":LOL, gee, I wish you were part of WP:Canada.  I've tried to raise the issue of their irrelevance before but got shot down, rather patronizingly too.  They're supposed to be parallel to ""People from Whatcom County"" or ""People from Oxfordshire"" but the reality is that regional districts are not anything like counties are, especially not in terms of any self-referential ""this is where I'm from sense"".  Unless you mean all ""people from XXX"" categories....in the case of regional districts, which have only existed since 1867-1968 and also do not include Indian Reserves in their governance, and have extremely limited powers (sewer, zoning, some planning and disaster management), they're not relevant to historical figures or anything to do with Indian Reserves or people from them; some users, like User:Backspace, and I, got into something like edit wars over his/her labelling objects like mountains, lakes, etc with them, and similarly provincial parks are not managed or classified by them in any way (different branch of the governance system, namely Ministry of Environment); there's also, y'see, Forest Districts and Forest Regions, Land Districts (which are the legal subdivisions but without governmental relevance of any kind), Ministry of Environment Regions (for parks theoretically but BC Parks, has its own system within MoE), Health Regions (hospitals, etc), School Districts, ""Counties"" (which are for the court system but largely irrelevant to daily life), Development Regions (which ARE relevant to daily life and provincially-kept statistics, though tey're formed from aglloomerations/boundaries of regional districts but separate from them administratively), and BC Tourism (http://www.hellobc.com) has its OWN system of regions.  The rationale provided by the regional district categories-defenders is that because it's the system that StatsCan uses to divvy up BC for the census, i.e. counting people, then it ""makes sense"" to use them as geographic subdivisions for ""where people are from"".  But it just doesn't make sense....the problem now is that there's all kinds of mirrored wiki-clones which ahve statments like ""XXX Mountain is a mountain in the such-and-so regional district"", though the more relevant reference is ""in the such-and-so mountain range"" or ""in the xxx Country/Valley"" (in BC there's lots of historical region-references of the ""Nicola Country"", ""Shuswap Country"", ""Omineca Country"" type, sometimes capitalized, though often not, and often just ""the Shuswap"", ""the Okanagan"", ""the Omineca"" etc, and regional district names, and also electoral district names, are often ""built out of them"", e.g. Columbia-Shuswap, Okanagan-Similkameen; but I've also seen translated categories/articles saying ""Fraser Valley"" when meaning the Fraser Valley Regional District; the problem is that only half of the Fraser Valley is even IN the regional district of that name (the rest is in the Greater Vancouver one), and similarly the Cariboo Regional District doesn't include all of the Cariboo, and itself includes a region known as the Chilcotin.  I've created categories for most of those areas, and a parallel hierachy for same, but have been challenged about that because their precise boundaries can't be cited easily; even though they're what people actually use and historically pre-date even the province itself.......there's some subcategories using that format e.g. Category:People from the Similkameen (where ""the Similkameen"" = ""the Similkameen Country"" and also Category:Cariboo people, although that's largely intended for historical figures from that region's glory days during the Cariboo Gold Rush and since.  In the way British Columbians actually talk, ""so-and-so is from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District"" would mean that that person WORKS for the Thompson-Nicola Regional District"", most likely an official or bylaw enforcement person.  Myself, I'd like to ditch this particular group of categories entirely but have yet to garner consensus for that; the rationale is that some other long-ago Wikipedian created the hierarchy ""and so we should respect that"", even though that person, to me, was utterly clueless and shouldn't have created them at all.  The only thing the main RD categories should be used for is the component municipalities; though there are some Electoral Areas that have articles; but ti's when those start getting used as geographic descriptors, it's entirely offbase; it's all over Googlemaps and Wikimaps, too, and it's really annoying to see; similarly the use of the French-form of Indian Reserve names has similarly been borrowed and pasted all over hell's half digital acreage because it's what StatsCan (wrongly) uses.  As if StatsCan were the only'' classification system and as if real people talked like bureaucrats in Ottawa do....anyway sorry for the rant, it's been rare for me to find