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 for merge (category also was not tagged with Template:Cfm). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Forts in Ghana to Category:Castles in Ghana

Nominator's rationale: Forts & Castles do not form distinct categories and some forts are already listed under 'Castles' — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTurl (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Forts to Castles; a sensible solution. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now; the existence of Category:Forts by country and Category:Castles by country contradicts the premise of the nom, and any approach to resolving the overlap should be systematic.- choster (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There is nothing in Ghana that cannot be called a fort rather than a castle, and that meets the definition at castle. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• do not merge for the reason nominated, which is incorrect choster is corrct in stating that Category:Forts in Ghana to Category:Castles in Ghana belong to two different category tree structures, Category:Forts by country and Category:Castles by country. Individual Ghaha articles can be placed in the correct category, Category:Forts in Ghana or Category:Castles in Ghana, and then see the results. Hmains (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Against Not every fort is a castle. Fortification says "Castles are fortifications which are regarded as being distinct from the generic fort or fortress in that it describes a residence of a monarch or noble and commands a specific defensive territory." Dream Focus 03:31, 10 April 2011 (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. There's certainly no consensus to delete, as these are places known for people talking about them as paranormal. So then the question becomes: Does use of the word "paranormal" imply belief that the paranormal actually exists? There's no consensus on that here either, but at the very least it doesn't seem to commenters that it's as bad as "haunted." It's not clear where this will go from here, but bringing it up for renaming rather than deletion might help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paranormal places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator’s rationale: Delete: This assertion that there are ‘Paranormal places’ can only bring our encyclopaedia into disrepute. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this is a parent for another category under review at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_30#Category:Haunted_houses. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge cat into Category:Forteana or similar. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same arguments used in the Haunted houses category. The non-reality of paranormal phenomena doesn't change the fact that some of these places are widely-known as paranormal places. Our readers are smart enough to realize that we don't mean that these places really exhibit things that are outside our common understanding of reality. The category lists as the main article list of reportedly haunted locations which is a clear sign. The fact that the cat is a child of Category:Visitor attractions is also a pretty big hint and if that's not enough, the parent category Category:Paranormal is categorized as Folklore | Mysteries | Pseudoscience | Superstitions. I suppose we could also add a big blinking red bold text in capital letters that says "Paranormal = junk science" but we have to assume that our readers don't need to be babied. Pichpich (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Following the decision of the other one, i suggest merge into Category:Reportedly haunted locations and if that occurs, rename

1. Category:Paranormal places in Australia to Category:Reportedly haunted locations in Australia
2. Category:Paranormal places in Canada to Category:Reportedly haunted locations in Canada
3. Category:Paranormal places in France to Category:Reportedly haunted locations in France
4. Category:Paranormal places in Germany to Category:Reportedly haunted locations in Germany
5. Category:Paranormal places in India to Category:Reportedly haunted locations in India
6. Category:Paranormal places in Ireland to Category:Reportedly haunted locations in Ireland
7. Category:Paranormal places in Italy to Category:Reportedly haunted locations in Italy
8. Category:Paranormal places in the Philippines to Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the Philippines
9. Category:Paranormal places in the United Kingdom to Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United Kingdom
10. Category:Paranormal places in the United States to Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States

Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 23:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work. There's more than ghost stories under the paranormal umbrella (ufology in particular). Maybe "Reportedly paranormal"? In any case, I still believe it's overkill and that a simple introductory sentence is just as effective to quell the concerns of those who find that we're hinting at the actual existence of paranormal phenomena. Pichpich (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with the cat is that it invites WP:OR. Granted, we may cite a RS that reports some person seeing a UFO, Bigfoot, or a ghost at 123 Main St, USA, but we should not have Wikipedia deciding that address is now a "paranormal place" (i.e. a place confirmed as being the site of events outside the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem though. The category is not intended to validate the existence of paranormal events: it's intended to validate the existence of legends. This in itself is not OR. Pichpich (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about legends, however I think editorially deciding that a location where something weird was reported is a "paranormal place" is not accurate nor sufficiently neutral. More specific cats such as "Reportedly haunted locations", "Reported Chupacabra sighting locations", "Reported UFO sighting locations" etc. might serve better. Nothing against legends. I just feel the cat name is a bit too broad. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My belief (see above) is that "Reportedly paranormal places" is an overkill and an insult to our readers' intelligence. But we seem in agreement that the category should be kept and cleaned up. Pichpich (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that, but I'm in agreement the category should be renamed to something more appropriate, such as examples I gave above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2011 (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 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs about serial killers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete? I'm actually leaning towards keeping the category but that might be the minority point of view. Pichpich (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overly narrow, prone to OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:24, 8 April 2011 (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 merge C2C per convention of Category:Charlottetown. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sport in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island to Category:Sport in Charlottetown

