From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 27 October 29 >

October 28

Category:Wikipedians by experience

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) 07:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: "Experience" is very broad and, therefore, not a useful high-level division for user categories. Other category trees already exist to capture the types of experience we would want to categorize—e.g. education, language, profession, skill. The two subcategories are already in other suitable categories and will not be orphaned. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Would also support deleting all subcategories in a future nom. VegaDark ( talk) 10:16, 29 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians by military experience

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) 07:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary intermediate category layer that hinders navigation between the parent and sub-categories. The various categories for Wikipedians in a particular nation's military can be housed directly within the parent category, which would have only 6 subcats after merging. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts ( talk • contribs)
  • Merge per nom. Would also support deleting all subcategories in a future nom. VegaDark ( talk) 10:16, 29 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians for Black Lives Matter

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. – Fayenatic London 09:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category groups users by advocacy of a political position/organization. Wikipedia is not for "[a]dvocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, ... or otherwise." There is extensive precedent to delete similar advocacy categories, e.g. here and here. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 23:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark ( talk) 10:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - would Category:Wikipedians interested in Black Lives Matter be more appropriate? Inter&anthro ( talk) 00:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    As a new category, I think that would be fine. However, I do not think we should rename this category to a new title as that would result in miscategorization. The editors in this category expressed a political viewpoint (mostly through the userbox) and we should not assume that this viewpoint equates to an encyclopedic interest in editing content related to BLM. One could, for example, be "for the Endangered Species Act" and have no interest in encyclopedia articles related to the Act or to endangered species. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete an advocacy category with no collaborative benefit. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Black Lives Matter It's fair to assume some interest when supporting a cause. gidonb ( talk) 10:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    It's fair to assume some interest when supporting a cause. That's not a fair assumption. For example, most people probably support the preservation of endangered species, eradication of infectious diseases, and protection of children from abuse. It's not fair to assume, however, that most people have an interest in collaborating on articles related to these topics. Unlike articles, where we can dictate how the article should be categorized, categorization of users requires the user to self-identify a certain way—only they can really know their interests, for example, and our assumptions have a high likelihood of creating miscategorization. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    In my book the substantial difference is NOT between "Wikipedians for Black Lives Matter" and "Wikipedians interested in Black Lives Matter". The substantial difference IS between "Wikipedians interested in Black Lives Matter" and "Wikipedians interested in working on articles on Black Lives Matter". In other words I disagree with your response and stand by my statement. gidonb ( talk) 18:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    A couple of thoughts:
    (1) Why should these users be recategorized (and possibly miscategorized) according to your, my, or anyone else's book? After all, if they have and wish to declare an interest in BLM, they can simply create a new interest category and add themselves to it.
    (2) If we remove the component about collaborating on articles (or other content), then the category has nothing to do with Wikipedia and should not exist.
    (3) Just as a sort of thought exercise, would you argue that "I support the preservation of endangered species, eradication of infectious diseases, and protection of children from abuse" translates to "I am interested in endangered species preservation, infectious disease eradication, and child abuse prevention"? In my case, for example, I support all three, am generally/vaguely interested in two, and would collaborate on articles related to one.
    The main points, of course, are (1) and (2), but I am curious to hear your point of view on (3). Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 06:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The Black Lives Matter movement is considered leftist so even if it is renamed to "interested in" it could be implying. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a category implying advocacy. Gluons12 ☢| ☕ 21:32, 28 November 2017 (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:Songs about automobiles

