Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 15#Category:Protestant religious scandals

: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:Scandals in Christian organizations and :Category:Scandals in Eastern Orthodox organizations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming:

::* :Category:Christian religious scandals to :Category:Christianity-related scandals

::* :Category:Eastern Orthodox religious scandals to :Category:Eastern Orthodoxy–related scandals

:Nominator's rationale: The proposed name isn't perfect, so better proposals are welcome, but there is no "Christian scandal", neither is there an "Eastern Orthodox religious scandal". These scandals are related to Eastern Orthodoxy resp. Christianity, but they are scandals by secular standards. PanchoS (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose use of "related-" as it's inherently ambiguous/subjective - for example, a religious organization may be connected to a scandal in a good way (e.g. a religious person is a victim of a scandal, a religious organization uncovers a scandal in a different organization). I'm not convinced there's a need to rename these categories, but if there is then the categories should be made more precise (e.g. "Scandals in Christian organizations"). DexDor ^(talk) 05:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Equally agree with nominator and with opponent. I like the alternative "Scandals in Christian organizations", it would address arguments from both sides. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:* I agree with "Scandals in Christian organizations" being a better rename target. --PanchoS (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Upmerge To :Category:Christianity-related controversies and :Category:Eastern Orthodoxy-related controversies with no objection to renaming those target categories. The difference between a "scandal" and a "controversy" seems subjective. The only "scandal" articles I see in the Orthodox tree are Financial scandal in the Orthodox Church in America and Relationship between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Iron Guard. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:* I can see your point, but – current categorization aside – there's still a huge difference between controversies like Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy, Formulary controversy, or the Strelnikoff Mary of Help of Brezje controversy, and scandals such as the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. We might need better ways of restructuring all these categories, but I'm not sure upmerging is helpful here. --PanchoS (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::* I don't think we disagree here. Maybe a distinction between theological disputes and more earthly controversies? RevelationDirect (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:::* Sure, but IMHO, it's no good idea to dismantle an established scheme at this level. These categories don't seem to be any different than in other areas. If there is a more general problem with the distinction between {{cat|Controversies}} and {{cat|Scandals}}, then we need to nominate the whole category tree. Otherwise we should find and apply halfway objective criteria, such as allegations of misconduct, or substantial moral outrage, per scandal. --PanchoS (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support ALT "Scandals in Christian organizations" is a better alternative. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Laurel Lodged: a much better solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. What is a "religious" scandal? Is a minister committing sex acts with children a religious scandal, or just a scandal? What of a supervisor of ministers moving them to appease local outrage at their sex acts with children without telling those getting them why they are being moved? I could actually see an argument that the former is not a religious scandal, but the latter is, but it seems a needlessly fine distinction. I think the general invocation of Christianity works in this case though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2016 (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: there is consensus to abandon the nominated category, but a weakish consensus only of what the proper course would be, so defaulting to an upmerge to the parent :Category:Protestantism-related controversies (which also gained the most support). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Protestant religious scandals to :Category:Protestantism-related controversies

:Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and one child category. (The article may also be upmerged to the other parent category, the child category is already in that tree.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Alt rename to {{cat|Protestantism-related scandals}}. Small but with abundant room for expansion, once correctly titled. --PanchoS (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::*Oppose rename to "related-" per my comment in the discussion above. DexDor ^(talk) 05:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::* Is there room for expansion beyond the child category :Category:Protestant religious leaders with criminal convictions? Where would it come from? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Upmerge To :Category:Protestantism-related controversies with no objection to renaming those target category. The difference between a "scandal" and a "controversy" seems subjective. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Protestant clergy misconduct. The content concerns clergy with criminal convictions and a homosexual Irish Anglican bishop. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Upmerge to the controversies page. Controversy is a much less pejorative term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2016 (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 to both :Category:Catholicism-related controversies and :Category:Misconduct by Christian clergy. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 06:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Misconduct by Catholic clergy to :Category:Catholicism-related controversies

:Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains one child category so it's a redundant category layer. (It doesn't need to be upmerged to the other parent category, because the child category is already in that tree.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Keep as there is abundant material for expansion. Alternatively, alt rename/expand to {{cat|Catholicism-related scandals}}. These are not just controversies but outright scandals by secular standards, so there needs to be a distinction. --PanchoS (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Upmerge as nominated but also upmerge move :Category:Catholic sex abuse cases to to be under :Category:Misconduct by Christian clergy. I'm not seeing the navigational benefit of this small category at this time, and we don't have equivalents for other denominations. No objection to reviewing if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:* {{re|RevelationDirect}} {{cat|Catholic sex abuse cases}} is a small category??? --PanchoS (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

::* No, :Category:Misconduct by Catholic clergy is. Having well populated subcategories doesn't justify having extra layers of parent categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• (as nom) Agree with RevelationDirect about also upmerging :Category:Catholic sex abuse cases to :Category:Misconduct by Christian clergy. This has been added as a second child category after this discussion had started. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Oppose upmerging :Category:Catholic sex abuse cases. While a main article doesn't automatically mean a category has to be kept, this is a clearly defined, particularly well populated, and self-contained category with several subcategories that are clearly related to the sexual abuse cases, and would suffer from being generalized to "Catholicism-related controversies". --PanchoS (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Clarification {{ping|PanchoS|Marcocapelle}} Oh, I see the confusion. I want to keep :Category:Catholic sex abuse cases but reparent it under :Category:Misconduct by Christian clergy. Sorry for being unclear. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

:::: {{ping|RevelationDirect|Marcocapelle}} Ah, I see. So the latest proposal is to dual upmerge :Category:Misconduct by Catholic clergy to :Category:Misconduct by Christian clergy and :Category:Catholicism-related controversies, right? I'm not totally convinced, but could live with that proposal, as long as possible future recreation isn't precluded, if we don't come up with better ways of categorizing the quite abundant material we have in this area. --PanchoS (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2016 (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) 00:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:2016 in Sacramento, California to :Category:21st century in Sacramento, California

:Nominator's rationale: The city should yield enough content for categorization by century, but not by individual year, for the time being. PanchoS (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. I would say the same for :Category:2016 in Northern California & :Category:2016 in Southern California too; Do the largest states like California and New York need to have subcategories by year? Hugo999 (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It would make sense only if the parent category gets too large to aid in navigation. In this case, parent category :Category:2016 in California only contains 52 articles and 7 subcategories. A potential merger would still result in a category with less than 200 articles. Dimadick (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• For the latter, see this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Unlikely to have any significant possibility of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 22 June 2016 (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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Miss BC World winners}}

:Nominator's rationale: Parent article, Miss BC World, has been deleted at AfD so I don't believe this category it notable. Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Both articles in this category are already in :Category:Canadian beauty pageant winners so no upmerge is needed. DexDor ^(talk) 05:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delete We apparently do not have sourced information on this beauty pagent, so it should have no category of its own. Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:41, 17 June 2016 (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: delete. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 11:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Organizations by beneficiaries}}

:Nominator's rationale: delete, the current contents is already contained within :Category:Philanthropic organizations - which is at a lower level in the tree of :Category:Organizations - and it's rather unlikely that it will get content from outside :Category:Philanthropic organizations in the future so it seems to be redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• {{re|Marcocapelle}} I can see this category isn't well populated, but beneficiaries are a usually WP:DEFINING and obvious aspect of an organization, so beneficiaries are one of the more useful criteria to subdivide organizations. I'm not even sure {{cat|Philanthropic organizations}} is correctly defined here. Philanthropy states that "not all charity is philanthropy, or vice versa". In practice, today, philanthropy is usually associated with large-scale donations, often in the form of private foundations. Also, not all charitable work is done by organizations with legal charity status. So if the category isn't deemed sufficiently filled, we should rather upmerge {{cat|Charities by beneficiaries}}. --PanchoS (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

