Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RemoveRedSky (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 31 October 2025 (→Category:American politicians of Middle Eastern descent: Relisted on 2025 October 31 (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< October 19
October 21 >

October 20

Category:Physicians from Chongqing

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2025 (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:British people of West Asian descent

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: similar to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:American people of West Asian descent. Hassan697 (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2025 (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 in the Duchy of Nassau

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 28#Years in the Duchy of Nassau

Category:Canine deities

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. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like WP:NARROWCAT, there are not very many category members not included in the subcategories. Also, whether it satisfies WP:CROSSCAT has not been shown. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:41, 20 October 2025 (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:American writers of Middle Eastern descent

Nominator's rationale: Follow up to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_21#People_of_Middle_Eastern_descent SMasonGarrison 02:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American politicians of Middle Eastern descent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 31#Category:American politicians of Middle Eastern descent

Category:Calligraphers from the Northern Netherlands

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:Calligraphers from the Dutch Republic. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overlapping categories SMasonGarrison 01:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on alt?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:11, 20 October 2025 (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:Soccer venues in Townsville

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow scope categories attracting 1–3 articles per category. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2025 (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:Sports venues in Devonport, Tasmania

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow scope categories attracting 1–3 articles per category. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2025 (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:Mass media in Jakobstad

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are 1–2 articles per topic and place in these narrow intersections. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2025 (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:American academics of Turkish descent

Nominator's rationale: Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS. All other categories of academics crossed by ancestors country were deleted after these discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category:American academics of Turkish descent can be placed under Category:American academics of Asian descent. It has more members than Category:American academics of Taiwanese descent, Category:American academics of Korean descent, and Category:American academics of Pakistani descent. While this may sound like WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think it is better form to nominate all of these and similar categories rather than deleting them all at once. Otherwise, I completely agree that it is overcat. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 03:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Easternsahara and Marcocapelle: Expanded with 2 more similar categories. I didn't nominate all children of American academics of Asian descent, because I think the rationale would be different, risking a TRAINWRECK result which wouldn't satisfy anyone. Specifically, we have to acknowledge that a number of users think that some professional categories for Americans are rightfully split along the major ethnic minorities perceived in the U.S. such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and Asians, and "academics" may be one such profession, however vague that term is. At the same time, we have reached consensus at CFD to diffuse U.S. Asian descent categories by nation of ancestry, when defining for the individual. None of that applies to the present category, as people of Turkish descent aren't usually considered Asians in the U.S., and the Hmong and Iranian categories are equally invalid intersections. Place Clichy (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmong, Iranian categories as they are both too small. However, there will be a new MENA category [1], [2] in 2030 so we can keep turkish category. Also we may put the people listed on the Iranian one into a new MENA category once it is created. Now that the census has announced it, it is unlikely to change. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 14:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument here is not whether Turkish or MENA Americans constitue a distinct ethnic identity, or how it is called, and the census actually does not really change how people view themselves. The discussion per WP:OCEGRS is whether academics of that descent are commonly and consistently considered a separate field of study by reliable sources. Place Clichy (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging American academics of Hmong descent to American people of Hmong descent. The field of Hmong studies is not only a prominent discipline within Asian American studies[1][2][3] but has only grown over a couple decades (for example, now offered as a certificate at some universities[4]) and Hmong American is a notable, distinct ethnic and cultural identity on the world stage that is not overcategorization. For example Hmong Americans are shaped significantly by their genocide for fighting as a proxy for the US, and are considered a special class of veteran in the US by law.[5] There are also hundreds of ethnic Hmong scholars of many disciplines.[6]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingnova (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Hmong Studies Consortium". Hmong Studies Consortium. January 20, 2018. Retrieved October 22, 2025.
  2. ^ "Center for Hmong Studies". Concordia University, St. Paul. August 8, 2025. Retrieved October 22, 2025.
  3. ^ "Hmong Studies Journal". Hmong Studies Journal. Retrieved October 22, 2025.
  4. ^ "Critical Hmong Studies". UW-Eau Claire. February 3, 2024. Retrieved October 22, 2025.
  5. ^ "America's Secret War in Laos". Center for Southeast Asian Studies. February 14, 2017. Retrieved October 22, 2025.
  6. ^ "1: Hmong Directory: PhD – HMONG AMERICAN EXPERIENCE". HMONG AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. Retrieved October 22, 2025.