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, with no prejudice against renominating after the category has been pruned. While plenty of examples were offered of articles that do not belong in the category, there was not a compelling argument that this is not a recognized theme (see Car song) or that there are no songs about automobiles (e.g. " 409", " Black Metallic", " Little Deuce Coupe"). I think the most compelling argument for deletion was that this category may be unmaintainable (potentially because it is based on a subjective inclusion criterion), but it is not clear what distinguishes automobiles from most other themes within Category:Songs by theme in that respect. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Another in the endless series of "Songs about [Subject X]" categories, that get misused to capture any song in which X gets mentioned at all without regard to whether X is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the song or not. I've already removed " Life Is a Highway", which isn't about cars but merely has the word "drive" appearing in the chorus of a song which is about the metaphorical highway of life rather than any literal highway of cars -- but there are many more songs here about which the same could be said. " Paradise by the Dashboard Light", frex, is not about cars just because Meat Loaf was trying to get his jiggy on with Ellen Foley in a car (It's about the jiggy, not the car); " I Drove All Night" is about the lover that the singer of your preferred version was driving to get to, not about the car he or she drove in; " Little Red Corvette" is not literally about a Corvette, but is using the car as a metaphor for a sleek and sexy woman Prince is turned on by; " American Pie" is not about cars just because Don McLean drove his Chevy to the levee, but is about the death of Buddy Holly and Richie Valens and the Big Bopper; and on and so forth. All of which means that as usual, this is a trivia category for "Songs that mention X in the lyrics", not a defining category that's capturing what the songs are about. Bearcat ( talk) 22:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose This seems like more of an argument against Category:Songs by theme rather than deleting this specific category. The problems you state are not unique to this particular category. If you have a problem with that category then propose deleting it and everything in it there, otherwise, there is no particular reason to delete this one. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 07:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Not all possible song "themes" are equally invalid points of categorization. Some are good ones, while some are not — so each individual category has to be evaluated on its own individual merits or demerits, rather than simply trashing the entire tree en masse. Bearcat ( talk) 19:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    I might also support a rename to Category:Songs featuring automobiles, which is also a defining topic in itself even if the main subject of the song isn't about it. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 18:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    No, songs are not defined by every individual thing that happens to get mentioned in the lyrics, and are not categorized on that basis. Bearcat ( talk) 16:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nomination. At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with WP:V, it is NOT defining. WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference. The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.
    Songs, and song titles, use Simile, Metaphor, Analogy, Allegory, Parable, Figure of Speech and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all other songs by theme) denies lyricists and songwriters the ability to use linguistics when writing lyrics. ALl of which is systematically ignored with the addition of most of the members of the category.
    Playing word association games at WP with categories is not in spirit of an encyclopedia.
    Can anybody name ONE song which is "about an automobile," rather than mentioning in the title or lyrics? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 13:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    I'll be fair and acknowledge the Catherine Wheel's " Black Metallic" as being about a car. Not that most songs here are, obviously (or that the categorizer even caught "Black Metallic" in the first place.) Bearcat ( talk) 19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename to Category:Songs with an automobile theme. Song themes should be considered defining but songs may have more than one theme. The name I propose does not create the opposite impression and follows the theme of the parent category. gidonb ( talk) 00:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose both rename proposals (featuring and theme), since the current name is perfectly in line with the intentions of WP:DEFINING. So either there are quite a number of songs about automobiles and the category should be kept (and probably purged) or there aren't enough songs about automobiles and the category should be deleted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The nomination seems more a justification for pruning that deletion, and cars are significant. Does Life is a Highway even mention cars? 45.72.224.206 ( talk) 06:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    An IP comes to make a comment on a discussion and afterwards adds one song to the category, No Cars Go. I read the article and there is no details as to what the lyrics are about, so I pruned it! I'll let that sink in and then I will remind those that support categories like this that is an encyclopedia, not a word game. Anybody using an encycopedia is looking for information, in other words, we don't add members just because the word "Cars" is in the title (notwithstanding the title suggests it is not about automobiles), but because there is information to study. As for purging, I always purge if I see a member unreferenced for the category it is in, but do those that say 'purge,' actually bother to purge themselves, or do they rely on others to do it? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 10:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    It's not just in the title but also in the lyrics. I suppose one problem here is WP's aversion to primary sources, yet song lyrics—at least those where copyrights haven't expired—aren't available from many RS that don't want to get sued. Very well, let's prune all the members that have no secondary RS until the category has few entries, and with that delete the category. You're right: the song has absolutely nothing to do with cars. Actually there are very few songs about cars. Making Thunderbirds is an allegory for something: it has absolutely nothing to do with cars, American cars, much less Thunderbirds. Well done. Maybe if someone wants a list of songs that refer to cars might check another source—maybe Google it—and get hit with a shitload of ads. I'd search for an Includepedia but I might as well just make up my own list—sharing info just does seem to be worth the trouble for one.    :-/
    45.72.224.206 ( talk) 03:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support - At first glance I was like "Oh heck no.." until I took a minute or so to think it over. Some of the entries on the category are very clear such as Beep Beep (song) or Little Deuce Coupe (song), others though are in that grey area of WP:OR. I think the problem is that the category is too broad to be of ant good use as anyone can add an entry for a song with a mention of a car. The WP:OSE arguments also shouldn't hold weight here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    Too broad? Something like, Category:Songs about vehicles would be too broad while Category:Songs about convertibles would be too specific. How about a hatnote saying. "These are articles about songs either about automobiles or where automobiles figure prominently. Those that are little more than in name only, given minor references, or are pure or almost pure metaphor will be removed." 45.72.224.206 ( talk) 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    As for OSE. Yeah: Category:Films about taxicabs has Taxi Driver. According to my search, "taxi" appears 77 times in the article, but 73 are "taxi driver." Ergo, as "taxi" appears only 4 times: it might not be about taxis. The story isn't about a guy driving a taxi as much as it's about some vigilante shooting up a brothel, almost shooting a politician, and taking Cybill Shepherd to see a movie. "You talking to me?" is more prominent than the taxi. Should this be removed from the category and perhaps the category be deleted? 45.72.224.206 ( talk) 23:03, 29 November 2017 (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:Pokémon (anime)

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. – Fayenatic London 09:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is about all Pokémon anime shows and films, not just the original, so it doesn't need the parenthesis. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 22:07, 28 October 2017 (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:Manga based on Pokémon

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) 17:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are not merely "based" on Pokemon, they ARE officially licensed Pokemon manga. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 22:03, 28 October 2017 (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:Phthisiatrists