Nominator's rationale: Merge Clear duplicate. All subcategories of Category:Charlottetown don't include the province in their title. Pichpich (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Natural structures in Afghanistan to Category:Landforms of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: Merge to match standard name of similar categories. Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If the proposition is to merge Category:Natural structures in Afghanistan as a subcategory into Category:Landforms of Afghanistan, I support it. Cabolitæ (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge the category seems to have no parent category, so unless other countries have a category for "Natural structures", I think the two items can be included in Landforms Hugo999 (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (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 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming Category:Open source software hosting facilities to Category:Project hosting websites. It seems unnecessary since Category:Free software websites already exists. --111.241.72.178 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: there was no CfD template on the category page until 5 April. Jenks24 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2011 (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 (target has been created via discussion immediately below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Geography of Sakha Republic to Category:Geography of the Sakha Republic

Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate category, and should be merged with the below nominated category, if/when that discussion closes. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding the word "the" is unnecessary and inconsistent with other "Geography of Foo" categories. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – IMO it does need 'the'. One doesn't need to look far to find Category:Geography of the Russian Far East and Category:Gulfs of the East Siberian Sea. And there is Category:Geography of the Czech Republic. Occuli (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Also agree with Occuli: the 'the' is definitely required. Category:Geography by country provides many other examples. Pichpich (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 5, 2011; 14:10 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Sakha to Category:Geography of the Sakha Republic

Nominator's rationale: The more correct name is Sakha Republic, and as one can see from the parent and subsidiary categories present in this category they all use the form "Sakha Republic" hence this should be renamed for consistency. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Same as Category:Geography of Sakha Republic. Merger is a no-brainer and can be done right away. Adding "the" is unnecessary and inconsistent with other "Geography of Foo" categories. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename See entry above for why the 'the' is necessary. Pichpich (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 5, 2011; 14:10 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:United States Ambassador to Iran to Category:United States ambassadors to Iran

Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge per C2C. Plural form is used in every occupation category. Pichpich (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:CEO to Category:Chief executives

