Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot.

July 8

Category:Kart racing game characters

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Most certainly not defining, not sure if there is any character currently with an article this is defining for. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just at a glance, I can assure that the answer is no. No character in this category is unique to a karting game. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there will be an article about a kart-racing character, one does not constitute a need for a category. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural festivals in Yugoslavia

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. There is nothing specifically "Slavic" about the Sarajevo Winter Festival, and articles shouldn't be in containercats, so upmerge only to Category:Cultural festivals in Europe and Category:Festivals in Yugoslavia. NLeeuw (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Balearic society

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Upmerge for now. NLeeuw (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician society

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Just delete. It's a redundant layer between Category:Galician awards (already in sibling Category:Culture of Galicia) and containercat Category:Society of Spain by autonomous community. Upmerging to either parent makes no sense, so just delete. NLeeuw (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serb culture

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Same scope. 3/4 articles in this category are already directly in parent Category:Culture of Serbia, and Krstaš-barjak easily fits in it as well. Child Category:Serbian studies is also already directly in parent Category:Culture of Serbia. Child Category:Serb music is currently nominated to be merged with Category:Music of Serbia as well. Child Category:Serbian folklore's main article has Folklore of Serbia redirecting to it, so there is no distinction between "Serbian" and "of Serbia" here either. Finally, Serb traditions's main article Serb traditions (to which Traditions of Serbia redirects) is already directly in parent Category:Culture of Serbia as well, and part of a series on the Template:Culture of Serbia. In other words, there seems to be no functional difference between the country of Serbia, the Serbian language, or the "Serb ethnicity/culture/tradition" etc. as far as these categories are concerned, and this category may be considered entirely duplicative of its parent Category:Culture of Serbia. NLeeuw (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:East Slavic cuisine

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Although I have my doubts whether "Slavic cuisine" is really a thing, "East Slavic cuisine" certainly isn't. The only article, Sorrel soup, is known in Ashkenazi Jewish,[4] Belarusian,[7] Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian,[9] Lithuanian, Romanian, Armenian, Georgian, Polish,[5] Russian[1][3] and Ukrainian[6][8] cuisines. This has nothing to do with language family connections, but everything with geography and historical happenstance. The cat desc The three East Slavic cultures have many common features due to centuries of coexistence and intermixing. doesn't say anything useful for cuisine-related matters either. Let's just upmerge this for now until it can be established to be a real thing instead of original research. NLeeuw (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Odia culture

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Same scope. Odia culture redirects to Culture of Odisha. NLeeuw (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian MPs 2025–2028

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category engages in WP:CRYSTAL presuming that all of these politicians will be in office until 2028. Additionally a lot of them have been serving since before 2025. TarnishedPathtalk 13:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it is part of the the series Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives by term it could be renamed to Category:Australian MPs 2025–present like Category:UK MPs 2024–present to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That category, and all of its subcategories, has since 12 December last year (as far as I can tell by looking at a few of the subcategories). Per my secondary argument about a lot of the politicians in the category having served prior to the starting date, you make an argument for all of those categories being deleted. TarnishedPathtalk 14:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tarsha Gale Cup

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Rugby league competitions in New South Wales. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sydney Shield

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Rugby league in Sydney. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American provincial military personnel

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category that is vaguely defined SMasonGarrison 02:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point with the use of "British" in the name. Following that point, the merge as proposed would be incorrect, because they are not "American" military personnel. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populist Leaders

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Fits into the scheme used at Category:Populism, Category:Right-wing populists, Category:Right-wing populists in the United Kingdom, Category:Right-wing populists in the United States and List of populists Gjs238 (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This left-wing populist is making the news these days in the United States. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iran–Israel War

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:TOPICCAT. Dart210 (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

Category:Wikipedians by medical condition (and subcats)

