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.

October 28

Category:Fictional characters by medium and species

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary cross-categorization that fails WP:CROSSCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Is the nomination intended to include the subcategories? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, just the category itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Speculative fiction characters by medium per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_21#Fictional_characters_by_work. The contents shouldn't be directly in the other parents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

Category:Yakutat City and Borough, Alaska

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D, consistency with main article's name
Yakutat, Alaska (population 687) is a populated place that has convoluted legal history. It was a city within the Unorganized Borough (Alaska boroughs are equivalent to counties), then in 1992 the settlement and surrounding area were separated into it's own borough named "Yakutat City and Borough", and for continuity of reporting the original more narrow city area is now a Census-Designated Place. In the article space, these three overlapping concepts have a single article and the formal consensus in a 2012 Requested Move was to change to the shorter title. This nomination just seeks to finally sync up the category space with the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per article title. After a successful RM the category can be speedily moved back, but as long as there is no RM there is no reason to oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The article is using a simpler name for the same concept as the category. The category should match the article. Mclay1 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. If Yakutat, Alaska, is to be moved to Yakutat City and Borough, Alaska, then that is a separate discussion that we should have later. For now, I suggest moving the categories to align with the article's title. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The core issue goes beyond the constant efforts of CFD regulars to achieve a superficial notion of "consistency". It applies to this tree and the recently-moved Category:Skagway, Alaska tree. Namely, a census-enumerated populated place and a county or county equivalent are independently notable topics everywhere else on the encyclopedia. No credible effort has been made to justify these two exceptions. The aforementioned RM sidestepped that issue. This chain of discussion has thus far sidestepped that issue. Discussion preceding the RM which attempted to justify this situation reveals long-unchecked OR. Wikipedians have been successful in pushing their personal belief that an entity calling itself the City and Borough of Yakutat is the exact same thing as entities calling themselves the City and Borough of Juneau and the City and Borough of Sitka, and the entity calling itself the Municipality of Skagway is the exact same thing as the entity calling itself the Municipality of Anchorage. Nothing is further from the facts. This OR has continued unabated for 15–20 years. Acknowledging that Alaska's local government structure is unique = mere lip service when you're not willing to reflect those unique distinctions, in this case expecting them to be shoehorned into the Wikipedian concept outlined at Consolidated city-county. Furthermore, according to long-established naming conventions, "Skagway, Alaska" and "Yakutat, Alaska" should refer to individual populated places. Why should I believe that long-standing, stable editing conventions take a backseat to gamed local consensus with infinitesimal participation? This is yet another example of a CFD which has implications beyond merely tidying something up. I've observed a decade-plus pattern of changes in category names that also changed the category's meaning or purpose, and content was never changed to reflect that. The most egregious example: there's a difference between a road accident and a road incident. Most of the articles I've read of people who died in road incidents but not road accidents never saw those articles categorized to reflect the difference, whether after the CFD closed or ever. There are a bunch of examples of post-CFD non-cleanup just like that. It really gives me cause to wonder what purpose some of you are serving by hanging out in CFD all the time. Your rationales in this CFD are a clear reminder of why we have a policy item entitled "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". The aforereferenced core issue is something that should have been fixed 15 years ago, not buried in personal opinion. Since the best sources explaining this situation aren't online, Wikipedians did what Wikipedians do best, sit on their hands and play dumb. Thanks for reading this. I'm still fed up with the notion that consensus boils down to those who have time for this shit. I sure don't at this point. Anyway, there's your answer to the comment about pinging me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by religion

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: by all means keep the userboxes, but categories are redundant per WP:USERCAT since we already have Category:Wikipedians interested in religion and all of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birds in mythology

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The category should be renamed to avoid WP:NONDEF and making it clear it is specifically about mythological birds, not any work in which a mythological bird tangentially appears. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom SMasonGarrison 14:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is way too sweeping. *Some* birds-in-mythology are mythical, like the phoenix; *Others*, like the barnacle goose (see barnacle goose myth), are real species that happen to have a myth about them. I have no objection to your moving the actually-mythical birds to Category:Mythical birds ("Mythological" is just poor English, sorry to say), but the real species with interesting myths about them need to have a different category, perhaps Category:Real birds in mythology or perhaps the existing category would do just fine as it is. Either way, the reorg needs to be via a split, not via a simple renaming, so I have to oppose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed*, per Chiswick Chap. Dcattell (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC) Also, further examples include Odin's ravens Huginn and Muninn and Rooster (zodiac) and Cranes in Chinese mythology -- we're dealing with mythology here, not ornithology: some birds seem clearly only mythological, some birds are identifiable as known species but take on mythological characteristics. Some categories are inherently fuzzy! Dcattell (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC) Maybe the new category should be Birds with mythic characteristics? Dcattell (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to both of your concerns - while yes, there are articles that would no longer fit if the category was renamed, if it was not renamed the NONDEF issues would still be there. The solution is likely to split it to an additional category like Category:Myths about birds in which the bird-related myths like that or Emu and the Jabiru would be placed. That way we'd have 2 defining categories instead of one vague and undefining one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal might be the best way forward. I did read the Emu and Jabiru article. Categorizing it as Category "Myths about birds" makes sense. I note that this would also fit a category of some sort of shape shifting or metamorphosis explaining how and why some bird came to exist in a certain mythic form: emus are grey because Gandji threw ash in Wurrpan's face. How would we categorize Three-legged crow? Dcattell (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to @ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and everyone: a category name of "Category:Myths about birds" has merit: keep it simple; so, if less syllables, then generally the better (all else being equal). Suggestions above include category reorganization via a split or splits. "Category:Birds in myths" would suggest itself for a higher level category. Then, after that, the way forward may be to figure out how to split into lower level categories. Currently, the solution does not seem clear. I am glad some good minds are working on it. Dcattell (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to clearly figure out some split location.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed regicides of Louis XVI