:* {{ping|PanchoS}} Upmerging to the top :Category:Organizations isn't needed, because all content is already in the tree of :Category:Organizations in other ways. However, since :Category:Charities by beneficiaries is child category of :Category:Non-profit organizations by subject tree, I suppose we can similarly merge the nominated category to :Category:Organizations by subject instead of deleting it. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've just moved :Category:Charitable organizations up the heirarchy. I think I support this proposal. I can't see many users of the encyclopaedia finding it useful. In practice there is a lot of overlap between beneficiary, type, subject and topic, and I think splitting them is not helpful.Rathfelder (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• But I just came across :Category:Organisations serving Indigenous Australians. Maybe there are more like it?Rathfelder (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Overlaps almost entirely with :Category:Charities by beneficiaries since almost all organizations with beneficiaries are charities. "Beneficiary" is also ill-defined and subjective. To be considered a "beneficiary", do the beneficiaries have to receive direct aid or is advocacy enough? For instance, I could see a case for the National Rifle Association being an organization that "benefits" gun owners, but I don't think that's the intent of this category. This is more straight-forward with charities since they almost provide direct aid in various forms, but it's a problem when you expand to "organizations". ~ Rob^Talk 03:59, 24 June 2016 (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: upmerge to both :Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members from Iraq and :Category:Iraqi Army officers. There's consensus to upmerge to the former category. The double upmerge to the latter category was proposed late in the process, but it received no opposition and that's unlikely to change if this were relisted. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 03:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:ISIL commanders who were officers during the reign of Saddam Hussein to :Category:ISIL commanders who were officers in Ba'athist Iraq

:Nominator's rationale: A Stefanomione creation: not sure if we want to keep this or not, but if it is kept is should be renamed. Saddam Hussein was not a monarch, so calling his tenure a "reign" is a little POV. "in Ba'athist Iraq" is probably a more neutral description. If users prefer deletion, I could go along with that as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Upmerge to :Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members from Iraq. This categorization by career path (for want of a better term) is unnecessary. It also places articles about people who had no notability as an officer in :Category:Iraqi Army officers. It may make sense for a suitable article to include some examples of such people.DexDor ^(talk) 05:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Upmerge per DexDor Foos who used to be Faas is a whole mess of categories we should be deleting not expanding. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 05:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Upmerge, but also to :Category:Iraqi Army officers. I'm not convinced we need an intersection category here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2016 (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: no consensus. There isn't clear consensus that either of these categories can easily be merged into the "Works about" tree. In any future discussions, participants should consider the entire category tree that would be placed under a "Works about" tree. Even if the articles in these categories should be merged, there were only hints of editors considering whether the sub-categories were appropriate for that tree. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 03:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Political works to :Category:Works about politics

:* Propose merging :Category:Military works to :Category:Works about the military

:Nominator's rationale: merge, these are two very similar forks as in this earlier nomination about Historical works. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Tend to support the latter (military), tend to oppose the former (politics). Political art is a genre, so political works are works of that genre. Political music, posters or slogans aren't about politics from an outside perspective – they're usually communicating a particular political perspective or agenda. Political fiction mostly isn't about politics either, a (real or fictive) political setting may just be used as a canvas for the actual narrative. --PanchoS (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• UpMerge :Category:Political works to :Category:Political art. Oppose the military one. These both seem to be by-type cats, not necessarily only about-type cats. I think we should be careful about how to integrate these trees with the rest of the "works" sets of trees. I'm not exactly sold yet on whether we even should. - jc37 22:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Not all the content of :Category:Political works is about art, it will probably require manual dispersion of the contents of :Category:Political works to :Category:Political art and :Category:Works about politics. As for the general remark, "by" and "about" is currently mixed, for example :Category:Books of naval history is a child category of :Category:Military books. Potentially we might create a Chinese wall between "by" and "about" categories but I doubt if that's desirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2016 (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, to all parent categories as discussed. In practical terms, no upmerging to :Category:Bridges in the United States (or subcats thereof) and :Category:Tunnels in the United States (or subcats thereof) was necessary, since all articles were already in subcategories of both. So the result essentially was "merge as nominated". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Bridge-tunnels in the United States to :Category:Bridge-tunnels in North America

:Nominator's rationale: There are too few combined bridge-tunnels in the world to even start categorizing by country. The articles are in several U.S. categories, so merging up to North America for this very specific construction type is preferable. PanchoS (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• no not merge This :Category:Bridge-tunnels in the United States category has parents that are United States unique and must be so for correct navigation from their parents: :Category:Bridges in the United States by type and :Category:Tunnels in the United States. The relation to the US would disappear once the merge occurred and these parents dropped. Nominator has just created :Category:Bridge-tunnels in North America so as to include just 1 non-US entry. Hmains (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