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category:Wikipedians with ADHD was deleted back in 2023, because (according to delete voters) it didn't contribute to building an encyclopedia. This may well be true, but this line of reasoning could easily be applied to the other categories on this list too. Don't really wanna take a side here, just wondering what you think. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians with multiplicity/plurality is paramount to keep — just like autistic editors, plural editors will have differences in how we interact. It’s important as an explanation of why a single account might be using “we,” speaking from multiple perspectives and exhibiting varying opinions etc. And for autism, I hope it would be obvious why we who have a developmental disability impacting social communication need a category.
The rest, while i understand why they would be more questionable, are still relevant in my opinion, such as explaining why someone edits a certain Wikipedia page. Obviously I’m biased in this case due to creating the category for wikipedians with an HCTD, but it can be a sign of, say, “I am not a medical professional, but I am knowledgeable in this due to needing to research x condition due to having it” or something like that. And disability in general is relevant the same way, say, being queer is. Thefoggysystem (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don’t know if this is where I was meant to reply but yes Thefoggysystem (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a plural system myself and the creator of that category, I can't say that I'm sure that my plurality, or my choice to make it known on my userpage, has ever made that much of a difference to our experience editing Wikipedia. (I'm not currently in the category myself; I decided I didn't want to make that much of a big deal of it, personally.) However, if others find it useful and would prefer that it be kept, I'm not opposed to its retention. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Side discussion on the process for creating category redirects to avoid redlinked categories
    • Keep As someone who has Epilepsy and Dyspraxia, all these Wilipedia categories to do with being Disabled and have a Neurological condition should be kept as they are, its whom these Wikipedians are and tells other Wikipedians what these categories are about as well like Category:Wikipedians who have Epilepsy and Wikipedians with developmental coordination disorder aka like myself D Eaketts (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See prior precedent list at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/Topical_index#Wikipedians_by_medical_condition. I think my past self may well have said "delete all" on this, but now I think this nomination is a WP:TRAINWRECK, though, so I'll address each of these individually. Also note that I am autistic here.
    Definitely Delete spina bifida, HIV, tarsal tunnel syndrome, hereditary connective tissue disorder, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. These are purely physical disorders that have no correlation whatsoever to editing Wikipedia, and hence clearly fail WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. D Eaketts misunderstands the relevant standard entirely and fails to present a coherent argument on this front.
    Delete disabled as too vague to mean anything, and a recreation of a category deleted per prior precedent. See my nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 8#Category:Disabled Wikipedians
    Upmerge disabled veteran to Category:Wikipedians who served in the United States Armed Forces for the same reason; being injured in wars has extremely little to do with Wikipedia editing.
    Weak delete the others, after much more thought than I expected. These have better grounds than the others for surviving, as they are at least in some ways related to Wikipedia editing. In the case of autism, which I'm most familar with, there is a lengthy essay at WP:Autistic editors, and autism is a clearly-recognised community. But in the end WP:NOTSOCIAL applies; there isn't a clear reason I can think of for people specifically to seek out interactions with such people for editing Wikipedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the disabled veteran thing, but I dunno if we should have usercats for military service either. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 08:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to reply User:Pppery. I realise I may not have explained myself clearly the first time, so I’d like to try again.
    Speaking as someone with epilepsy and dyspraxia, I find these user categories — like Wikipedians with epilepsy or Wikipedians with developmental coordination disorder — genuinely meaningful. They’re not just labels; they reflect part of who we are and how we experience being part of this community. For people like me, they can offer a bit of visibility and help us find others who might understand the challenges we face, especially when it comes to things like communication or accessibility.
    I understand the concern about whether these categories meet the standard of having a “collaborative purpose” under WP:USERCAT. But I’d argue that shared identity categories — similar to Wikipedians who are LGBT or Wikipedians with autism — do contribute to collaboration in their own way. They foster connection, understanding, and support, which I think are all important to making Wikipedia more inclusive and welcoming.
    I do see the distinction you're making between physical and neurological conditions. But I wonder if we might be underestimating the impact physical conditions can have on how people engage with editing — whether that’s through fatigue, mobility issues, or other factors. Even if not directly tied to editing content, these things can still affect someone’s experience as a contributor.
    I’m not saying we shouldn’t look at these categories carefully — I agree some may need reviewing or refining. But I’d be cautious about removing them outright without considering the value they might have to editors who’ve often felt invisible in other spaces.D Eaketts (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking is that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place for people to feel visible per se. It's an encyclopedia, not a place for people to connect. And see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_23#c-VegaDark-20230125194300-Hobit-20230125175600 (which I agree with). Frankly a similar argument could be made for deleting Category:LGBT Wikipedians, though, and I've twice !voted to delete Category:Wikipedians with autism/Category:Autistic Wikipedians despite being autistic myself. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, User:Pppery, for your thoughtful reply. I hear what you’re saying about Wikipedia not being a place for personal visibility, and I respect your position — especially with the consistency you've shown in past discussions, like the one you linked.
    That said, I still think there's a quiet form of collaboration that these identity-based categories can support. They might not directly help with editing or article-building, but they play an important role in connecting people, fostering understanding, and making contributors feel seen. For some of us, particularly those of us managing conditions that affect how we interact with the platform — like epilepsy or dyspraxia, in my case — just knowing that there’s space where others share similar experiences can make a real difference. It’s not about seeking visibility in the traditional sense, but rather about feeling that we’re part of this community.
    I do agree that we need to be cautious about how these categories are used, and not all of them may necessarily meet the bar. But I think we should be careful about removing those that, while they may not fit the narrowest definition of “collaborative,” still play a role in creating a more inclusive and welcoming editing environment. The feeling of being understood and recognized can actually help contribute to collaboration in ways we might not immediately see.
    If these categories do end up being deleted, I think we should still find ways to keep the conversation going. There are many contributors who feel that having these categories creates a sense of belonging, and that’s something worth considering. I’d be open to finding alternative ways to create connection and support without overloading the category system. But I do think the core idea — fostering an inclusive environment where all kinds of editors can feel like they belong — is worth upholding.
    Thanks again for engaging with this, and I appreciate the respectful and open nature of the discussion.D Eaketts (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate your thoughtful reply here. On my user page I disclose that I have some learning disabilities because it impacts my editing style. ("Style" here means being able to post a comment without refactoring it 2 or 3 times, haha.) But that's a pretty mild disability and I'm not personally seeking a community with similarly situated people so my experiences certainly may not be representative.
    I'm wondering to what extent infoboxes and the hands-on problem solving Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility can foster the same sense of belonging. But I'm not sure. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for your thoughtful response, User:RevelationDirect. I truly appreciate you sharing that detail about yourself; it really helps to understand the context of your editing process. It’s clear that your commitment to making meaningful contributions is something you care deeply about, and that’s what matters most.
    I completely agree that it’s important to have spaces where people feel a sense of belonging, regardless of their individual challenges. Infoboxes and initiatives like the WikiProject Accessibility might have that sense of community could be insightful, I think the community itself and the attitude we take toward one another will always be at the heart of it and perhaps, like you, others with different experiences will be able to offer unique perspectives on how we can continue to improve Wikipedia. In any case, it’s encouraging to see someone engaging with these ideas and contributing to such important conversations. Plus I will definitely have a look at the Wikiproject over the days ahead. D Eaketts (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, editors may identify themselves as anything by means of userboxes, not categories. A useful category could be e.g. Category:Wikipedians interested in autism but that should be open to both autistic and non-autistic editors. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Autistic Wikipedians specifically, but Delete all else. (Note: updated my opinion in a new !vote below.) Given that one's autism can impact their communication style and thus their contributions to the encyclopedia and ability to collaborate (see Wikipedia:Autistic editors), that category actually is relevant to users' work on Wikipedia. The same cannot be said about the others, however, and they should be deleted as such. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I understand your point why it is relevant to know that someone individually is autistic. But what does the category add to a userbox? The category facilitates navigating from one autistic editor to others - for what purpose? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename Autism/Merge Vets/Delete Rest This conversation has convinced me that's that it benefits collaboration to keep the autism category but would prefer Category:Wikipedians interested in autism open to all Wikipedians per Marcocapelle. The disabled vets category is a subcat so upmerging makes sense. The rest don't have any collaboration value I can see but no objection to similar userboxes. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interested in autism" isn't quite the same thing as "is autistic," though. It doesn't imply the same purpose. "Interested in autism" suggests that an editor is interested in working on articles related to the topic of autism, whereas "autistic" more implies, "I'm autistic, if I seem to be misunderstanding or misconstruing something you're saying, please keep that in mind". We could have both categories, or create the "interested in" category on its own if consensus is that the "autistic" category should be deleted, but I don't think the "interested" category should replace the "autistic" category. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. I don't want to change the meaning of a category and automatically convert user pages over to a new meaning they may or may not want to be in. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-NAC discussion about the NAC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This was closed with the following rationale:

Procedural close of proposal in conflict with WMF UCoC (non-admin closure). Procedural close as the proposal runs in conflict with the Wikmedia Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) - many editors have been editing for longer than Wikipedia has codified it's Universal Code of Conduct and may not be familiar with it, but it is part of the Terms of Use of Wikipedia and editors are encouraged to familiarize themself with it.