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING: None of the people in this category were executed for their role in the trial or execution of Louis XVI. Excommunicato (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, theree is no need for this category Marissa TRS (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family of Prince George, Duke of Kent

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Most of the people in this category were born decades after his death and are not routinely associated with him. They are already categorised in Category:House of Windsor, to which they are routinely linked. This is a non-defining, overlapping characteristic that is peripheral to their notability. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's Comment: I created this category as I thought it was worthwhile having somewhere that categorised the further descendants that perhaps do not fit so neatly into Category:House of Windsor. As the various branches of the House of Windsor diverge with time, it seemed like linking them within these sub-branches might be preferable.
Perhaps the new category should be renamed after a more recent generation (Prince Edward, for example) or just merged into House of Windsor instead? OGBC1992 (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clarity on merge location.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football competitions in Lobatse

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: One article each in narrow intersections. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of merging to Lobatse, rename the existing category Category:Sports in Lobatse and populate it. There are enough articles to do so. Delete Category:Football competitions in Molepolole. I don't think it makes sense to merge to Category:Kweneng District given its current contents.--User:Namiba 15:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would in not make sense to merge it to the closest possible geographical category (I have created a new category for the 38 villages)? I don't see a problem creating Category:Sport in Lobatse (no s per Category:Sport in Botswana). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

Category:International athletics competitions hosted in West Berlin

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There are no other sport-specific categories of this level for any city, much less a city sector which no longer exists due to the political situation. The single entry can be listed in West Germany (there may well other eligible articles but the creator did not bother to find any). 'Hosted in' is also malformed terminology. Crowsus (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: West Berlin was not a city. It was not part of West Germany, and it was an international subject on its own right. The rationale only reflects that the nominator does not know well the history of West Berlin and/or Berlin and/or West Germany. Porposing Furthermore, it had major political/sports implications, with athletes and sides from Eastern Europe refuse to take part in events hosted in West Berlin, if organized by a West German federation.
This would be as illogical as saying that Free Territory of Trieste was just a city or that the Saar Protectorate was just a province of West Germany (the latter was even affiliated to FIFA). This is just deleting history because of ignorance.SFBB (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's a real shame that Hertha BSC never got to compete in the Bundesliga for 40 years and had to play in the West Berlin Championship, and that the 1974 FIFA World Cup hosted by West Germany never had any matches in West Berlin. Crowsus (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very solid argument. Liechtenstein and Monaco also do not exist, because FC Vaduz and AS Monaco compete in the Swiss and the French lgeague, respectively.
And also the FIFA World Cup is an excellent argument, as East Germany aimed at boycotting the World Cup precisely because of fact that games were being hosted in West Berlin (see here a good discussion). Further football tournaments hosted by West Germany avoided West Berlin, precisely because of that issue (e.g. Euro 88). SFBB (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only not absurd, but the reality. West Germany's laws had as much validity in West Berlin as Italian or Dutch ones, and inhabitants of West Berlin had as many rights to send representatives to Bonn as they had to send representatives to Rome or The Hague. The only true thing is that West Berlin was integrated into the economic space of West Germany, in the very same way that Monaco was integrated into France's or Liechtenstein with Switzerland (that being said, Bonn granted West Berlin some representatives without voting rights and the Senate of West Berlin consistently passed laws mimicking the laws passed by West Germany). SFBB (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we really have 3 options here: continue with West Berlin as part of West Germany (seems inaccurate) / create lots of very narrow trees specific to West Berlin (seems )ike overkill / Have West Berlin things within the categories for West Germany but with a prominent banner with something along the lines of "includes [events] in West Berlin which was administered separately from the Federal Republic of Germany" which would draw attention to the situation for interested readers and also indicate that the site is aware of it, which should perhaps have been the case before now. I would certainly prefer the third option. Crowsus (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that creating a full tree would be an overkill (for instance, there was no "People from West Berlin" as there was no West Berlin nationality), but I'm pretty I'm pretty much sure, separate categories are required when the situation indeed had practical implications, for instance sport events, which faced (threats of) boycotts by the East or had to be organized be different federations/associations (not the West German ones, even though in most cases we're just talking about phantoms). That's a very important nuance and it should not be neglected. It also helps understanding why events organized by West Germany almost never included West Berlin.
Anyways, as I mentioned in your TP, I think this is a case fro a broader RfC. SFBB (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to something – I think we need an RfC on what to do generally with West Berlin. Then we'll know which categories to merge to, because this category only has one article and so isn't needed regardless. Mclay1 (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works based on Nineteen Eighty-Four