:* Without a doubt, a more specific category will always be: more specific. However the point is that we want category schemes to be universal and consistent, while not creating WP:NARROWCATs. This per-country category might be borderline legitimate because of its four entries, but as the scheme would invite a set of tiny WP:NARROWCATs, categorizing by continent is both sufficiently precise and preferable. --PanchoS (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, they might even be merged to a global level. Not all sets within the buildings and constructions tree are 'big' enough to categorize at country level, that's just unavoidable when getting very specific about the type of construction. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Merge to all parents, i.e. :Category:Bridge-tunnels in North America, :Category:Bridges in the United States (or subcats thereof) and :Category:Tunnels in the United States (or subcats thereof). That will remove the overly-small category, while resolving Hmains's concerns about proper parenting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Endorse {{u|BrownHairedGirl}}'s much better proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

::* Agree, also upmerge to these other categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2016 (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: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose Dual Upmerging :Category:Royal family orders to :Category:Orders, decorations, and medals and :Category:Royalty

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC and WP:USERG/WP:RS

:Currently, this category doesn't aid navigation because it only contains 1 article: the poorly named Royal Family Order. I don't think populating the category is a good idea at this point because that article relies almost entirely on user generated citations from Blogspot, Pinterest and a [http://www.theroyalforums.com/authors/ royal fan page] which is a weak foundation for a category. But, once the article is renamed and properly sourced, we can go from there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: Notified Hipposcrashed as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• RM I requested a move of the main article here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The RM was closed with no consensus on a better title. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and populate. The one article lists awards made by a series of British, Swedish and Norwegian monarchs, each apparently with its own article. These have a sufficient coherence to merit keeping them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

:: Sure it does, but that main article is based entirely on blogs and the accuracy of its claims are questioned on the talk page. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Merge per nom, it's unlikely that this category can be further populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• {{ping|Marcocapelle}} as there are currently 8 articles on the topic (the main article lists 7 UK pages), I populated the category last month. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Struck my earlier comment, I had apparently not seen the ping. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Withdrawn/Wrong Venue Re-reading this, my concern seems to be with the article not the category. CfD isn't the right venue for that concern and my requested move for the article failed, so let's call this a day. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2016 (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: no consensus for either direction of merge. A reverse merge wasn't discussed fully, and a separate nomination for that may be helpful, but this discussion appears to hint that there would be no consensus for that either. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 20:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:European Union officials to :Category:European Union people

:Nominator's rationale: I don't think there are any people who we would categorize as a European Union "person" who could not be classified as a European Union "official". I suggest simply upmerging to the more general parent and deleting the redundant subcategory :Category:European Union officials. ("People" fits better with the format of {{cat|People by intergovernmental organization}}.)Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The new name can be mistaken for European Union citizens. Per the article Citizenship of the European Union, the Union has its own citizenship since 1992/1993 and it comes with several relevant rights (Political rights, Rights of free movement, Rights abroad). This includes almost all citizens of the 28 current member states, though there are some disputes about whether it should also include citizens in overseas territories which otherwise are not under the Union's jurisdiction. For example all British citizens have the European Union Citizenship, but a number of British subjects from other areas have been either completely excluded or only have limited rights. Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Reverse merge per Dimadick. The European Union is not just an intergovernmental organization like others. EU people (sic!) are European citizens, therefore the proposed name is way too ambigious. --PanchoS (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (nom). Reverse merge is fine with me if users are worried about this ambiguity. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. The current setup ignores the distinction between officials of the EU (i.e. civil servants or administrators) and political office-holders (MEPS, Commissioners etc). I just spotted this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Political_office-holders_of_the_European_Union&diff=725331009&oldid=548062001] by User:Good Olfactory which placed :Category:Political office-holders of the European Union under :Category:European Union officials. I have reverted it.
  I would support a renaming of :Category:European Union people to something which clarifies that it is for people involved in the governance and admin of the EU, rather than citizens or residents of the EU ... but I can't think now of an appropriate term.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose reverse merge, after I've further populated the target category, not all EU people are EU officials by default. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Some good last few points; I'm willing to withdraw the nom at this point now that {{cat|European Union people}} has been populated with non-officials. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 23 June 2016 (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.