Category:American professional wrestlers of Italian descent

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A stranded category following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 September 3#American sportspeople by country of descent, probably forgot in the nomination because it was poorly parented. There are no other national descent category for wrestlers, or sportspeople categories for Italian descent. Place Clichy (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2025 (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:Male superheroes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 30#Category:Male superheroes

Category:Agiad kings of Sparta

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. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT, per Agiad dynasty it ruled exclusively over Sparta and the representatives were overwhelmingly kings rather than queens, so splitting in that way isn't useful. Brandmeister talk 09:44, 20 October 2025 (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:Western (genre) heroes and heroines

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "and heroines" doesn't match the rest of the category tree, nor Hero which is not called "Heroes and heroines". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 20 October 2025 (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:Christ figures in fiction

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 28#Category:Christ figures in fiction

Mass media in Azerbaijan by city

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With one populated place per country, these are redundant intermediary layers. No opposition to recreation when actually needed. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2025 (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:Taxa named by Erich Leo Ludwig Uhmann

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Shorten from full name to shortened version more commonly used by the subject himself, in line with WP:COMMONNAME and the general guidance at WP:CAT. This would also match the name of the category with the name of the subject's biographical article. Uhmann's full name is used quite rarely in publications by or about him - he almost exclusively authored papers as "E. Uhmann" or "Erich Uhmann" and most other sources use this shortened name, with his middle names being included far less frequently (hence why I located his biographical article at Erich Uhmann). Unless there's another taxonomist named Erich Uhmann that I don't know about, I see no reason not to locate the category at the shortened version of the name that is more commonly used. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the category, I have no problem with this. I was actually researching ways to rename it myself. Zalaraz (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is the common name and used on Erich Uhmann Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 03:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per arguments already given above, particularly the fact that a main article exists at the shorter name. Though, that also means this cat could actually be speedy renamed under WP:C2D if I'm not mistaken. (Unless the fact that this discussion exists here prevents that, but it's useful to know about these things for the future) Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2025 (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:Andrew Winch

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 28#Category:Andrew Winch

Category:Heroes in mythology and legend

Nominator's rationale: No apparent reason to combine myth and legend in this arbitrary manner, as myth and legend are two different things. No opposition to calling the first one "Mythical heroes" if people believe it should be called that, I'm just going by the existing category names. I also have no opposition to calling the second "Folk heroes" instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this proposal is that the distinction between "myth" and "legend" is a fuzzy one, and the current title reflects that ambiguity by permitting significant overlap, which would be unavoidable, but even more confusing, if one attempts to split the category using strict definitions of "myth" and "legend" that readers may not expect. For instance, we generally include all the stories about Greek heroes from before the Archaic period as "mythological", but the status of later figures and their contemporaries from Roman traditions is more ambiguous: the Roman kings and the founders of the Republic are treated in The Roman Myths, but most were probably historical figures who have been mythologized in various ways. Is Beowulf a figure of myth or of legend? What about Gilgamesh? Moses? King Arthur? The current wording of the title makes it unnecessary to decide which of two realms each individual figure belongs to.
In fact, this change is likely to cause more confusion, because "legend" itself has different meanings in different contexts (for that matter, so does "myth", but in this case at least the technical definition is used, rather than the popular one of "fictional" or "imaginary"). We might regard Robin Hood or the Knights of the Round Table as "legendary" because they occur entirely in the literary tradition (plus folklore), but cannot be verified as historical persons, though some of them may have a historical basis. But George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Ivan the Terrible are all "legendary" although we know them as historical figures, because they are larger-than-life figures (and because there are legends are sometimes told of them, though these too may have a basis in fact).
Then we have the suggestion of "folk heroes", which is still problematic; many actual and/or historic figures (and here we encounter the fact that "historic" also has a fuzzy definition; all persons who can be documented are technically "historic", but in this context "historic" means someone who has made a great impact on history) are the subject of "folklore", but that term is usually understood to mean traditions that cannot be verified and may or may not have occurred, while the deeds of "folk heroes" may be perfectly verifiable. Babe Ruth and Casey Jones are known historical persons who might be described as "folk heroes", though most of the things they said and did can be documented; John Henry, on the other hand, exists mostly in folklore and his historical reality is unclear, though there was probably at least one actual person who formed a basis for the "myth"; Paul Bunyan belongs entirely to folklore. And do any of these really belong in the same category as Alexander the Great, or King Arthur, or Joan of Arc? I might buy Joan of Arc as a "folk hero", but probably not Alexander the Great.
Ultimately, I think this proposal's flaw is that it either attempts, or would be so understood by readers, to draw sharp distinctions that do not really exist between various inevitably overlapping groups. The groups will still overlap to a very significant degree if it is drawn, and whether any particular figure belongs to either category will likely be the subject of numerous disputes; and the proposed alternative simply substitutes a different fuzzy definition with its own problems. P Aculeius (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping people from placing the articles in both categories if they believe there is an overlap between mythological and legendary. But, generally speaking, categories themselves avoid overlapping the two things to maintain consistency... there would have to be a huge discussion if myth and legend were decided to be combined. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split as proposed. "Mythical" and "legendary" are not clearly different, but "mythological" in the meaning of belonging to a well-recognized mythology (i.e. Greek or Norse mythology) is. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nomination rationale does not account for the fact that the strict categorization of these topics as "myth" or "legend" is often a political statement within the context of a particular tradition. For instance, mainstream Christianity resists calling Bible stories "myths" because it has used that term derogatorily to refer to traditional Norse stories (etc.) as false in comparison to the Bible. Combining them is not arbitrary; it is an attempt to be inclusive. This split could easily become offensive in ways that are unpredictable based on culture. Moreover, there certainly should not be a split in the absence of clear-cut definitions for "myth" and "legend," the creation of which would be entirely arbitrary. lethargilistic (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If something would not clearly fit in either myth or legend, it's probably not defining and shouldn't be there anyway per WP:NONDEF. We shouldn't encourage adding non-defining things to categories by making purposely vague titles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he's saying the category includes or should include persons who are neither "mythological" nor "legendary". Rather that there is no sharp distinction between myth and legend (or folklore) that would make such a split helpful to readers—as well as the fact that readers may make distinctions between mythology and certain religious figures (i.e. Moses, David) that mythographers would not—in the technical sense these are mythological figures even if one assumes their historicity.
    I would add that by itself, "legendary" is subject to wide interpretation, although some of this is less likely to occur when "legend" is used together with "myth". To use some of the examples I mentioned earlier, Tarquin the Proud, Robin Hood, and Babe Ruth are all "legendary" figures, but Tarquin might also be considered mythological, even though he probably existed; Robin Hood is definitely not mythological in the technical sense, though he is largely ahistorical; Babe Ruth is legendary, but perfectly real and not associated with folklore—except very loosely speaking. With the title "legendary", all three might be included; with the title "mythology and legend", readers would probably expect to find Tarquin and Robin Hood but not Babe Ruth. Combining "myth" and "legend" makes the scope of the category clearer than if it were split. P Aculeius (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elemental deities