The TOU and UCOC sets a series of expected behaviors and affords people, or in this case specifically, registered editors, certain rights, including several explicitly stated in Section 2.1 Mutual respect - the right to name and describe themself appropriately, including identifying certain medical disabilities: "People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves".
Editors on Wikipedia use user categories as the practical tool to allow editors to effectively communicate such self-disclosures, whether it is to make other editors aware of invisible disabilities or other characteristics. This helps to let other editors know that such users may need certain accommodations to use or contribute to Wikipedia effectively (and may extend to certain legal accommodations or rights under certain jurisdictions) in line with the en-wiki user category guidelines to "facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".
It may be appropriate to update the user category guidelines to appropriately incorporate the language of the UCoC into them and ensure the local policy doesn't conflict with it, as the proposal has shown that there may need to be a point to update them to incorporate these baseline minimum expectations so that such questions are clearer for the future, either directly, on the guideline talk page or via WP:RfC. (non-admin closure) Raladic (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Raladic: Does that mean Category:Wikipedians with ADHD should not have been deleted? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trilletrollet - In my understanding of the universal code of conduct, yes. As I mentioned in the close above, many editors have been editing for many years longer than the UCoC was written and may be unfamiliar with it, including its existence even, (since it was announced in 2021) and there are gaps in local policies that have not been updated since then to incorporate it yet. The local policies can enhance the UCoC, but cannot run in conflict/limit it as the baseline.
    Given that it is the de-facto norm standard on en-wiki for users to use usercats to share characteristics that may be relevant for others to know and to seek other users with shared characteristics (even if it's maybe not immediately apparent to some users on why it can be relevant - that's where improvements to the local guidelines can come in as I mentioned in the close to help users understand the breath of users and their editing experience that may look different to that of others). Disabilities most certainly fall in that category of relevancy, as self-disclosure is how a user with a disability can make their needs or rights known. It would be discriminatory to say that you cannot self-disclose such medical conditions in the same way using user cats, that other similar relevant characteristics, such as religion, gender, languages spoken, LGBTQ+ identities, or ethnicity and nationality (Incidentally, note how most of those are also listed are specific examples in UCoC as very common overlooked marginalized groups), are disclosed by users, and telling users they can't do so for this (in many countries legally protected) characteristic could be akin to a form of ostrasizing by singling them out from not having such usercats, as is evidently the norm as listed alongside the others I just mentioned. Note that I'm not saying that any and all usercats are fair game, The general guidance for user cats that are and are-not is still good. However in the case of the medical side, particularly disability, such as the ADHD category you asked about, I believe that yes, it was a misjudgement, but I'm not faulting the closer at the time, I believe it may have been more a reason of circumstance. Now having looked over that CfD more closely and its participation, it could very well be that that discussion just fell prey to the "average Wikipedian" trap, whether that's because no one informed relevant Wikiprojects at the time or some other circumstance (like CfD in general often not being as frequented as other deletion discussions) happened that led to the participation and outcome at the time.
    I'll note that I closed this CfD here on the procedural grounds that the conflict with the UCoC appears pretty clear and thus I used my judgement to close it procedurally, rather than the process running its course and it having to go through a more formal act like meta:U4C enforcement (since decentralized community enforcement is still preferred when possible).
    But I'll also note that this discussion that you raised here did already appear to have had a more balanced participation, including merits that several editors have brought forth relevant examples of why such categories can be relevant - it's just often not immediately apparent to the "average wikipedian", which is again, why the UCoC was developed - to help address some of the existing issues and prevent metaphorical echo chambers that can sometimes act in the same way they always have, so external input/rules are required to prompt re-thinking/adjustment to provide safe space for marginalized communities, whether that's people of marginalized ethnicities, sexual orientation or gender identity or disabilities to name a few.
    For some history of the UCoC - The UCoC was developed in response to address issues such as ...rising violence from online speech against marginalized groups and ethnic communities according to a report from the Council on Foreign Relations as local wiki-project guidelines have commonly fallen short of protecting users (some wiki projects have/had little policies as the drafting development research showed) and establishing a baseline for such conduct. The U4C committee was ratified just last year to help continue development, enforcement and guidance/training to help improve Wikipedia's editing environment (such as addressing Wikipedia:Systemic bias) going forward, so I imagine this will slowly address some of the existing policies to create clarification and improve the editing environment. Hope this helps. Raladic (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it came up here, I'll add that I could totally see myself supporting deleting the entire trees for most of the examples you gave for similar reasons to that which I supported here. The one exception is "languages spoken", which in theory serves a more directly collaborative role in helping each other read and digest foreign-language sources. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is the point of the procedural close. Currently a single such nomination for a specific subgroup of "Wikipedians by X", particularly when it is an obviously useful category to some/many user is subject to a popularity vote, aka a systemic failure of the en-wiki project of non-uniform application of rules, given the history of how similar such CfDs have gone and given that in this case, we're talking about defining characteristics of human editors (maybe there's a few turing complete robots hiding in our midst, who knows), by definition, it runs into discriminatory territory if one group gets their place and another doesn't.
    Hence this CfD as it was, procedurally doesn't have legs to stand on, and hence my close on UCoC basis.
    If you wish to make a CENT RfC whether any such categories should live, and the outcome of that resulting in either a whole-sale deletion of them all, or a CLEAR UNIFORM rule for them, then that is actually the correct question to ask - apologies if that crux of my procedural closure wasn't clear. Raladic (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a WP:BADNAC closure. The code of conduct does not specify the means to name and describe oneself appropriately and that is exactly what the discussion is about. Nobody here is questioning the right, as such, to name and describe oneself appropriately. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was typing out a longer explanation above that may be helpful, but if you still disagree with it after you had time to read it, you are certainly welcome to formally raise the issue to U4C to affirm/decide whether singling out Wikipedians with medical conditions/disabilities to be the only of such defining characteristics/marginalized group not to have a user category, when all other comparable ones do would procedurally somehow not run afoul of the UCoC. To simplify: A simple rule of thumb is that if you can apply the term "singled out" to a group, then it probably is violating someone's right/dignity.
    I simply used my good judgement in light of the rather clear situation to safe everyone time and procedurally close it on those grounds.
    If you want to instead have a site-wide discussion of any of such categories existing, then again, this would be a procedural close to close this CfD here for that reason instead, and address the question by raising RfC to decide whether en-wiki removes all "Wikipedians by X" categories. Raladic (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With controversial nominations, it's common to ask why is this [small town, eponymous category, award, opinion, etc.] is being nominated for deletion when others aren't. The response is usually WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but there's a larger structural problem. Whereas, my sense is that it's on average easier to submit an WP:AFD than to write an article, it takes much less time to create a category than to nominate one at WP:CFD to the point that I sometimes I feel like we're trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.
    That's why the CFD process is generally incremental and bottom up. Updating editing guidelines with consensus is more likely to lead to global changes. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note: I am reopening this XfD after undoing an inappropriate non-admin closure as discussed in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 29. Sandstein 07:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Nobody should be in a user category unless they've specifically consented to it. So for me the first question is whether all of those those in the user categories know they are there and whether they continue to consent to be there (possibly years after they added themselves). It's at least possible that they've forgotten. Second, whether user categories overall serve any useful function. I'd argue that any benefit you might get from being identified in a specific group of users with illnesses is outweighed by the risk of trolling, doxing etc. Users are able to identify themselves without needing user categories. JMWt (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC) "Nobody should be in a user category unless they've specifically consented to it." So very true![reply]
  • Procedural keep This is a trainwreck and a poorly formed discussion - who starts a discussion without taking a side? I agree with Raladic that bulk deleting all of these may be a UCoC issue. Some of these categories are quite large as well, and unlike most other categories, they have been specifically opted into by the users. I also think some of the smaller ones might be eligible for deletion, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that discussion in bulk. I'd actually favor getting rid of all user categories, but if we don't do that, it's hard to argue all of these aren't valid. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also note that two users who use these categories have supported keeping without bolding a !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep/close of proposal in conflict with WMF UCoC. Procedural close as the proposal runs in conflict with the Wikmedia Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) - many editors have been editing for longer than Wikipedia has codified it's Universal Code of Conduct and may not be familiar with it, but it is part of the Terms of Use of Wikipedia and editors are encouraged to familiarize themself with it.
The TOU and UCOC sets a series of expected behaviors and affords people, or in this case specifically, registered editors, certain rights, including several explicitly stated in Section 2.1 Mutual respect - the right to name and describe themself appropriately, including identifying certain medical disabilities: "People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves".
Editors on Wikipedia use user categories as the practical tool to allow editors to effectively communicate such self-disclosures, whether it is to make other editors aware of invisible disabilities or other characteristics. This helps to let other editors know that such users may need certain accommodations to use or contribute to Wikipedia effectively (and may extend to certain legal accommodations or rights under certain jurisdictions) in line with the en-wiki user category guidelines to "facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".
It may be appropriate to update the user category guidelines to appropriately incorporate the language of the UCoC into them and ensure the local policy doesn't conflict with it, as the proposal has shown that there may need to be a point to update them to incorporate these baseline minimum expectations so that such questions are clearer for the future, either directly, on the guideline talk page or via WP:RfC. As I pointed out at the DRV - per WP:POLCON this apparent conflict (which was seconded by other users basically the CfD should be paused - As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence.
Also as several editors here and at the DRV pointed out, the nomination may be closed procedurally as a WP:TRAINWRECK that isn’t reasonably actionable (aside from the policy point raised). Raladic (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per Raladic and SportingFlyer. I am changing my vote after the (reversed) NAC and the subsequent development of this discussion. I am of a mind to agree that this nomination has become a WP:TRAINWRECK, and the ambiguity of whether or not there's an issue with the UCoC needs to be more widely discussed, and that is beyond the scope of this deletion discussion. The discussion should be closed while the community discusses and finds a consensus on whether or not the user category policy is in breach of the UCoC and if it needs reforms, with no prejudice against renominating the subcategories individually for case-by-case consideration. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per nom--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as not helpful categories. I am unconvinced by the UCoC arguments. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except United States disabled veteran Wikipedians, which can be upmerged. The UCoC argument is not compelling. Editors may "name and describe themself appropriately" or "use particular terms to describe themselves" by adding this information to their userpage – that is the purpose of a userpage. If I am interacting with someone and am looking for relevant disclosures, whether these are COI disclosures, interests, disabilities, or anything else, I look at their user page, not their user categories. Further, the only area where we have hard-and-fast rules requiring disclosures is conflict-of-interest editing (WP:DISCLOSE), which considers user pages, talk pages, and edit summaries to be valid forms of disclosure; user categories are not listed. I find this precedent helpful.
User categories serve to help us find other editors with certain editing characteristics or skills that may be helpful towards building the encyclopedia. I don't see any of these categories serving that purpose. I also don't think all people in these categories have consented to being included in them or know that they are in them; most people who use userboxes don't know that user categories are often attached to them. Toadspike [Talk] 16:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are defining features per EGRS. SMasonGarrison 22:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Wikipedians with Epilepsy" and "Wikipedians with Developmental Coordination Disorder" as essential categories, in my opinion. They reflect core aspects of our identities and demonstrate how these variables can influence our contributions and editing styles. Additionally, they provide clarity for individuals facing similar challenges and foster a sense of community and connection among them. I strongly believe these categories should be maintained, even if some may require further review or refinement. When appropriate, combining categories—such as "US disabled veterans"—can be sensible, but any changes should be carefully considered and made with respect and consideration for the editors these categories represent.D Eaketts (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    — Duplicate !vote: D Eaketts (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. Start over, pick one category at a time to have a serious, evidence-based discussion, beginning with the ones that are least likely to be helpful for cooperation on Wikipedia. Lumping everyone and everything together isn't going to clear things up. NLeeuw (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

