These usually traditional foods are new to the west. Superfood has a good section on it. Bod (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bodhi Peace: You're welcome to set up a separate CfD on the subject of Category:Superfoods but I will take your advice and quote from the lede of that article:
  Superfood is a marketing term for food with supposed health benefits. The term is not commonly used by experts, dietitians and nutrition scientists, many of whom dispute that particular foods have the health benefits often claimed by their advocates. Catherine Collins, for instance, the chief dietitian at St George's Hospital in London has stated that "[t]he term 'superfoods' is at best meaningless and at worst harmful... There are so many wrong ideas about superfoods that I don't know where best to begin to dismantle the whole concept."
  That doesn't sound like the kind of thing we want as a category. It's not personal, it's just that categories need to be capable of precise definition, and "superfood" is quite the opposite. And it's worth emphasising that being "new to the West" is irrelevant, you still don't seem to understand that English Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia whose biggest single audience is in India, as well as tropical countries from Guyana to Nigeria. Have a read of WP:Systemic bias and WP:Categorisation to try and understand where we're coming from. Le Deluge (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Le Deluge: I understand this argument towards making Wikipedia all international. And I understand the subjectivity of the term "Superfood". I feel like we are in a changing world in terms of diets and nutrition and I hope there is a way to categorize these foods on Wikipedia and possibly look into each one in regards to whether it has health benefits that have been proven. The company and products I am referencing are found here: MRM Superfoods: https://mrm-usa.com/products/superfoods/ Bod (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bodhi Peace: I understand the subjectivity of the term "Superfood" Good - that's all you need to know as far as its suitability for a category. A category needs to be clearly defined, and we can't have categories that can only be defined in vague terms. Plus I think you need to clarify why you think categories exist - they are not for somehow trying to help acceptance of a term because it suits the commercial interests of a particular company. We listen to the consensus of independent scientists, nutritionists etc - and they are overwhelmingly against the use of the term, regardless of what a particular company might think. More generally, I think you need to have another read of WP:Categorisation - the fact that you are creating categories such as Category:La songs suggests you don't have much feel for WP:DEFINING attributes of an article.Le Deluge (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Le Deluge: I'm starting to see the futility of trying to get this "current" or "hip" terms, part of popular culture, as a new category on Wikipedia. Just because the term is widely used, doesn't mean it is scientifically valid, which is what the editors want. Bod (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for all the reasons given above. @Bodhi Peace: please note that any claim that a food has particular health benefits needs to be sourced to the standards of WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:13, 10 June 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.