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The scope of this category and its subcategories using the phrase "based on" is vague. Are these categories for "adaptions of" Nineteen Eighty-Four or is "based on" inclusive of media that depict themes and elements taken from the novel that are reported as "inspired by"? I'd appreciate consensus to clarify.
For example in discussion with @IzzySwag: I was thinking "based on" is inclusive of media that depicts narrative parallels to the novel such as The Protomen, which many sources say is Nineteen Eighty-Four inspired (or Orwellian) and includes many of the same elements such as thoughtcrime, its depiction of heroes, and surveillance through screens, but does not name-drop any of the names or phrases from the novel.
Also, Category:Music based on Nineteen Eighty-Four says in the description "Music inspired by George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four or its adaptations" which is causing further confusion. Pingnova (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tichon Hadash high school alumni

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: First, There are several Tichon Hadash high schools. Second, we do not categorize by high schools. (or do we? Does not seem right to me.) Third, the creator is adding bios with no ref to THHS --Altenmann >talk 18:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the creator of this category. and this is my rationale:
First, categorizing by high schools is common practice, and I believe it is meaningful - high school is a defining period in many people’s lives. If the intention is to remove all categories by high schools in every country, that would require opening a new and broader policy discussion. I doubt there would be consensus for such a radical change.
Second, this category refers to Tichon Hadash High School in Tel Aviv, which is by far the most well-known school of that name in Israel. When “Tichon Hadash” is mentioned in Israel without any qualifier, it is clearly understood to refer to this school — as reflected in the title of its Hebrew Wikipedia article This high school is one of the older and more prestigious in the country. Its alumni include a Nobel Prize laureate, several Israeli ministers and Knesset members, notable writers, musicians, an NBA player, and many academics. That said, I’m open to renaming the category to “Tichon Hadash High School in Tel Aviv alumni” for clarity.
Finally, I will review the categorized articles and add references where they are missing. EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 18:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: potentially unclear consensus
1 edit
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename per RevelationDirect. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archipelagoes and islands of Venezuela by state

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We don't have a parent tree for Category:Archipelagoes and islands, and grouping such entities is usually a bad idea. This should be renamed and categorized under Category:Archipelagoes of Venezuela; any islands (not archipelagoes) there can to Category:Islands of Venezuela (with no prejudice to creation of Category:Islands of Venezuela by state). Alternatively we could rename this category to the Islands of V. by state - I don't have a preference. Children subcategories will need to be fixed too (I don't know how to add them to this nom, sadly). Note that the name of this category likely comes from es wiki, but the interwikis there seem to be for islands (ex. es:Categoría:Archipiélagos e islas por país is iwikid to our Category:Islands by country (but bad naming on es wiki is not our problem... feel free to report it there if you speak es). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ottawa Intrepid

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Does not help navigation. User:Namiba 14:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is a category really merited for a defunct team which contains so little content?--User:Namiba 14:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...yes. It has the exact same content as current teams (probably more than some). Why is the fact it is defunct relevant? GiantSnowman 08:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant that it is defunct because it means that is highly unlikely that new content will be added. Terry Fox Stadium is a multi-purpose stadium which only hosted for a few seasons, not a purpose-built stadium. As WP:EPON states, "Eponymous categories should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist."--User:Namiba 15:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're fully correct. World War 2 was in the past so nobody writes about it any more, do they? 2 subcats, 2 articles, and 1 image is sufficient - more than many current clubs have for their categories! GiantSnowman 19:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From recent similar deletion discussions it seems the consensus is one eponymous article, one players category and one managers category is enough directly related articles. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last activity 5-6 days ago
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guerrilla filmmaking

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I created this category based on the existing article. I think it should be renamed to "Guerrilla-style films" since articles tagged are only films. Filmforme (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An entire category for filmmaking in the style of Ed Wood (as defined in the main article)?: "ultra-low micro budgets, skeleton crews, and limited props". Frankly, there is little difference in concept with the Z movie and Wood has hundreds of imitators. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And I think that guerilla filmmaking and Z movie are covering the same topic in different terms. Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the category be deleted instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! The existing category wording is by far the best describing the essential difference to conventional filmmakings. The proposed wording "Guerrilla-style films" could easily be interpreted as related to political/arts guerilla movements. -- Just N. (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