Category:Jordanian Muslims

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As an instance of WP:OVERCAT. One of the most useless categories I came across, especially in countries where 99% of the population belongs to religion XYZ. It's like a country category for people whose name starts with the letter M, completely anecdotal. Yabroq (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple options on the table; which one is best? People who have already commented, are any of the alternative options acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mushroom types

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: By standard naming convention, Category:Mushrooms should be the "proper" category for the mushroom article. However, that article lists Category:Mushroom types as its home. Unfortunately, the Wikidata for d:Q9471386 says that Category:Mushrooms is "the same as" Category:Fungi which is not correct - a mushroom is a kind of fungi. Currently Category:Mushrooms is a soft redirect to Category:Fungi (which is wrong but follows the Wikidata). 1) This category should be merged into Category:Mushrooms; 2) The soft redirect would obviously be removed; 3) The Wikidata fixed. Dpleibovitz (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space and time

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Contents are unrelated apart from involving both space and time or the word "spatiotemporal". Some contents may be better placed within Category:Spacetime. See also the CfD for Category:Relations between space and time. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable intersection; and "spatiotemporal" concepts (databases, etc.) have little to do with the physics "spacetime" concept. fgnievinski (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spouses of presidents of Malta

[edit] Option A

Propose deleting Category:Spouses of presidents of Malta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (after merging the history to Category:First ladies and gentlemen of Malta)

Option B

Propose merging Category:First ladies and gentlemen of Malta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Spouses of presidents of Malta

Nominator's rationale: These two categories amount to the same thing and form a category loop. I personally prefer Option A, but either would solve the problem. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I created one of those categories in 2010, the other was created in 2025. I don't remember creating this, and if the Maltese usage is more first ladies and gentlemen then it would make sense to rename the category by merging the history. But what do people who follow Maltese politics find more useful? ϢereSpielChequers 20:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The X-Files task force participants

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Task force is defunct. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Governors of the Thirteen Colonies

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, the current name wrongly suggests that these people were governors of the entirety of the Thirteen Colonies. Maybe alternatively rename to Category:Governors of colonies in the Thirteen Colonies but that is quite verbose. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment or maybe Category:Governors of the Thirteen Colonies by colony. Hmains (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crimes involving migrants in Europe

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category is unclear. Is it meant to be crimes targeting migrants? Crimes in which migrants are victims generally? Crimes committed by migrants? And how is "migrants" being defined? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Senegalese Muslim pacifists

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. Underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 15:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Individual sport clubs and teams