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 18#Category:Phthisiatrists. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A rather small and obsolete medical speciality. Lacks a defining article and no obvious reason for a seperate category. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose; the article Édouard Rist explains that he specialized in tuberculosis research (phthisiology). This category is a sub-category of Tuberculosis and appears valid & useful for that reason. I have added an explanation on the category page. – Fayenatic London 22:24, 12 November 2017 (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:Coptic atheists

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: convert to article ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This started as a one item category. Perhaps it could be reverted to that, perhaps there’s an article here, I’m not sure. But this definitely is not a category and the talk page isn’t a talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Articlise the text. The text names two people who are candidates to be here, though we only have one. Since conversion from Islam is forbidden by the state, in practice the religious minorities of the Middle East have become quasi-ethnicities. An intersection between this and atheism is of sufficient interest to keep, despite being a small category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - last time I checked there where only two articles in this category (although now there is only one) but it is an unnecessary and inaccurate way to categorize someone. Someone who is a former Christian or Hindu who left that religion and became an atheist wouldn't suddenly be called a Christian atheists or Hindu atheists. Perhaps a new category such as Category:Former Coptic Christians or something along that line would be more accurate. Inter&anthro ( talk) 12:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mainly because it is an article masquerading as a category. Unlike Armenians, Jews, Assyrians and Chaldeans, I am not fully convinced that the Copts are an ethnic as opposed to religious group. In the Middle East the line is often extremely fuzzy, but I think they fuzz on the side of religious. So this makes about as much sense as Category:Muslim atheists. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:41, 2 November 2017 (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:Dogs (series)

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) 07:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: After removing project pages and the author's article, there were only three articles left, which is too few to comply with WP:SMALLCAT. — Farix ( t |  c) 18:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for Now/Rename if Kept Delete for now with no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. (If kept/recreated, the anem should follow the main article though: Dogs (manga). RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:06, 31 October 2017 (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:Years by topic

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. This is a WP:SOFTDELETE, as the participation was weak; it does not bar re-dividing the category if a real distinction in content can be demonstrated. The old one will be redirected for now, which may be helpful if anyone wants to follow this up in the dozen or so other-language Wikipedias which have followed this duplication. The proposal to rename to Category:Topics by year goes against the parent Category:Categories by period, and a group nomination would be required to pursue that idea. – Fayenatic London 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge (both categories tagged): the subcategories of both of them have the same structure, they are all diffused by year for that particular topic. Note: insofar naming of the merged category is an issue, we can have either one of the two existing names, or a third alternative is Category:Topics by year. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – these are different: one contains subcats of form 'XXX by year', a subcat scheme for categories, and the other is a subcat scheme for Category:Years (all of form 'Years in'). Merging them would create confusion. Oculi ( talk) 17:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Per WP:SHAREDNAME. Grouping the same type of category by what pronoun is used ("Years in X" versus "X by year") instead of how they group articles hinders navigation. May be worth discussing standardizing the naming format at some point as well. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per WP:SHAREDNAME to Category:Topics by year. The latter option as Topics should lead and Categories is a fuzzy alternative to topics. gidonb ( talk) 13:44, 22 November 2017 (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.

Years and decades in Aragon

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 and delete. – Fayenatic London 16:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
more categories
The below categories become empty after the above mergers
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories contain only one article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:25, 28 October 2017 (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:Knights Templar in modern culture

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:Knights Templar in popular culture ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename, and move Category:Self-styled orders from being a sub-category up into Category:Knights Templar. The proposed name would fit well within Category:Cultural depictions of people. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:35, 28 October 2017 (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:Buddhist terrorism

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. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge all the articles in the former category are found in the latter. In fact the former seems to be just and extension of the latter, with the difference between what constitutes Terrorism and Persecution seems suspiciously like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Inter&anthro ( talk) 03:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC) reply
مصعب I appreciate your response but could you explain what separates the articles in Category:Buddhist terrorism from the rest of the articles in Category:Persecution by Buddhists? In fact two of the five or six of the articles in the former category have persecution either in their titles or in the introduction of the article. As for the fact that we do have terrorism-related categories for other religions is not the most convincing argument for retention per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
please tag me in order to see your message next time. I explained that there is a need for merging or at least recategorization and differentiation between the two categories. But if we choose merging i prefer using Buddhist terrorism because WP:EUPHEMISM is clear that we should not whitewash terrorism and call it anything but that and what happened in Myanmar clearly goes with definition of terrorism. Regards-- مصعب ( talk) 20:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- It is probably best to reserve "terrorism" for individual attacks. Much of the content here is about inter-communal violence. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Rename primarily because of the rules of common name. People are not describing the acts of violence carried out against Muslims in Myanmar as terrorism. Nor was the slaughter of Christian Armenians by the Muslim leaders of the Ottoman Empire terrorism. Nor is the execution of people who convert away from Islam by Iran or other south-west Asian states an act of terrorism. I actually think some of the thinks called terrorism are not well defined as such. Anyway, these articles are more about the broad trends in Rahkine State, not about specific events. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom or rename to Category:Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar, per article Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:34, 4 November 2017 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_28&oldid=1141927677"