$WORK aliens and $WORK alien species

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Most other extraterrestrial life-related categories avoid the term alien because it is ambiguous with Alien (law). I'm not sure if we should uniformly include and races across all the fictional species categories, but I do so here to match Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species and races. The comics ones also have "extraterrestrial superheroes/supervillains" subcategories as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a Star Trek one, although its associated species subcategory does not require renaming since all fictional species in Star Trek are extraterrestrial. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all besides Stargate, which should be dual merged to its parent categories as a WP:NARROWCAT.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging Category:Stargate alien characters? Thoughts on LaundryPizza03's suggestion for "extraterrestrial characters"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent activity
7 edits
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beaches of the Algarve

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As Algarve and Faro District cover the same area, these topics already subdivided by district (see Category:Categories by district of Portugal) are overlapping (islands and rivers are subcategories of geography). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge, as the two cover the same area we do not need pairs of categories. Do leave a REDIRECT though. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "Algarve" as the higher subdivision with one district. The top category should be merged as well for this reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regions and districts have no geographical connection to each other – some districts are in two regions. I understand it as the districts are still considered the first-level subdivision. I'm more inclined to abolish the whole region tree in that case because it, to a large extent, only groups the districts. Region may also mean both administrative region and NUTS statistical region, which doesn't seem to align fully. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the targets to allow for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: mostly recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving human-related categories to Faro District as there is a complete tree of districts in Portugal for these subjects - which is not the case for all its regions, but move nature-related categories to Algarve which is a long-defined geographical area so would be a better option, since it is available, than grouping those topics under a modern political division. Leaving redirects at each should prevent the recreation of overlaps. Crowsus (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Max (streaming service) original programming

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Does it really matter what HBO Max was called when these shows were released? We currently have one category for shows released 2020–2023 and 2025 onwards and another category for shows released when the name was different between 2023 to 2025. Obviously the articles can specify the name of the platform at the time, but having two categories is not helpful for navigation. Mclay1 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and my rationale in my prior (failed on a technicality) nomination. We should not be giving so much credence to a two-year slight name change over a technicality. It is still the same service and was never a successor, as I have seen some articles call it. Unlike other categories for subjects with long-term name usage before a notable name change (Category:20th Century Fox films versus Category:20th Century Studios films), this rebranding was purely that, a brief period of a name change that did not alter the substance of the platform other than providing a lack of brand recognition. Arguments have been made in prior RM discussions for the main article that "HBO Max" was and has always been the more commonly recognizable name of this topic, and the category should be easily recognizable and findable for editors and readers alike. This is just a tiresome case of semantics getting the better of seamless navigation and simplicity. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 03:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree and that's why HBO Max and Category:HBO Max are the names of the article and category. We don't have separate articles and categories for the service when it had a different name. Mclay1 (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ogres in film

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. Alternatively, merge to Category:Ogres in popular culture as a WP:NARROWCAT due to the lack of defining category members besides Shrek. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom WinstonDewey (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: very recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated monster movies

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CROSSCAT. I am not proposing a merge because most of the subcategories and articles do not belong in this category anyway. Despite AHI-3000's apparent belief otherwise, a film being about a monster does not imply something is a "monster movie", which is a specific genre about an attack by a typically villainous and hostile monster. If there is anything that does belong in it and isn't already in one of its subcategories, it should be selectively merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: edit
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated films about legendary creatures

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CROSSCAT and should be merged to all parent categories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian government

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Category:Palestine governments. Hassan697 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is meanwhile consensus that "Palestine" categories are for the State of Palestine and do not include Mandatory Palestine. I was not too enthousiastic about that change but it is the current status. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in principle. However not all the current content belongs in the target: while the All-Palestine Government indeed intended to be a government of the Palestinian people in what would later become the present-day State of Palestine, albeit an Egyptian puppet one, and therefore in my opinion belongs in the target, West Bank Governorate is not a state government and should be purged. It is already down below somewhere Category:Government of Palestine, probably through several channels. There was probably other content before, maybe PLO or PNA related, but these two items are all that is left. Place Clichy (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Annapolis, Maryland sport stubs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Strange and needless sub which contains almost exclusively Navy Midshipmen football team articles. User:Namiba 20:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent activity. xfdceditagain
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lesbian trade unionists

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Is there a reason we're limited this to lesbian trade unionists instead of all LGBTQ people? SMasonGarrison 01:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creating Category:LGBTQ trade unionists is a great idea, but there is no need to merge this populated category into it. Moreover, there is already Category:Lesbians by occupation and merging this would remove those in this category from it.--User:Namiba 12:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am seeing some lukewarm opposition to the nomination. Thoughts on just creating a new parent category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent activity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the evidence by the keep commenters above, could a delete support explain your reasoning? I'm not seeing policy-based arguments for deletion.--User:Namiba 01:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Textile industry of the Republic of Ireland

