Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 28

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 to Category:Russian rulers; if anyone wants to purge this category (per Marcocapelle), they can do so. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete as the term 'leader' is too subjective. There is no tree of leaders by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Category:Russian rulers. There is ample content, covering rulers of Russia and preceding states with various titles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't necessarily oppose a more narrow scope of this category, but just a practical remark, this would require quite a bit of checking and purging. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 2 April 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. MER-C 07:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tablighi Ijtemas in the World to Category:Tablighi Ijtemas

Nominator's rationale: Specifying that all these events take place "in the world" is redundant. McGeddon (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 16 May 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: speedy delete per G4 as re-created material previously deleted a number of times: for the most recent, see here. See here for the original deletion discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This category is arbitrary and subjective. There is no generally accepted criteria for what constitutes a wonder. Anyone can add anything. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Burchell: : thanks for your comment, see, this category includes only recognized "old world and new world wonders", also it includes recognized wonders of various nations. we can remove things if anyone adds anything. There is no such category on wikipedia which includes such wonders. --Human3015 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But recognized by who? Who decides? Simon Burchell (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Burchell:, Wikipedia article Wonders of the World includes all these wonders. Old 7 wonders has been recognized by many historians, new world wonders were published on date 07/07/07 by New7Wonders foundation after vast online survey which was welcomed by media. And those individual nation's wonders are published by mainstream media of respective nations. With your logic, I think article Wonders of the World should not exist on Wikipedia, even anyone can add anything to this article too. --Human3015 19:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're changing my opinion... :) Perhaps the individual articles should be added to subcategories specifying the exact list (so the sourcing can be established), and {{Container category}} be added to the category page. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please let add one more thing, we can't delete categories or articles just because someone will misuse it, we thousands of active editors are here to deal with it, moreover Admins are there for final decision.