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per the 2023 consensus to combine "sports clubs" and "sports teams" under unified "clubs and teams" categories, these categories (that have both "clubs" and "teams") should be merged as was done in their parent category Category:Sports clubs and teams / Category:Sports clubs and teams by sport. Merging them would improve consistency and follow the current categorization structure. As well as rename those that have "club" categories, no "team" categories, but still have national teams of their own to move to the new "clubs and teams" categories. FastCube (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Merge per WP:C2C, consistency with established category tree names. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Sports clubs and Category:Sports teams were merged because usage was differing in between sports. This doesn't mean individual sports categories need to be renamed against article usage. Categories are not properly tagged. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Well how foolish of me to miss that clarification of the 2023 discussion: "Let the ones by sport remain as they usually are cohesive." hence as to why this change didn't occur in the first place. However, I believe these proposed renames and merges still fall within that consensus' spirit, particularly for sports where both "club" and "team" categories exist independently, and where there is frequent overlap or inconsistency in how they are categorized.
    For the rename-only cases, the goal here isn’t to eliminate the distinction between clubs and national teams, but rather to create a unified structural container ("X clubs and teams") that can house both types under a clearer hierarchy, as is done in the top-level Category:Sports clubs and teams by sport. For sports where only a "club" or only a "team" category exists, those can remain untouched. But where both exist, the logical next step is to merge them just to reduce duplication, confusion, and enhance usability. FastCube (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Skarbek family

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We do not create categories for random nonnotable families. --Altenmann >talk 13:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Hebrew people

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, both for Moses and David the period in which they lived is very uncertain (and there is also debate about whether they lived at all). Hence categorizing people by century who fall in between Moses and David, and shortly after David, is too speculative. In contrast, it is entirely obvious in which Hebrew Bible books they occur. Note that all articles in the 10th-century category are already in Category:Books of Samuel people, Category:Books of Kings people or Category:Books of Chronicles people as appropriate, so they have not been specified as merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The historicity of some of the people here is itself uncertain. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Tri-Cities, Tennessee–Virginia, market

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with retitled article Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

Category:Television stations in Monterey, California

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Wiki article Monterey Bay Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on RevelationDirect's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judaeo-French languages

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The former implies a closer linguistic relationship with Zarphatic/Judeo-French and the other Jewish languages of France than there actually is. The latter is much less ambiguous. Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged; I will do so. Thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arctic Circle System: Thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judaeo-Spanish languages

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The former implies a closer linguistic relationship with Judaeo-Spanish and the other Jewish languages of Spain (at least as proposed by Paul Wexler, who isn't a reliable source, but that's out of scope for this discussion) than there actually is. The latter is much less ambiguous. Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged; I will do so. Thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arctic Circle System: Thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster and Marcocapelle: I wouldn't be opposed to it, either way works for me. Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This also applies to my CfDs on Category:Judaeo-French languages and Category:Judaeo-Italian languages. Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Censored works

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Falls under WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, as what the definition of censorship is in this instance is unclear. It can include both works directly censored by a government, or just works self-censored by the author, like a character saying "F***!" or a sex scene being skipped over, despite these things being drastically different in severity. This would also include all subcategories, besides "Works banned in___" which would be placed in a new Category:Banned works by country category. "Works subject to expurgation" suffers from the precise same issue as this one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 16 interwikis, numerous subcategories, what's subjective here? Sure, there are various types of censorship, which is why we have many articles and subcategories, as well as numerous lists (Category:Lists of prohibited books); and if something can be listified, it surely can be categorized.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being prohibited/banned is different than simply being censored. It is a clear "Is this book banned somewhere? Yes/no" answer that has no subjectivity. Whether a work has undergone "censorship", however, can often be up to individuals to interpret. Nevertheless, there's an argument that even "banned works" fail WP:NONDEF as something being banned is not a defining trait of that work. Some things can merit a list but be improper for a category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For some banned or censored works, this is very much a major part of their claim to fame or notability. Streisand effect, etc. PS. Example from the recent weeks: Reversed Front. The game is famous for becoming banned in China; it was pretty low key before that. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Species that are or were threatened by logging

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge or reverse merge (tagged both) as these amount to the same thing; deforestation doesn't happen by itself without human action to cut down the trees and the reason logging threatens species is by destroying their habitat. These are currently causing a category loop, highlighting the lack of any real difference. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male entertainers

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This rename is necessary to clarify that this is a container category, as not all entertainment occupations are necessarily gendered. Otherwise, it would appear to violate WP:OCEGRS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as rename; I've reverted my closure per User talk:Qwerfjkl#Category:Women entertainers, etc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively Category:Women entertainers would be a sensible parent to Category:Women entertainers by nationality, Category:Women by entertainment occupation, Category:LGBTQ women entertainers and Category:Jewish women entertainers, marked as a container category. I requested reopening rather than recreating it myself, not wanting to disrespect consensus as it flies in the face of the nominator's rationale.
Also, if renaming/splitting, Category:Women entertainers by occupation would be a better name than Category:Women by entertainment occupation.
My suggestions are either (A) keep/restore old name and structure, or (B) keep/restore and split to Category:Women entertainers by occupation etc. – Fayenatic London 16:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the old structure pending this reopened discussion, and hope this makes the discussion clearer. I do also support tagging the categories as container categories, and have done that too. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archaeology and racism

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, the content is mostly about hoaxes and pseudo-archaeology rather than about racism per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Fooland by city

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: all parent categories in Category:Music by country are named Music of Fooland, not Fooian music. (Category:Music of Norway by city and Category:Music of the United States by city are already correctedly named). The reason for this is simple: the scope of a child category such as Category:Music in Oslo is about all music in Oslo, not just "Norwegian music" in Oslo. It is about where the music applies (usually, it is played/consumed/used/experienced etc. at certain venues or events), not about by whom the music was created, or in which language(s) (if any), or in which country a recording was licensed etc. NLeeuw (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl I see something has gone terribly wrong with the Mass CFD, sorry! All tagged pages have gotten 34 notifications instead of 1, and this proposal here does not state the target name per tagged category. How do I undo this? Could you help me, please? NLeeuw (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster Hi, I'm pinging you as well because Qwerfjkl seems to have been inactive for a few days, and I think this error should be addressed quickly. Could you perhaps help me? NLeeuw (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat Thanks so much! NLeeuw (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Just for the record, this is not the first time I've seen an incident like this; I know of at least one prior batch discussion earlier this year, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 29#United States television stub renaming, where the MassXFD script also hit every single category in the batch with the entire stack of CFR templates instead of just the relevant one. That may not have been the only case, either, it's just the only one I can recall seeing. Bearcat (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat Thanks once again! To be honest, this is the first time I've tried using MassCfD for renaming. I should have used a smaller group to experiment with, just in case it went wrong (as it did here). It would have been less manual work to clean up.
Do you happen to know the correct procedure to do it? What I did was...
  • Nomination title: Music of Fooland by city
  • Rationale (see above)
  • Action: {{subst:Cfr|Music of Argentina by city}} (and the other 33 cats)
  • List of titles: Argentine music by city (and the other 33 cats)
  • Notify users? checkY
  • Category template: Category link with extra links – {{lc}}
I think the Action and Category template were wrong? And I should probably have done something with the Example|Target1|Target2 thing in the List of actions? NLeeuw (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I've never used that script before, so I can't really speak to whether it's that you personally did something wrong or that the script itself has a coding bug that needs to be fixed. I've posted a request to Qwerfjkl that they look into whether there's a bug to fix and/or a way to improve the script's user documentation on this kind of thing — even if it was a you mistake rather than a script bug, clearly at least one other user made the same mistake in the past, and others likely will again in the future, so even if it was just user error the script may need better documentation of how to avoid it. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It can be an incredibly helpful and time-saving tool, but it evidently could benefit from some better instructions to go with it. NLeeuw (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used it for renaming, but based on how I've used it for merging and deletions, I believe the procedure is:
  • Action: Leave what it prefills after you select "Rename", {{subst:Cfr|$1|Music of Fooland by city}}
  • "List of titles" should then be all your categories in a big list, formatted as:
Category:Argentine music by city|Category:Music of Argentina by city
Category:Australian music by city|Category:Music of Australia by city
Category:Bangladeshi music by city|Category:Music of Bangladesh by city
etc.
  • "Category template" is fine, for some reason it's not explained in the documentation but it decides which template is used on this CFD page, not the templates placed on the categories themselves.
– numbermaniac 14:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense, thank you very much! I now remember that I removed the $1| because I didn't understand it, and thought it was rubbish. But that was supposed to create a link to this CFD section with the highlighted text this category's entry in every tag. The target catnames were supposed to be written after the current catnames and separated with a | in the List of actions. Well, hopefully I've learnt the lesson.
@Qwerfjkl Is there some way to include numbermaniac's explanation above (or the "official" documentation at User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD) into the script itself? There is a lot of empty space next to the parameters in the MassCFD screen (even in the mobiel view version) where such an explanation would be handy for inexperienced MassCFD users (like me). NLeeuw (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nederlandse Leeuw, I think pressing on the "i" in a circle button should give extra information. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Miklós Barabás Guild