Nominator's rationale: This category incorrectly links deities that were concieved before the concept of "the Elements" with being elemental deities. For example, being an Earth deity does not imply that one is linked to the elements and it was previously correctly categorized as an underworld deity before being deleted by AHI-3000. This should be reversed by merging this category back to nature deities where the members previously were. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marco's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there seems to be an unfortunate habit in which categories that are logical, but messy are put up for deletion rather than editing. The classical elements are clear (earth, air, water, fire, aether), they were perceived as the elements that made up the natural world, and were a recurring pattern across cultures and pantheons. The Thunder and Light deities cats should be removed, but otherwise I don't see any other edits to be made. WinstonDewey (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The classical elements is a philosophical concept, not a religious concept, so there is no point in grouping deities based on this. The thing about religion is that they are gods of nature. And of course there are e.g. water deities and fire deities, but those aren't more closely related to each other than e.g. thunder deities. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say I oppose the idea to rename the categories because I don't see how "earth", "wind" and "water" is classified as a natural phenomenon, even though something like lightning or fire might be called that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This classification is more related to pop culture and Dungeons & Dragons-style groupings than anything that existed in ancient mythology. The natural elements don't need a distinct subcategory from nature. Mclay1 (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protesters in or near the January 6 United States Capitol attack

Nominator's rationale: Category for attendees at an individual political event. It's essentially the political equivalent of a WP:PERFCAT, rather than a defining characteristic, because it isn't in and of itself the thing that any of these people are notable for: it's a result of them already being notable for other reasons, not the cause of them being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Attending a rally is not defining. If people have well-known political statements of affiliations, then we can categorize them by that. Not by behind merely at some place on some time and day. I think we deleted in the past categories like guests at the royal lunch following the wedding. These articles are already in similarly useful categories.Czarking0 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. Same issue as above. It's not a rally or comparable to attending a wedding. SMasonGarrison 03:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counter unmanned air systems

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A shorter, simpler, yet perfectly descriptive name that allows for both complex weapons systems and simpler individual weapons — The Anome (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:46, 20 October 2025 (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:Asesino albums

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 27#Category:Asesino albums

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_20&oldid=1319759852"