The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename, per head article Storting. This proposal reverses a renaming of the first three categories listed here, which took place CFD 2011 March 4 and CfD 2011 March 12. It also renames two newer categories. The 2011 renamings happened without much participation, on the principle that category names should follow article names ... which is quite reasonable, since that's a speedy criterion: WP:C2D. However, in May 2014 the head article was moved from Parliament of Norway→Storting, after a requested move discussion at Talk:Storting#Requested_move. The head article has been stable at "Storting" in the two years since that move, so I think it's time to apply the C2D principle again and realign the category titled with the article title. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I agree with nom that it's at the point now that we should apply the principle that the category names should correspond to the article name. Leave a category redirect on the old nominated categories, since they may continue to be a commonly used/search for alternative. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. I don't have a strong opinion on the main article naming but, since a consensus has been reached there, the category name should blindly follow. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename following established name of main article. --PanchoS (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It's had a good stort, now it's time to finish the job. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but leave the existing name as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per the old discussions and the points above me.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per lead article. Who will close this discussion? gidonb (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit of an WP:ENGVAR issue, though not as clear cut as some. British English tends to use "vice-president" while American English tends to use "vice president". Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'd prefer the hyphenated British spelling, which is closer to the Norwegian spelling ("Stortingets visepresidenter"). --PanchoS (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The official translation used by the Storting is (First, Second etc.) Vice President of the Storting, capitalized and without hyphens.[1] Norway is not part of the United Kingdom and has no particular preference in regard to varieties of English. When Category:Vice Presidents of the United States and numerous other US related categories can be capitalized, then so can these categories. --Gaduse (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Esperanza Returns
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) 01:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains a mixture of user pages, user talk pages etc related to Esperanza (which was shut down in early 2007). A more meaningful category (e.g. "Wikipedians who wish to see Esperanza return") might work but I think it would be better for any such category to be created from scratch (if considered necessary) rather than as a rename of this one. DexDor(talk) 22:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --PanchoS (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Christian apocalyptic novels
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/delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, multiple category layers contain just one child category and one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Parent category Category:Apocalyptic novels only contains 41 novels and seems rather underpopulated. No need to subcategorize here. Dimadick (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all based upon our article Christian novel, "A Christian novel is any novel that expounds and illustrates a Christian world view in its plot, its characters, or both..." Isn't that basically true of the vast majority of Western literature? The whole Christian world view is embodied in the vast majority of Western laws, culture, and literature: Most novels dealing with good vs bad, redemption, or those considering death being an end (rather than a rebirth), or has Christian characters (any reverend, abbot, priest, or nun will do) meets Wikipedia's scholarly definition. As such, being a "Christian novel", which I think is poorly worded as novels don't have religions, is not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On what are you basing your definition of "Christian"? "Good vs bad" frankly sounds like standard Manichaeism: "Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness." The religion is gone but the association with the "good versus evil" concept remains. Per the same article: "The terms "Manichaean" and "Manichaeism" are sometimes used figuratively as a synonym of the more general term "dualist" with respect to a philosophy or outlook. They are often used to suggest that the world view in question simplistically reduces the world to a struggle between good and evil." I have never heard "good versus evil" associated with Christianity and I have been reading books on its history since I was a teenager. Redemption is not particularly Christian either. The relevant article mostly concerns the concept of redemption in Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism, with the brief section on Christianity barely covering Origen's definition. Death being an end refers to universal human experience and the concept of Eternal oblivion appears in the writings of Plato, Epicurus, Cicero, and Lucretius. According to Epicurus, "Accustom yourself to believing that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply the capacity for sensation, and death is the privation of all sentience". Christianity instead devotes itself to the concept of an afterlife, which seems to be the exact opposite of death being a meaningful end. As for Christian characters making a work Christian, almost all works of the Nunsploitation genre and Convent pornography involve the sexual escapades of nuns. Are you suggesting that they are typical examples of Christian fiction? Even the novel The 120 Days of Sodom by Marquis de Sade has among its protagonists a Bishop, who happens to like anal sex, gets turned on by murdering others, and looks down on vaginal sex. Based on your definition, this is a Christian novel despite being written by a notorious libertine who politically was in the "far left" of the National Constituent Assembly. I think you have a much too broad definition of Christianity and its influence in human culture. Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A "Christian world view" encompasses good, evil, redemption; and Wikipedia's definition of Christian novel, not mine if you bothered to read, was quoted above, but I repeat it here since you didn't bother to read it the first time and somehow think it's mine: "A Christian novel is any novel that expounds and illustrates a Christian world view in its plot, its characters, or both..." If a bishop as a character doesn't expound a Christian world view, you'd need to find a reliable source for that. Dante's Inferno has lots of naughty clergymen in its cast of characters - being a sinner doesn't negate the fact that a bishop, by virtue of his position, has some semblance of a Christian world view (as opposed to Buddhist, Jewish, or etc. one). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep There are a small number of works that seek to interpret the events prophesied in Revelation, Daniel and other Biblical books in fictional form. Such novels concern the Apocolypse in its strict sense, and might deserve a category, but such matter as does not conform to that narrow definition should be purged. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the three categories would you like to keep? You don't mean all three, do you? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Film categories do have a couple of films based on Evangelical interpretations of New Testament prophecies, such as A Thief in the Night (film), A Distant Thunder (1978 film), Image of the Beast (film), and The Prodigal Planet, so Christian apocalyptic fiction does exist. But I am far from certain this differs significantly from the genres of Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction which feature wildly divergent visions of the end and/or rebirth of the world. The article does explain that 19th-century apocalyptic novels such as "The Last Man" (1805) drew inspiration from the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse). Dimadick (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dance music by subgenre