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Germanic mysticism

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, unclear distinction between the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture of Europe by language family

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Following long-standing precedent on WP:NONDEFINING WP:CROSSCATs between language family and other things such as geography or music, these categories (created a few days/months ago) should be deleted. NLeeuw (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created this language family category precisely to call these categories by what they are, instead of having them placed in ethnicity or nationality categories. Ultimately, I think the solution would be to forbid placing content about geographies in ethnic/linguistic categories. Place Clichy (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. This seems to be a case of WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you agree with the rationale, then I would happily invite you to help us with fixing this issue, which is indeed widespread and going back years. I and other editors have been making efforts to contain the overcategorisation of language families, and we sure could use your help. NLeeuw (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've just removed "Baltic culture" from Soviet Union and "Celtic culture" from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, thanks for the tip! NLeeuw (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear weapons program of Israel

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I tried speedy renaming per WP:C2D but that didn’t work so I guess I’ll try here. So per this comment, the category should be renamed. Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

Category:International bridges in Canada

[edit]

Nominator's rationale Clean up a few redundant layers:
Canada:
Mexico
Overall
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Countries and territories where Serbo-Croatian is an official language

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per talk page, there seems to be somewhat controversial on applying C2A and/or C2C criteria on such renaming. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as an original proposer. As I said, Serbo-Croatian as such hasn't been used as an official language in any political entity for quite some time (see also: Serbo-Croatian#Legal status). – Aca (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the original proponent of the formulation Category:Countries and territories where Fooian is an official language. The word is should not be taken as absolute, certainly not when all contents of the category are countries and territories which no longer exist. Therefore, was is a better option in this situation. In future similar cases (if any), this category can be referred to for a speedy rename per WP:C2C as far as I am concerned. NLeeuw (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should we have categories for a former official language, or of former countries? If so, then some of the other country-by-language categories will need to be split. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea. But I imagine it will be difficult to populate such categories with at least 5 members. I suggest taking that on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it's a very easy rename because they are all former countries. NLeeuw (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in Fort Myers, Florida

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Hyphenated market; consistency with Wiki article Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean toward Keep but Create a New Parent Excluding redirects, I'm counting 6 TV stations in Fort Myers, 4 in Naples, and 2 in suburbs. Six seems like enough to keep this category but the TV stations in other cities (even if the same market) should not stay in this cat. Open to other solutions though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norman music

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Arguably Music of the Channel Islands is the main article for this category (because the other three articles are songs from the Channel Islands, and none of the articles is about "mainland", French Normandy), and child Category:Norman musical instruments should probably be un-parented. However, I'm less certain about how to properly reparent this category. The Category:Culture of Normandy has strongly influenced the Culture of the Channel Islands (as the main article says); we can't just sever those category ties because they are now part of a different political entity. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths by LTTE suicide bomber

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Mostly overlaps with Category:Politicians assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which should be renamed to "Assassinations attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" per NPOV. Petextrodon (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the rename proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon and Pharaoh of the Wizards: thoughts on the rename proposal? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Fayenatic. Makes sense. NLeeuw (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As there are 4 "Public Research Organisations" in New Zealand, the category will at most contain 4 articles plus 1 eponymous one, only 2 of which currently exist. Gjs238 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about the discussion @Gjs238. I'm not wedded to having the category but I made it because we have one for Crown Research Institutes, which are being replaced by PROs. The research institutes category contains a number of different types of organisation - individual labs, institutes at universities, CRIs and PROs, which I think is quite messy and difficult to navigate if you don't already know what these things are (there's also a lot of existing and historical orgs with Wp pages missing from the category, which I've put on my to do list to address). So having a subcat for the things we can cleanly delineate (like CRIs and PROs) made sense to me.
Also noting that three PROs currently exist - the third is being rebranded from a reorganised Institute of Environmental Science and Research. I hadn't added the category to that page yet as I was hoping for more info to come out that would help me decide if it should be dealt with as a section on the existing page, or if the reorganisation is drastic enough to merit a new organisational page (I've added the cat now, though, for what it's worth). We know at the moment that this current government plans four PROs but there is no reason to suspect that the number wouldn't change in the future.
I don't hang out in category discussions much so will leave the decision up to you, but thought these considerations might be useful. For future reference, what's the minimum number of pages for a viable category? DrThneed (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input on the "mutliple merge" proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly from Crown Research Institute, Crown Research Institutes are soon to become Public Research Organisations.
If correct, perhaps it is best to wait for this change, then merge Category:Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand into Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand.
Gjs238 (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you merge them, what are you calling the category? The pages will not all be Crown Research Institutes or all Public Research Organisations but a mixture, so neither name works. (@Nurg and I already discussed this above and came up with a suggestion if you'd like to refer to that?) DrThneed (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand contains articles about Public Research Organisations in New Zealand...
and the former are soon to be renamed the latter...
then should we not be left with 1 category, Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand containing articles about Public Research Organisations in New Zealand? Gjs238 (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not a simple renaming, it is a reorganisation of our science system that has involved the creation of a new type of entity (a PRO - and just to be clear the term Public Research Organisation refers to a specific type of organisation, that has just been legally created, it is not a general term for a research organisation that is publicly funded). A CRI is not a PRO and vice versa. The PROs we have now are formed from SOME of the previous CRIs (other CRIs have been and gone, e.g. Canesis, HortResearch) but the government also announced they are creating a new PRO that is nothing to do with the CRIs. A category named Public research organisations should not contain the pages for the CRIs (and vice versa). DrThneed (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand. To telegraph my intentions, I currently see consensus for a change of some sort, ad of the various proposals for change the multi-merge to Category:State-owned research organisations in New Zealand has the most support of the various proposals. Further comments of any sort would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is the retention of the two categories Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand and Category:Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand. Whilst the two types of entity have a relationship they are not the same thing.
The original proposal to merge the category was made on the basis of size. Noone has bothered to answer my question about the minimum size of a category, and I don't find it anywhere in the category guidelines. My opinion is that the overall category of Research organisations in New Zealand is messy and has all sorts of different things in it and that because we can clearly define these two subsets of organisation, PROs and CRIs, it is helpful to our users to do so. DrThneed (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baja California–California relations