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge and possibly diffuse to the "by nationality" subcategories. This is clearly a duplicate. Pichpich (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I had no idea a category already existed. Yes, merge it on over to that. Then rename the other one Chief executive officers. When you look for chief executives it redirects you to Chief executive officer. That's the proper name for them. Dream Focus 12:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About that last point. My feeling (for what it's worth) is that it's reasonable to say of someone that he's a "chief executive" whereas saying "chief executive officer" feels awkward if it's not followed by the company's name, e.g. "chief executive officer of Acme Corporation". Pichpich (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay politicians from the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom and Category:Gay politicians. There's really no need to subdivide an Category:LGBT politicians by country subcategory even further by gender, the intersection isn't helpful and the category still won't be excessively large. Bearcat (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – there should be some renaming of all these per Category:British politicians; 'Fooian', not 'from Foo'. This is alternatively a 'by nationality' subcat scheme for the reasonably large Category:Gay politicians, which would be fairly standard. Occuli (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay politicians won't be excessively large even after the two upmerges I've proposed (it'll still be under 400 articles), and while some of the largest "LGBT occupation" categories have been subdivided by country and/or by splitting out each individual letter from the acronym, the LGBT wikiproject has always tried to avoid intersecting those two schemes to create a third "individual letter subdivided by country" level of categorization, because neither the wikiproject nor the encyclopedia as a whole actually needs to get that narrow. If we kept this, for example, and then recatted the remaining gay men from Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom who haven't already been funnelled down to the gay subcat, then there would only be ten articles left in the parent — and on those grounds, we could never justify the parallel subcats for lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender politicians. And if we can't create L, B and T, then we don't need G — if it's not possible to create and populate all four at once, then we don't need or want one of them to exist in isolation. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay politicians from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:LGBT politicians from the United States and Category:Gay politicians. There's really no need to subdivide an Category:LGBT politicians by country subcategory by gender, and the category still won't be excessively large. Bearcat (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors who have played Doctor Who (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAT#PERF - "Avoid categories which categorise performers by their portrayal of a role. This includes portraying a specific character (such as ...)" This category would appear to be in violation of this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overcategorisation. Categories for Doctor Who directors, writers and producers have just been speedily deleted as they were CFDed in 2007, this should definitely be deleted as well. –anemoneprojectors– 05:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• note - I don't think its a correct thing to do whilst a discussion is under way, but, the cats been emptied by an IP address from Louisiana, I didn't realise Americans were into Doctor Who. Special:Contributions/68.222.6.206 - Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's long been a significant US based fandom. However the IP is out of step - CFD is the place to challenge categories, not a mass removal. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted the IP's emptying of the category, and asked the IP not to do it again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately Peter Davison one, at least has been removed again. (Reverted) PRL42 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Several, if not all, of these have been semi-protected by SarekOfVulcan for a week to prevent an IP hopper from continuing to do this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - superfluous category that's also inherently false! Nick Cooper (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but as for "inherently false" a lot of contracts and the credits for the bulk of the show's history to say nothing of actual dialogue in the show all disagree on that one. The notion that the character is definitely not called "Doctor Who" is something of a fan myth that official merchandise and later production teams picked up to varying degrees but it's never really been explicitly settled. However categorising by role played is out, no matter how prominent the role was to a minority of (potential) category members. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of these "actor in" cats (Doctor Who - Grange Hill - EastEnders etc) were deleted a few years ago. I don't see any reason to change that consensus at this time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Duplicated information, anyway. PRL42 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This sort of category is explicitly disallowed by OCAT rules, besides which it just isn't useful - some of these actors were actually the Third Doctor, the Ninth Doctor, etc., while others were one-offs for Comic Relief and that sort of thing. Better handled by the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Actors who have been typecast as Doctor Who. Certainly it is a defining characteristic of an actor's career when they have been typecast. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just rename it, obviously. If you search for List of actors who have played Doctor Who it redirects you to List of actors who have played the Doctor. There are certainly enough people on that list with their own articles to justify a category. I agree that Category:Actors who have been typecast as Doctor Who sounds reasonable. Dream Focus 12:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions for the IP and Dream Focus. Have you read WP:OCAT#PERF? It specifically states that we are to avoid these kinds of categories. Do you know what "typecast" means? Under the definition of the word none of the actors who have played the Dr would appear in the cat (with the possible exception of Hartnell) as they all - even Tom Baker - have had careers where they went on to appear in roles completely unlike the Doctor.MarnetteD | Talk 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are for defining characteristics, being typecast is a defining characteristic. Hartnell, Pertwee and yes, Tom Baker, all have had issues with typecasting after Doctor Who. There's several theatre reviews about plays that Pertwee performed in, with notes about disappointment with the lack of Whoviness of them. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is true it isn't really typecasting because there are no other theatrical characters anything like 'the Doctor'. Also it's hardly worth having a category for three people only one of whom (Pertwee) could unarguably have suffered from his association with the role. PRL42 (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:School types (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Schools by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One should be merged into the other, or into a single new category. Each has a sizable number of pages in it. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. They're not the same. The former includes articles describing specific types of schools, while the latter includes articles about individual schools classified by their type. - Eureka Lott 14:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The first category contains articles on types of schools; the second mostly contains articles on individual schools, excepting a few misfiled type articles. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academic organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Academic institutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Confusingly similar. In fact, our article page on academic organization is a redirect to the article on academic institution. I think we should merge Category:Academic institutions into Category:Academic organizations, moving the subcategories and listed articles in "Academic institutions" to "academic organizations." Neutrality^talk 04:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment. We also have Category:Educational organizations and also Category:Educational institutions. If anyone has an idea to rationalize our category structure that would be really useful. Neutrality^talk 04:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not to forget Category:University and college organizations and Category:University organizations. I have also tried to resolve the multiple overlaps between these two and Category:Student organizations and Category:Student societies on several occasions and been flat-out rejected without any counter-proposals made.- choster (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to ? It's pretty clear that whoever has been maintaining the "organizations" category has a pretty good idea of what goes in it: societies and the like which exist outside of schools/universities. Perhaps a better name for it would do the trick. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is. The contents of these categories are not even close to being similar. Hmains (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The difference in content is clear. Cleanup will probably be necessary from time to time because some confusion is inevitable but I don't think this requires a name change. Pichpich (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (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.