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) 01:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First, its always good to avoid "by ..." when appropriate. Second, it should be in line with other entries in Category:Musical_subgenres_by_genre. CN1 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2C. --PanchoS (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kurdish secession by country
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thereby slightly expanding these categories. If these categories had a decent main article, it might be a different thing, but they actually don't have main articles at all, and the association with outright separatism vary between confirmed, contested and outright WP:POV. Based on the same argumentation, quite a number of subcategories in Category:Separatism by country will have to be substantiated, or accordingly renamed. --PanchoS (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Kurdish nationalism and Kurdish separatism are not necessarily the same; separatism tends to be an active and often violent form of nationalism, while nationalism can be also non-violent political. Furthermore, category:Kurdish separatism in Iran corresponds to Kurdish separatism in Iran article (about the conflict) and not to Kurdish nationalism in Iran.GreyShark (dibra) 05:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: That's true, and I indeed missed Kurdish separatism in Iran as the existing main article of one of these. We probably should have both levels, and then, after a while, see whether some aren't sufficiently populated or whether everything's fine. --PanchoS (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Republican Party of Russia – People's Freedom Party
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:speedy rename per C2D. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per current name of that party. --PanchoS (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women only space
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:speedy rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2B (making the name plural) and C2D (adding hyphen, per Women-only space). Trivialist (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The hyphen is obviously necessary. Unsure about the added "s", as the articles are mostly about the concept rather than such individual spaces, but I'm okay with it either way. --PanchoS (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:C2D. The category names should blindly follow the main article name. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Arab nationalists
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) 01:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, quoting nom from previous discussion: "Isn't categorizing Arab nationalists as politicians or thinkers something of oxymoron considering that most of them are both? There are also no other categories for military personnel based on ideology." Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom.GreyShark (dibra) 12:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Singing and Category:Vocal music
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:do as proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meta question Is a proposal like this wanted, or is it "littering" Wikipedia and better done without asking? CN1 (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with CN1, it doesn't need to be discussed in advance, and if there would be any discussion about it afterwards this is not the right platform for having such a discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Inventions of the Third Reich
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.
Propose renaming Category:Inventions of the Third Reich to Category:Inventions of Nazi Germany
Nominator's rationale: This may fall under speedy per C2D, since per Nazi Germany#Name the Third Reich redirects to Nazi Germany, but just in case I'm giving this a normal discussion. There is also no parent Category:Third Reich. Brandmeistertalk 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have no article for the Third Reich. Dimadick (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Third Reich" was a propaganda term, intended to give the Nazi regime historical legitimacy by connecting it with the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. BMK (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also the "of" is ambiguous here. Does it mean inventions caused to exist by the Nazi regime, or does it mean any invention made in Germany while the Nazis were in power? Is the telephone an "Invention of the United States"? BMK (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me "of" means "by" here, inventions by Nazi Germany (like inventions of Albert Einstein, for example). Brandmeistertalk 07:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename. Agree with BMK that not all of these qualify as inventions by the Nazis, irrespective if Max Keith of Coca-Cola, or Konrad Zuse, may be seen as collaborators or not. How about Category:German inventions of the Nazi period? I'm open for a better wording that takes into account my (and BMK's) reservations. --PanchoS (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:German inventions of the Nazi period, per PanchoS, also NPOV as it disregards whether the Nazis were "responsible" for the invention occurring or just were merely in power when it was. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check the articles. Many of them concern military equipment funded by the Nazi Party's coffers such as the V-1 flying bomb and the Messerschmitt Me 262. The few exceptions where the Nazi Party has little to do with them are probably the Z1 computer (completed in 1938) which was apparently privately-funded, the Z3 computer which received limited government funding though the Nazis denied it funding for further improvements, and the Z4 computer (completed in 1945), which was completed during the collapse of the Nazi regime and which the inventor was unable to sell before 1949. All in all, their creator Konrad Zuse received small government funding and minimal government support for his pioneering computers, because the Nazis thought them to be "strategically unimportant". Zuse never became a member of the Nazi Party despite working for the regime in various capacities. Dimadick (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did check the articles, and agree with your assessment. Many if not most of the inventions listed here qualify for being categorized as Category:Inventions of Nazi Germany. However, as long as not all of inventions of this period were "Nazi inventions", both the current name and the proposed name fail to