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, O C. Upmerge for now. Although the target category is island-wide and the nominee specifically about the Republic, there is a lot of overlap with Category:Textile companies of Ireland, in which Magee of Donegal is one of 5 textile companies in the Republic, and only 1 is based in Northern Ireland. There is no need for a subdivision between Republic and Northern Ireland for just 6 articles. NLeeuw (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on NLeeuw's latest comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Category:Textile companies is a subcategory of Category:Textile industry, Category:Textile industry of the Republic of Ireland, who would only host Category:Textile companies of the Republic of Ireland and where the subcategory would also be accessible trough Category:Textile companies of Ireland, can be deleted. Also, from the guideline, a good number of these (not all), needs to be reparented. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that Ireland is actually the name of the country (not Republic of Ireland), and that many users, in good faith and with perfect knowledge of the political situation, will place country-related content in categories named just Ireland. I tend to think that's fine in most cases, because the spontaneous understanding of things by users is what should guide us. Several decades ago, edit war-prone editors since then banned attempted to sort this perceived mess by trying to differentiate "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" in categories. Let's face the hard truth: it never fully worked, and never will. I suggest to relax this approach and consider it need-only: when there is really too much content for a single category, or when a topic strongly needs to avoid ambiguity, and of course in the very few contexts such as international football where RoI is actually used, then Republic is useful, but otherwise it really isn't. In the present case, seen the volume and the scope of the categories, this logic leads me to support merging to Category:Textile industry of Ireland. Place Clichy (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

Category:Scholars and instructors of spoken Latin or spoken Ancient Greek

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Recently created category redundant with Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek and Category:Latinists. Gjs238 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This page is most decidedly NOT redundant with Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek.
These two categories have only a small intersection, and the one group is obviously not a superset of the other.
  • Grammarians are grammarians.
  • Scholars and instructors of spoken Ancient Greek is a different set of people.
This page makes specifically clear that the page covers scholars and instructors "who use Latin or Ancient Greek as spoken, conversational languages". Most Ancient Greek grammarians in the previous few centuries did not do that. Also, very few instructors of spoken Ancient Greek can be properly called grammarians.
Thanks. Latvvot (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. If not deleted, split between Latin and Greek. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. It is very definitely a defining characteristic. Encouraging spoken use of ancient Languages is a different and distinct business, and implies publishing a different kind of materials. Latvvot (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidance to "split it between Latin and Greek" indicates that the poster hasn't actually investigated the topic and doesn't really understand what's being listed. I recommend to future commenters to actually investigate the topic, first, and see what the defining characteristic is, before making snap judgments. No, at the moment there actually isn't a good reason to distinguish broadly between users of spoken Latin and users of spoken Ancient Greek. There is good reason to keem them together, becuase this is mostly the same crowd of people, with lots of professional interaction. The defining characteristic is making significant professional efforts to encourage the use of a "dead" classical language in spoken conversation. If you are not familiar with that as a professional activity, or you have never heard of it before, maybe investigate a bit, first? What do you really know about it? Latvvot (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should refrain from personal comments. I cannot check how much you know about the topic either. The defining characteristic is that they are classical scholars. And many of these articles belong in a Latin category only. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, this not true: "The defining characteristic is that they are classical scholars." The category page makes this very, very clear.
      You are misrepresenting what is plainly stated in the category page. That is not the defining characteristic. I do not understand why you are misrepresenting the facts. Latvvot (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As has been said repeatedly, including on the category page: The defining characteristic is making significant professional efforts to encourage the use of a "dead" classical language in spoken conversation.
      You don't get to pretend that the defining characteristic is some other criterion not mentioned on the category page. The blurb on the page already makes clear that some of the people listed are not in fact classical scholars by profession. The category is titled "scholars and instructors". Latvvot (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the people proposing deletion are not actually reading what the category is, but are making a snap judgment based on assumptions, probably based only on the category title, without actually investigating the topic in the real world. Supporting spoken conversation is not a conventional pursuit for a Latin scholar or Greek scholar. Scholars usually discourage devoting any time to it. If we fold this category away we are ignoring and erasing the actual defining characteristic of the category, which has been clearly stated. Latvvot (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This serious topic will be better served by a topic article (such as Living Latin) rather than a category listing people, a bit randomly. Guideline WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates also gives valuable advice that applies here. In short: a topic article, or a list article, allows to consistently cover a subject with nuances, comments, links to reliable sources, and can be monitored through a watchlist, among other features; whereas categories lack the consistent coverage, nuance, sources, and individual articles are casually added or removed from it with little control and consistency. Spoken Latin and Greek are not so rare that it makes studies of them so distinct from the written studies. Think for instance that Second Vatican Council was conducted entirely in Latin. And of course: εχεί πιο πολύ κόσμο που μιλάει τα ελλήνικα που το νομίζετε. Place Clichy (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Spoken Latin and Greek are not so rare that it makes studies of them so distinct from the written studies." Yes, they are rare and distinct. The topic at hand is not "studies," but cultivation of spoken Latin and Ancient Greek. And yes, that is exceedingly rare.
    No, it is not true that Vatican 2 was conducted "entirely" in Latin. Very few bishops were able to discourse in even basic Latin, even in the 1960s. They used vernacular languages in breakout committees and informal discussions. For speeches in the main sessions, they relied on translators and prepared speeches.
    Your Greek sentence (εχεί πιο πολύ κόσμο που) is Modern Greek, not Ancient Greek. And your Greek sentence contains an untruth. The ability to converse in Ancient Greek is exceedingly rare. Latvvot (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you folks use the opportunity to learn something new, that you did not know before? This category page is a collection of links to Wiki pages that already exist, describing people involved in this specific endeavor. It is not different from any other category page.
    Does anyone dispute that Terence Tunberg has made significant professional efforts towards the modern use of spoken Latin?
    Does anyone dispute that John Traupman made significant professional efforts toward the modern use of spoken Latin?
    Does anyone dispute that Eduard Johnson made professional efforts to support the modern use of spoken Ancient Greek? Latvvot (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American behavioral healthcare providers that offer higher levels of care