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not seeing the difference between these, or why they merit a separate layer. This will leave a large number of parent layers empty. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roads in West Flanders

[edit]

Convert Category:Roads in West Flanders to article List of roads in West Flanders
Nominator's rationale: Small category but a decent list. Gjs238 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename, as suggested by Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marcocapelle's proposal. NLeeuw (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marcocapelle's proposal. Gjs238 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Marco. -- Just N. (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

Category:Modules subject to page protection

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I have always felt that this is a redundant category exclusively used in {{module rating}} and that this category probably is better off merged. If one needs to truly get a list of all protected modules this exists. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim and Justus Nussbaum: thoughts on Pppery's comment? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to deletion either if that is desired. We can just quick and dirty merge and turn this into a category redirect for historical reasons, or delete and have nothing there. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 00:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer Merge to "turn this into a category redirect" for wikipedia internal historical reasons. -- Just N. (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Takahama, Aichi

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that nominator was blocked as a sock, so their !vote should be discounted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blind blues musicians

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: SMasonGarrison 19:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: The rationale is empty - did you mean to combine this with the nomination below? – numbermaniac 05:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I missed this one. SMasonGarrison 21:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Same as the large group below. Btw, it's kind of funny that it was this subcat that got separated out from the rest, seeing as Black blind musicians are an especially well-known aspect of Blues music. :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blind rock musicians

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between genre and specific disability per EGRS SMasonGarrison 19:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:OCEGRS and WP:NARROWCAT. No music genre is particularly associated with blind people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manual merge where needed, as the contents may already be in other diffusing sub-cats of the targets, esp. by nationality. – Fayenatic London 16:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked with PetScan and only Banzumana Sissoko would need to be merged to Blind musicians. There is also Bertha Tammelin but although she had "weak eyesight", it's not clear whether she performed when blind. – Fayenatic London 11:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's mostly useful categories to offer a quick overview about blind musicians in different genres. It's not at all an essentialistic issue. "No music genre is particularly associated with blind people", of course not, as it's not about "identity". But this is indeed an absurd interpretation. So no OCEGRS or NARROWCAT is fitting. It's simply useful for wikipedia's users. -- Just N. (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But EGRS is pretty clear that the intersection has to be defining (or the category is needed for diffusion). Can you do that for these genres? I'm happy to be wrong, but I don't see the benefit here. SMasonGarrison 22:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I emphatically agree with User:Just N. on this issue. If these subcats are merged it would dump more than 300 articles into Category:Blind musicians, which would greatly reduce its value to readers. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rican social workers

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT Gjs238 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You also need to make sure that they are in a Puerto Rican people category. SMasonGarrison 19:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't Puerto Rican people American people? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Different people might answer that question differently. Residents of Puerto Rico have been granted citizenship and are eligible to receive U.S. passports but, unless they move to a state or DC, are neither fully covered by the Constitution nor represented in federal elections. See Puerto Rican citizenship and nationality and Insular Cases. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the category tree:
    Category:Puerto Rican social workers > Category:Puerto Rican people by occupation > Category:Puerto Rican people > Category:People by insular area of the United States > Category:Insular areas of the United States, Category:American people by island, Category:American people by state or territory.
    If we are to follow the logic you seem to be proposing we would need to unwind the above category tree. I'm not judging that to be right or wrong, but it is an issue far larger than the one here, doing away with a 1-article category. Gjs238 (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably right; a single article isn't a good jumping off point to this broader discussion. Merge the 1 article to either. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Makeover reality television series

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category is doing a bit of mixing of non-identical genres of programming that need to be better subcategorized for clarity -- however, I'm going with a CFD split discussion, rather than just creating subcategories myself, because I'm struggling to identify the best names for new subcategories and would like some input.
Most, but not all, of the contents here are personal style, fashion or health makeover shows like Queer Eye, Extreme Makeover or What Not to Wear -- but there's also a selection of building or institutional renovation shows like Ground Force, Motel Makeover, Restaurant Makeover and School Pride that can't be moved to the existing Category:Home renovation television series subcategory because they're not about homes, as well as two iterations of the car makeover series Pimp My Ride. (And, for the record, I also had to clear this category of a number of series that had been unnecessarily duplicate categorized in both this category and the home renovation subcategory at the same time.)
And when it comes to Queer Eye in particular, that obviously crosses over as both a "personal style makeover" show and a "home renovation" show at the same time, meaning it very much belongs in the home renovation subcategory even though moving it there would pull it out of being categorized alongside the other personal style makeover shows -- which is why I don't think creating a subcategory only for the real estate makeover stuff while leaving personal makeover stuff here would be the right answer either.
This absolutely remains appropriate as a parent category, so I'm not suggesting deletion, but it needs subcategories to better delinate the distinction between the human makeover shows and the object-or-structure makeover shows. But again, I'm struggling to identify the most suitable names for them -- style makeover? personal makeover? property makeover? institutional makeover? -- so I'm looking for some additional input. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: If I were trying to clean this topic area I'd 1) leave the existing broad category, 2) add a sub-category for Category:Personal makeover reality television series, 3) diffuse most of the existing articles to that new subcategory, and 4) move the restaurant/motel/bar rescue/etc as well as the hybrid shows (Queer Eye, etc) directly into to this parent category.
Alternatively, you could start with the Makeover reality television series main article and see if it could be salvaged with reliable sources and then follow how they describe these shows. (If that article can't be saved, I'd nominate it for AFD since it's basically an unsourced category header in the wrong namespace right now.)
I wouldn't oppose other approaches at CFD though, take any suggestions that are helpful and leave the rest. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linguists from Guyana

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry.

Also propose merging:

Category:Linguists from Afghanistan

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As per normal naming convention for occupations by nationality.