accommodate the other ones. Certainly, more things have been invented in that period by individual inventors, but also by companies like Siemens, Krupp or IG Farben. Now what if at least some of these turn out to be militarily irrelevant, but still funded by companies that didn't "just" collaborate, but formed an inseparable part of the Nazi regime. I can already see the endless WP:POV discussions. What we could do is rename to Category:German inventions of the Nazi period, and split apart a subcategory that may be named Category:Military inventions of Nazi Germany. --PanchoS (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea: how about Category:Inventions in Nazi Germany??? --PanchoS (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nazi Germany is the common name for the "Third Reich", same as Ba'athist Iraq was for the "Iraqi Arab Republic" or Ba'athist Syria is for "Syrian Arab Republic".GreyShark (dibra) 12:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Child education organizations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The vast majority of organisations in Category:Educational organizations are concerned with the education of children. It's very unclear why those in this sub-category are differentiated. If we want a sub-category "Adult education organisations" would be a more useful split. Rathfelder (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The premise is not true. Most UK learned societies are technically educational charities, concerned with educating their members and the public in their particular subject. Similarly universities are not primarily concerned with educating children, but young adults. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought Peterkingiron has a fair point. Quite a lot in this category refers to academic education or doesn't target any specific age group. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal
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 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal was given out to 42,000 people in 1992 to celebrate the anniversary of Canada. According to the article, nominations were submitted through "lieutenant governors and territorial commissioners, senators, members of parliament, provincial governments, the Public Service Commission of Canada, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and various federal government departments, as well as organizations throughout the country" so it's no surprise so many were given out for so many different reasons. Canada does have other commemorative medals but none of those have a Wikipedia recipients category. None of these people had anything to do with establishing Canada so the medal doesn't seem defining and these people have very little in common with each other. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As always, the category system does not exist as a venue for creating lists on every bit of trivia it would be remotely possible to create a list for — we categorize people on WP:DEFINING characteristics, not every single award they were ever given. This indeed is not all that significant an honour — it would not, for instance, be enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself if it was the most substantive notability claim that could be made. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This seems to have eben too widely awarded to make a useful category: see OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jubilee 150 Walkway
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 Jubilee 150 Walkway is a Walk of Fame from 1986 celebrating 150 years of South Australia history and it looks like this. About 150 famous people have plaques in the sidewalk and this category groups those biography articles together. (There are also a few other loosely associated articles.) The problem is that the names of these people are there because they were already notable; adding them to the walkway didn't make them notable. The individual articles are already categorized under the Category:People from South Australia tree and these recipients are already listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry RevelationDirect, but I don't understand what the problem is.
There's lots of "stuff" associated with J150W - mainly articles and photos, but other stuff as well. This category provides a receptacle for the names of all related pages. Why is this a problem? I would very much appreciate you explaining the problem, and/or expanding on the above explanations.
You say: The problem is that the names of these people are there because they were already notable; adding them to the walkway didn't make them notable. - I don't understand what is the issue you're raising here.
You say: The individual articles are already categorized under the Category:People from South Australia tree. I don't understand your point. There are a very large number of people in that category, all but 150 of whom are NOT related to J150W.
Sorry to be a pain, but it's difficult to agree or disagree with you when I don't understand what your point is / points are.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Sure, I can elaborate. 1.) Generally I think we should avoid loose association "receptacle" categories. "People on this walk of fame", "buildings near this walk of fame", "companies founded by people on this walk of fame" and "monuments with lists of names in Adelaide that predate this walk of fame" are four different groups; I don't think we should categorize by any of these things but, if we do, they shouldn't lump them into one free-for-all per WP:OCASSOC. 2.) Some awards like the Nobel Prize are defining to biography articles because the award itself makes the person more famous. Most local halls of fame, like this one, just reflect a person's fame and should not be a category per WP:OCAWARD. 3.) If a person is interested in finding these biography articles, the existing framework of people from South Australia is the best way to find them because it breaks them down by politicians, sportspeople, scientists, etc. in a way that logically groups them and aids navigation. This category lumps a bunch of people together based on a list that have little in common besides being from SA so it doesn't aid navigtaion. -- Hopefully, this expansion of my thoughts is helpful in at lease conveying my concerns even if we still disagree over this category! RevelationDirect (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain. I don't see how WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCASSOC apply, but I do see that WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) applies. I note that these editing guidelines indicate that in cases such as this, a list article is more appropriate than a category. But I'll leave my contribution as Uncertain until I've had a chance to consider input from other editors. YBG (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining - e.g. this is not mentioned in the text of the Don Bradman article. DexDor(talk) 06:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry DexDor, although it seems you know what you mean, I don't. Could I bother you to explain please? I don't understand your point. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we only create categories for a topic when the articles in the category are clearly about that topic, not when the articles are vaguely associated with that topic but actually about something completely different. In this case the majority of articles are biographies, they should be in biography categories, not in a walkway category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2016 (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.