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Healthcare Providers not categorized this way Gjs238 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just like below, what do you mean by your statement that they're not categorized this way? Crs5827 (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crs5827 (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soviet lichenologists

[edit]

:* Propose merging Category:Spanish lichenologists to Category:Lichenologists and Category:Spanish botanists

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game superhumans by ability

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category and all its subcategories should be merged to the suggested parent category and its subcategories. It fails WP:CROSSCAT since "video game superhuman" is not a cultural phenomenon in the same manner as superhumans in general. There are also ones for anime and manga that are similarly dubious, so I will likely nominate those as well if this succeeds. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment If we delete this one, we should also consider all the lower categories, e.g. merging Category:Video game characters who can teleport to Category:Fictional characters who can teleport. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: the subcategories should be nominated too. Substantively I do not have an opinion about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepmerge I am inclined to agree with the nominator that different mediums do not portray similar superpowers differently. However, most of the categories diffused into one of the nominee's subcategories are large enough to require diffusion, and we diffuse video game characters by many other traits where diffusion by medium is used. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding subcategories...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia policies

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Currently we have one category that collects both policies and pages related to policies. The subcategories Wikipedia policy list templates, Wikipedia edit warring, Wikipedia personal attacks, Wikipedia BLP policy, Wikipedia neutral point of view, Wikipedia verifiability, Wikipedia disclaimers, Wikipedia oversight, and Wikipedia privacy mainly contain non-policies; I think they should be split off into a topic category at the singular title, leaving behind a set category at the plural title. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Parliament of England

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to a previous CfD, which ended with no consensus on whether the subcategories of Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) should match that format decided on in a previous CfD or whether they should match the article Parliament of England and its eponymous category Category:Parliament of England. The subcategories are still following four different naming formats, which needs fixing, so this time I'm proposing the opposite to last time, that all the subcategories of Category:Parliament of England simply match the main category and article with no disambiguation. (However, compare Category:Parliament of Scotland.) Mclay1 (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