2nd thing, whatever text we add to wikipedia is based on the references of the mainstream news media, if this top media is saying that these are "wonders" then we can't stop anyone from adding it to wikipedia, afterall Wikipedia is based on reliable references. So atleast I don't see any reason to delete this category. If article with same name can exists then surely category too. Thank you. --Human3015 20:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Burchell:, thanks :) . ya you are right about references. --Human3015 20:19, 28 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 to Category:Goidelic languages. The nominator makes an excellent point, and the defenders countenanced merging somewhere. – Fayenatic London 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gaelic-language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I don't know what this is. Gaelic language redirects to Goidelic languages, which is a family of Celtic languages. This is just a hanging adjective with no clear inclusion criteria. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or possibly merge) per the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. According to Goidelic languages, Gaelic and Goidelic are linguistic variations (Irish and Scottish) of the same concept. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Celtic languages, which would add Welsh, plus Cornish and Breton - on which there is liley to be little. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 1 April 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: no consensus. If this comes back again, reference should be made to WP:IRE-CATS; and it would be good to look into duplication between Category:Irish sportspeople and Category:Sportspeople from Ireland. – Fayenatic London 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Athletes from the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This scope is already well catered for by Category:Irish athletes. I don't think it's a good idea to have an entirely duplicate Republic of Ireland structure for every single sports occupation. Note that this is an outlier of the Category:Sportspeople from the Republic of Ireland structure, which focuses on location, rather than sub-types of occupation. SFB 16:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In almost every category tree structure that involves the island of Ireland, there is a long established convention that you have "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" and "Foo in Northern Ireland", both of which have "Foo in Ireland" as their parent. Additionally, ""Foo in Northern Ireland" has "Foo in the United Kingdom" as a parent. This is true for this tree structure also. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. What Laurel Lodged stated is not entirely accurate. For people categories, we do not generally have separate categories for Republic of Ireland people. Examine Category:Irish people and its subcategories. The standard practice is to have Category:Irish athletes and then a subcategory for Category:Athletes from Northern Ireland. We don't really need a Republic of Ireland subcategory; in most cases such a subcategory would be exactly or nearly wholly co-terminous with what remains uncategorized in the undifferentiated Category:Irish athletes. Category:People from the Republic of Ireland currently has zero by-occupation subcategories! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just curious, why is it that two different categorization philosophies are used in Ireland (one system for people, one for other types of categories)? It sounds a bit confusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really sure, but it may have something to do with the effects of the Good Friday Agreement, which allows people in Northern Ireland to have British or Irish citizenship, or both. Therefore, categorizing someone as an "Irish FOO" does not automatically mean that the person is also a "FOO from the Republic of Ireland". That problem would be surmountable, of course, but it's likely that editors have decided it's just not worth the bother to have the extra layer of category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All true, but the biggest factor is that there are no borders to a person's identity. A person can happily consider themselves a multitude of things, types of Irish being an obvious example. "Things in Northern Ireland" is great for physically limited concepts, but a terribly blunt instrument for categorising how people feel about themselves. SFB 19:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Some sports are organised on an all-Ireland basis - particularly Gaelic sports. Others are organised separately in NI and RoI; I thought that we had agreed that categoriseation would follow that organisation: I certainly recall arguing for an all-Ireland category for horseracing. An all-Ireland category may also be needed for pre-partition athletes. Athletics (applying the narrow meaning usual in Europe of track and field) is organised on a UK + RoI basis, because people compete in the Olympics by country, not island. Leave well alone: this is a potential minefield as the Protestant people of NI are liable to regard themselves as British. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we had "left well alone", the category would not have been created in the first place, since Category:People from the Republic of Ireland is not divided by occupation! Your concern is easily addressed by having a subcategory for people from Northern Ireland, which is also parented by an appropriate British people category to recognize that people from NI can be Irish, British, or both. This is standard practice with these categories and has not resulted in any major explosions lately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A category is necessary for those athletes and Olympians born before the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922. for example, John Flanagan (athlete) could not be described as being from the Republic as it it did not then exist. So the parent category is necessary. However, for all others, especially those who declare for the Irish Olympic team, they should go this ROI category. Olympians from NI should go to the NI category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's one way to do it, but I don't think it makes the nominated category necessary. Making a special category for people from the Republic is not the usual way of organising articles—no other subcategory of Category:Irish people by occupation adopts this approach, so it's certainly not part of an overall scheme. It just looks to me like an idea that one user (you) has had and implemented with a single category, not an overarching imperative across the scheme. In other words, Category:Irish athletes is necessary; the nominated category is not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ignoring the fact that Olympians are already separately grouped by team, we shouldn't be categorising all athletes who represent Ireland at the Olympics as "Athletes from the Republic of Ireland" – indeed, it's possible that someone from Northern Ireland may never have even visited the Republic, let alone class themselves as from there. That's the point of having the Irish category, as Good Olfactory says. SFB 22:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While I agree that such a subcategory would be exactly or nearly wholly co-terminous with what remains uncategorized in the undifferentiated Category:Irish athletes, while I also agree that the nominated category is not strictly necessary, it still feels unfair if one particular country is being denied to have a People by occupation tree (of which the nominated category would become the first child category). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One person's "unfair" arrangement is another person's category that actually covers what it means to be an Irish person. Being in the Irish category isn't "uncategorised" – see my example above for why those from the North might remain in the parent category anyway. SFB 20:29, 27 April 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 12:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: That an article (e.g. Boarding school, Hat tip, Insult, Psychiatric hospital, Sexual ritual) mentions the work of Goffman is not an appropriate characteristic for categorization. If this type of categorization was used more widely it could place some articles in dozens of categories. DexDor (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In theory there could be articles justifiably included in such a category, but I can't find enough in this one to justify having it. bd2412 T 14:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. So how is this different than any other Wikipedia category named after American people? As noted in the main article, Goffman is one of the most influential contemporary sociologists. Perhaps not every article included in this category should be, but the category includes many that are, such as Breaching experiment, Dramaturgy (sociology), and Social stigma. What's 'enough'? And, really, what's the worry? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. If you look at, for example, Category:George S. Patton you'll see it contains articles such as this, this and this (articles that cover aspects of his life and legacy in more detail than the main article). The Patton category doesn't include articles about other related topics that mention him (e.g. World War II, Battle of the Bulge etc). DexDor (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This category is being misused as one grouping sociology topics that Goffman has been involved in. These categorisations do not meet the standard for defining features, for example Goffman is not a defining feature of the idea of insult or deference. Such links are better made in the context of the Goffman article itself, not as a navigational structure around things that Goffman researched. SFB 18:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is a misuse of what eponymous categories are for. These are not spinoff articles about extended aspects of him, nor are they things which are defined by his involvement with them — rather, it merely contains more or less every single article that even mentions his name in it at all, and that's not what "categories named for people" are for. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The fact that a writer has written about a subject does not justify putting that subjeect in his category. This is not a performance by performer category, but it has the feel of something rather too similar and certainly with similar dangers to the (category clutter) reasons why we do not allow those or award winners categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 1 April 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: no consensus. Although no dissent was expressed, the category contains not only former divisions, but lists of divisions at various dates, and a lead article that matches the category name. Perhaps it would be worth creating a new sub-category with the suggested name. – Fayenatic London 14:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose rename Category:History of the administrative divisions of Russia to Category:Former administrative units of Russia

Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify the scope of the category. The current name is ambiguous because you might think that it is about the history of the current administrative divisions of Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:44, 28 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: withdrawn by nominator. - Eureka Lott 22:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Upmerging Category:Quais in Paris to Category:Streets in Paris

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME or, at best, WP:NON-DEFINING. A "quais" is French for a wharf so I originally planning to add this to the Category:Wharves tree. However, 5 of the 6 articles are long city streets named after a wharf that they originally connected to: see the maps for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. (The 6th article is about a pedestrian walkway that has a wharf on it.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Neddyseagoon as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject France. – RevelationDirect (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Look at the other categories, it looks like this whole tree is mostly locations that historically served as wharves rather than active shipping wharves. I'll take another look and either make a broader nomination or move on. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:06, 28 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/delete small country categories, no consensus on Category:Expeditions by country of origin. – Fayenatic London 19:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerge Category:Expeditions by country of origin to Category:Expeditions