Also propose renaming:

LibStar (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hostage taking in fiction

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Grammatical correctness. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about hostage taking

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Why was the category moved from the previous, correct name? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American blind accordionists

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between instrument and specific disability SMasonGarrison 04:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not about "defining" in the meaning of essentialistic identity. OTOH any disability is defining for the lifes of those people and the deference to them by all others. This category simply gives orientation and helps to see them as an important part of the field. -- Just N. (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

Category:Lists of science fiction television characters by series

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: They seem to perform the same function --woodensuperman 15:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam provincal merger

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: After the Vietnam's Provincial Merger 2025 came to effect on 1 July 2025, Vietnam reduced its number of provinces and cities into 34. The Wikipedia categories need to follow the new provincial administrative units after merger. I propose merge all these categories and their subcategories to their new corresponding categories and subcategories.– Lâm 16:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination's tie to real-world decisions (edit: while I do support it, I still believe we should wait for further information on the decision) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: C2B WP:CATNATION. Nicholas0 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former cities in Russia

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In Russia, there is no distinction between cities and towns. The inclusion criteria have long specified that the category includes both cities and towns, and it is also a subcategory of Category:Cities and towns in Russia. And almost all of the contents of the category cannot be called cities either - they are mainly towns or even smaller settlements (urban-type settlement). Solidest (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although, as far as I can see, in addition to Category:Former cities, there is also Category:Former towns. At the same time, the "cities" branch is rather disorganised, and many of the articles are actually about places referred to as "former towns". Therefore, it may be reasonable to rename both branches to "cities and towns" and merge them. However, unlike the situation in Russia, I am not sure how significant the distinction between a city and a town is (in the context of becoming "former") in other countries. Therefore, I am nominating only Russia here. Solidest (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You rightly noted that there is no city/town distinction on Russia. Instead, all other category/article titles, such as List of cities and towns in Russia by population must be renamed, because this "c & t" naming creates misinformation, suggesting that there are cities and towns in Russia. --Altenmann >talk 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed into what? "cities or towns"? cities? towns? I don't think this creates misinformation, since in reality some places are technically could be called cities and others are smaller towns, both words are still relevant in English. But we cannot make the distinction for each case as it would be OR. And the "cities and towns" wording is still widely used in similar cases, where the local language does not distinguish between terms. But if we had to choose, town would probably be more appropriate in this case. Solidest (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you are saying that it includes urban-type settlements, then the proper name is category:Former urban localities in Russia. --Altenmann >talk 21:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Urban localities" is too vague and unclear a term. It is more likely to refer specifically to "urban-type settlements" – which populated places often turn into when they lose city/town status. Therefore, it won't work. Solidest (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Other suggestions for rename targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pansexual people by occupation

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category and all its subcategories would seem to violate WP:OCEGRS as I am not sure pansexuality is defining as it relates to occupations. I would suggest an upmerge if necessary to the parent category or its subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linux distributions offering KDE desktop environment

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per numerous prior discussions, it's not useful to categorize Linux distributions for the matter of which desktop environment they "offer" -- since any Linux distro can be configured to use any desktop environment of the user's choice regardless of whether it came as the preinstalled default or not, it just isn't a useful distinction between distros. You can easily install a distro that isn't here and configure it to use KDE anyway, and you can easily install a distro that is here and configure it to use Gnome or XFCE or Cinnamon anyway, so it doesn't constitute a significant difference between Linux distros. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Also okay with the suggestion to listify. The rules for article content and the rules for categories are different — because of reconfigurability the distros aren't defined by which desktop environment comes as the preinstalled default for the purposes of being categorized by desktop environment, but a list would be a perfectly valid way to serve the purpose Dadu suggests. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Propose keep: I agree from a advanced user view, but most of users do no do that, they do search by Desktop environment. --Dadu (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Propose keep per Dadu. -- Just N. (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the suggestion for listifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lovers

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: An ambiguous term. User:Namiba 18:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Category:Extramarital relationships would be a better target then? I don't see a need for a separate category, especially one with an ambiguous name.--User:Namiba 14:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also lovers of mythological characters, and songs about former lovers. "Extramarital" will work, though is probably a bit of overkill, "of royalty" certainly does not work. Honestly I do not have a problem with "Lovers" as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lovers" is all inclusive of anyone who loves. We have context of [sexual] lovers only from looking at the category members.
    I think this should be split at best. And the myth and legend ones give no context. We presume that "lovers" are extra-marital relationships, but that presumes they all cultures defined marital relationships in the same way, or even had them at all. This begs explanation at best (hence lists), but I think Category:Extramarital lovers of heads of state is a possible target for some of these cats/subcats. It at least gives us more specificity.
    That said, I don't oppose WP:TNT/Deleting all the "lovers" cats, as vague in definition and inclusion criteria. - jc37 21:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a container category, so it is not a problem that context comes only from looking at the category members. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but even for a container, that's an awfully vague term, especially when other, more precise terms are possible.
    To fit in the existing trees better, I'd be fine with merging to Category:Extramarital relationships of heads of state, and purge/re-cat as appropriate. - jc37 02:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be against that, because then we unnecessarily lose legendary and mythological lovers (and not sure how this would relate to Category:Mistresses which does not limit itself to heads of state either.) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm using an incorrect term? I'm looking at Category:Mistresses, and all the subcats, at least, seem to be about heads of state.
    And I think splitting out the myth/legend ones from the rest is a feature not a bug. Do we categorise pages of the Greek gods (for example) in other subcats of Category:People by role? - jc37 04:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Better check the articles that are directly in Category:Mistresses because they are exactly the ones that do not belong in a heads of state subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so when I did, I found mainly 3 types: a.) those having extramarital affairs with people "related" with state (heads of state, lords, ministers, and the like) - see also Favourite; b.) courtesans; and c.) people who had extramarital affairs. The three types probably should not be categorised together. All we're doing is categorising together people who had sex, who were notable enough to have sex. And in some cases, not necessarily that they had sex with other notable people (though some did).
    Which brings me back to thinking that this is a (potentially) all-inclusive category. The only ones who wouldn't be added here are those people who have not had sex.
    I'm not opposed to a split (and/or upmerge) of some kind, with better/more accurate naming.
    For one thing, there's no article for Male lovers. And Mistress (lover) suggests that this includes anyone who is engaging in Adultery. We probably should have a more netral term for both so that Category:Male lovers (and subcats) can be merged with Category:Mistresses. And the inclusion criteria should make it clear that these are for people who had an extramarital relationship with a public figure. - jc37 20:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Category:Lovers is a sibling to Category:Spouses within Category:Romantic and sexual partners. No objection to adding "extramarital" for clarity, although I think the meaning is sufficiently well understood without that and can be stated on the category pages. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Spouses seems to be (mostly) a tree of container cats to hold those who had multiple wives or husbands (and also includes the complication of consorts, like Category:Consorts of Vajiralongkorn). Category:Lovers doesn't appear to be limited in that way. - jc37 20:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the page above is empty, the Lua module has exceeded the post-expand include size limit due to mass nominations or too many open discussions. In this case, you can still see all the open discussions as a list of links from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions; assistance closing discussions would be appreciated.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_old_discussions&oldid=1283214820"