Category:Catholic-raised African Americans

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection with the religion raised with. If not merged, it needs to be renamed to match how we name categories SMasonGarrison 01:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be "African-American former Catholics", but they're not all former, necessarily. Another editor disputed having certain people included under "African-American Catholics" if there was no source for their continued practice in adulthood or until death, so I created this category for those described as raised Catholic but with little clarity beyond that. natemup (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So are you proposing a slipt here? SMasonGarrison 03:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. natemup (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misspelt "split". Let me elaborate, because I don't have the content knowledge about whether the intersection is defining. But I think a more compelling case, would be "African-American former Catholics" because that has a better chance of being DEFINING because both those trees exist. It's an easier case to make and more likely to succeed here. I agree that it isn't a perfect match, as some of these people aren't regularly described as former Catholics, and so those people would belong in Category:African-American Catholics instead of African-American former Catholics. I'm happy to walk you through more of the nuance, but that seems like a conversation for a talk page rather than a CFD. SMasonGarrison 21:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, how one is raised is not a defining characteristic. Articles about practising Catholics can go into Category:African-American Catholics of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What then of Category:Former Roman Catholics? And the like? It's the same thing. natemup (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Per WP:OCEGRS. Defining characteristic of these figures whose were raised as Catholics in intersection with a unique and marginalized ethnic community and who now may or may not continue to practice. natemup (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does Category:African-American Catholics not apply to that unique and marginalized ethnic community? Wikipedia does not practice recentism, so if an individual is A one day and B the next day, then that individual can be placed in both A and B categories, provided that is defining enough to their biography. Place Clichy (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree! But another editor recently made a point to delete that category from those articles, citing something wiki policy-related. So I created this new category. natemup (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which category did they delete? It's not clear from your sentence. No one is saying that the insection of being Black and Catholic isn't important, but what the question being is whether Catholic-raised African Americans is defining. We don't have an Catholic-raised Americans category because that's not something we typically describe in the lead of an article. Obviously, that's not the only way to evaluate that, but it does make it really tricky to argument your case. SMasonGarrison 21:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that they removed the "African-American Catholics" category from a series of articles because the subject may or may not be practicing anymore or at the time of their death. We have the category Category:Former Roman Catholics, which according to its lede is akin to "Catholic-raised people". People who were once practicing Catholics but aren't anymore. So it is with this category for African Americans, though imprecisely. natemup (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget the policy. Just because a category exists for African-American Catholics does not mean it should be added to everybody that you feel fits this description. In general, categories are only useful on articles for which they are especially significant. In other words, it is a key aspect of the person's life, not a trivial one. Also, there are topics which are more sensitive, such as religion and ethnicity. An extra care is also taken for living people, so as not to have unsure statements on their Wikipedia articles. That's why, when someone is born in a religion but never really makes a public statement about it in their career, categorizing them by that religion is often unnecessary. I don't know the articles you talk about, but it may be the reason why such categories were removed from them. In some cases, the way to get out of this is to write a list article (of famous Catholics in the African-American society for instance). Another guideline with good advice to read for you : WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Place Clichy (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added it to everyone the reliable sources indicate fits the description. natemup (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, failing to see the difference. If they were Catholics during part of all of their life, and that is a defining aspect of their personality, then they belong in Category:African-American Catholics. Delete as second-best option in the spirit of consensus per Marcocapelle, if I get the hint that articles placed in that category instead of the target would be a strong suggestion that being or having been Catholic is not defining for them. Place Clichy (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Category:Games of basketball teams in Canada

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Categories consists of 1 U.S. team in the U.S. category and the subcategory for NBA teams (all except one are U.S. teams) in both categories. This is both heavily overlapping and puts all U.S. NBA teams in Category:Games of basketball teams in Canada. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sporting events in Australia by state or territory

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is perhaps a wider debate to be had on whether everything should be under 'events' or 'competitions' as Wikidata shows different choices have been made for different language sites. In terms of enwiki, every competition is obviously an event, but it is arguable that individual matches with articles that form part of wider competitions should not be labelled as competitions themselves. However, beyond that, sports 'events' which are not competitive in some way are fairly uncommon and can normally be categorised adequately under Sport in [place] and/or [time].
In this specific tree, an 'events' category has been created for each Australian state as a parent to a women's subcategory in each, but this could easily be merged into the 'competitions' trees for Women which has existed for 11 years and States which has existed for 8 years. The alternative would be to add the competitions as subcategories of the events, but it seems fairly redundant. This is an example of @FastCube:'s evident enthusiasm to create categories for various gendered permutations and time/place trees under those, but somewhat lesser enthusiasm to actually populate them fully (Category:Men's sports competitions in Australia was created in June, but so far has only one entry, the subcategory for Soccer which they also created). Crowsus (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The idea of the "events" categories is so it can act as the first layer of populating categories/articles relating to any of those related sporting events, in regards to the fact that not all events are competitions per se. "Competitions" are those as competitive-related events; and if it doesn't fall under it, then "events" is where it goes (or a subcategory relating to the event under "events"). It's been that way for ages (events, then competitions) for the categories by country and it needs to continue down the line until the last subcategory possible. FastCube (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but you haven't added any events, just more layers of categories, and didn't include the competitions in the events until I pointed it out here. Crowsus (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True and I agree I should be putting more work into them, but my point still stands: Events is the first layer, since not all of them are competitions. FastCube (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish novels by year