Nominator's rationale: upmerge with the deliberate intent, as a next step, to upmerge (or delete) all small country categories, per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that the category needs tidying up but it needs to be done with care. e.g. Category:Expeditions from the Kingdom of England contains only military expeditions and therefore needs to be upmerged to Category:Military expeditions not Category:Expeditions. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comment! Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment are you deleting all the subcategories? If not then keep this level of organization. (unless all subcats are deleted , I see no reason not to have this category) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The intention is to only keep the better populated countries. I think - but correct me if I'm wrong - that a "by country" category suggests that there is a full diffusion by country (i.e. suggests that the exception rule in WP:SMALLCAT would apply), that's why I propose to upmerge this parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• AFAICS many of these "by country" categories do not contain full country-level specifications, only those big enough to support categories. We also have country categories for things that no longer exist, so full specification isn't even possible, as countries disappear or are created, so isn't a static list. (and the status of what is a country is also disputatious) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this and the country noms below. Fragmentation of categories that are not over-populated hinders navigation, rhater than aiding it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all We generally accept that a schema like this can stand if it has a few major break-outs by country. Country is defining in this category, and there is no good reason to assume any of these categories are incabable of growth. Smallcat rules are meant to weed out categories with no potential for growth, not ones that a currently undeveloped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Argentina

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. There's only one article in the category. Upmerging is not needed, the article is sufficiently categorized already, e.g. in Category:1965 in Argentina and Category:Antarctic expeditions. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merge Category:Expeditions from Australia to Category:History of Australia

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. There are only three articles in the category. Upmerging to Category:Expeditions is not needed, the articles are in Category:Antarctic expeditions already. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Belgium

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. There's only one article in the category. Upmerging is not needed, the article is sufficiently categorized already, e.g. in Category:1897 in Belgium and Category:Antarctic expeditions. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Brazil

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. There's only one article in the category. Upmerging is not needed, the article is sufficiently categorized already, e.g. in Category:1913 in Brazil and Category:South American expeditions. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Bulgaria

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. There's only one article in the category. Upmerging is not needed, the article is sufficiently categorized already, e.g. in Category:2004 in Bulgaria and Category:Antarctic expeditions. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose delete Category:Expeditions from Canada

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. There are only two articles in the category. Upmerging is not needed, both articles are in Category:Arctic expeditions and a year category in Canadian history. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: this discussion on the next day. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: have you checked whether the contents of the above are otherwise within the other parents i.e. "history of" categories, as you did for the short list on March 29? – Fayenatic London 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: I did. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. – Fayenatic London 19:26, 3 June 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: withdrawn. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Propose upmerging Category:Australia Wikipedia administration to Category:WikiProject Australia

• Propose upmerging Category:Canada Wikipedia administration to Category:WikiProject Canada
• Propose upmerging Category:Pakistan Wikipedia administration to Category:WikiProject Pakistan
• Propose upmerging Category:South Africa Wikipedia administration to Category:WikiProject South Africa
• Propose upmerging Category:United Kingdom Wikipedia administration to Category:WikiProject United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Background: A category for a wikiproject (Category:WikiProject Foo) usually has subcategories for user pages (Category:WikiProject Foo participants) and (talk pages of) articles/templates etc of interest to the project etc (Category:WikiProject Foo articles). Sometimes other categories (e.g. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Foo, Category:Foo stubs, Category:Foo templates, Category:Underpopulated Foo categories...) are placed under a WikiProject category - whether they should be is another matter.

The categories proposed for upmerge by this CFD are an extra layer of categorization between the wikiproject category and the subcategories (e.g. this is below this which is below this). This type of categorization, is only used for a few of the thousands of wikiproject categories, is unnecessary and causes confusion (for example, several of these categories form category loops by being both a parent and a child of the WikiProject category). Related discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_9#Category:Kenya_Wikipedia_administration. DexDor (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn in favour of rearrangement as proposed by IP below. (Note: I'm not closing this discussion myself because another editor !voted support to the original proposal) DexDor ^(talk) 22:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as this places material within the project scope, which is not the sole owner of admin material. Project categories should only contain project-specific material, not material on the topic that the project covers. SFB 18:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand that comment; the proposal above wouldn't move anything into or out of wikiproject categorization. See alternative proposal below. DexDor (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment these categories are part of Category:Wikipedia administration by topic, so reverse the categorization, by making the wikiprojects subcategories of these categories instead of being parented by them. Unless we deleted all of Category:Wikipedia administration by topic -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having the admin category on top would make more sense than having the wikiproject category on top (or both!). There are a minority of places where that is already the case (example) and that would match Category:WikiProjects being below Category:Wikipedia administration. We might want to remove things like books and portals from the admin categories. I'll see if anyone else comments here and may withdraw this CFD in favour of making that rearrangement. Also pinging a/the user who has been placing the admin categories below the wikiproject categories (sometimes causing a category loop) to see if they would like to explain their reasoning. DexDor (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now rearranged the categories as proposed - i.e. putting the wikiproject categories below the administration categories. DexDor ^(talk) 22:02, 25 April 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.