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dispersed tree where only categories for the years of 1990s and 2000s have more than four articles per year and gaps are frequent outside 1975–2020. 1990s and 2000s are larger than the others, all years having 3–9 or more than 50 per decade, but then it drops again after that. Could be reasons to keep those two decades, but nominating all categories. Most novel articles are related to English-speaking countries (or Japan) – of the Category:2020 novels contents (391 novels), 91 per cent sits in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Nigeria, United Kingdom, and United States subcategories, leaving some 35 categorised by genre, in small country categories or the main category. Nomination includes the creation of decade categories, please ping me when closing if they need to be created. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all also considering that the number of articles is declining in the more recent categories. If the number of articles would have stayed at the level of the 1990s it would have been different. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/comment I support merging but the only question I have been asking myself about these is whether "by country and decade" is best or appropriate for novels. I had been planning to nominate many similar categories for merging and ran into that issue then got sidetracked. The categorization "by country and decade" had not been used for novels until 2024 when Smasongarrison created it for Category:Finnish novels by decade and Category:Danish novels by decade. For many of the year+country+novels categories I was planning to merge up to "[Year] in country" and "by century" categories, not create a "by decade" category. I'm unsure of which is best and specifically when we would decide that a "by century" category required diffusion into a newly "by decade" category. For many, I had figured "by century" would suffice. Because are the "by century" categories really too large? And inevitably you will encounter the issue of novels that can only fit into an extremely small or even singular "by decade" category such as Category:1930s Danish novels. In the aforementioned instances, would we instead only upmerge to "[Year] novels" and "[Year] in country" and "Nth-century Country novels"? The Red Room (Strindberg novel), for example, would be the only member of the potential Category:1870s Swedish novels. If "by decade" is the right way to go then I will help create these. Οἶδα (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine with century instead of decade too. That would also spare the hassle of creating dozens of new categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For films, "by country and decade" categorization began in 2022 when it was boldly done following brief discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_80#One_of_the_best_films_in_[year]_or_[decade], overturning previous consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_3#American_films_by_year_and_by_decade. When I saw Category:Finnish novels by decade, I figured its creation was inspired the proliferation of those film categories. But I have not yet been convinced that "by country and decade" is a meaningful and necessary intersection for novels and/or books. Do we believe the unintersected categories are really so large that they ought to be diffused? A category such as Category:2005 American novels diffuses over 370 articles from parents Category:2005 novels and Category:21st-century American novels. But with diffusion "by country and decade" for existing categories, I'm not envisioning much usefulness or improvement with regards to navigation or maintenance. Category:2000s Swedish novels will diffuse ~50 articles and Category:2010s Swedish novels ~30 articles, meaning Category:21st-century Swedish novels would have contained ~80 articles. If we consider that too large then I suppose diffusion by decade is the way to go. Because I can't think of any other solution to deciding that diffusion is needed and that "by country and year" is too narrow. But I do not really believe such a category is too large. For a category such as Category:1953 Swedish novels, I would think Category:1953 novels, Category:20th-century Swedish novels and Category:1953 in Sweden would suffice. Some existing categories don't even need diffusion beyond "[Year] novels", "[Country] novels", "Nth-century [Country] literature" and "[Year] in [Country]".
    And I am still unsure if the given decade a country's novel was released is a meaningful grouping. I am just thinking of the readers who I imagine are interested in 21st-century Swedish literature and navigate to the child cat Category:21st-century Swedish novels but will then be forced to click through decade categories to see small groupings of every 21st-century Swedish novel for which Wikipedia currently has an article for. A category with 500-1000+ members could be considered overpopulated and daunting to navigate. But none of the existing century categories appear to be that way to me. And as I mentioned before, these decade categories do not always scale well and will result in extremely small or even singular categories for the sake of diffusion. That or we would leave exceptions in the parent category whilst retaining some decade categories, which seems confusing for navigation. Οἶδα (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From learnings, I usually try to do large nominations with one-action only, here, to nominate to decade categories. So, for 19th-century novels, the decade categories make little sense and can be skipped. For the 168 (9–4–5–5–22–7–20–18–24–53 per decade) 20th-century and 90 (57–29–4 per decade) 21st-century novels they make more sense, I would say.
    The arguments for decade categories are that one century is long in (contemporary) literature and a 1999 novel has much more to do with a 2001 novel than a 1901 one so it is beneficial to be as specific as possible without hindering navigation. {{navseasoncats}} helps bring them closer together when they are in (functional) decade categories. Novels in a year in a specific country is also a cycle with awards et cetera, leading me to think it is not a an arbitrary categorisation, and less arbitrary than putting the 1999 novels together with the 1901 novels and the 2001 novels together with the 2099 novels; however individual years would be too narrow in most cases except American novels and some others. Further on, works of a decade are usually discussed at the end of the decade ([1], [2] are two examples in Swedish major newspapers). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not unconvinced by your second point, but I will say that it does seem to me that 20th-century novels of a given country are far more commonly grouped than, say, 1940s novels, regardless of proximity to an earlier or later century. But this is not as important because the issue is still about diffusion. As to your first point, it still comes down to whether we believe the existing century categories have become so large so as to require diffusion by decade. If so, then we should move ahead with it. But I commented on potential future categorization above because it would appear that the precedent of creating these Swedish decade categories as well as Category:Finnish novels by decade and Category:Danish novels by decade will influence how we organise all "by country" and "by century" novel categories. It may work for the existing Swedish novels having 20, 18, 24, 53 articles in some decades, but this diffusion won't scale as well for other categories. If we're upmerging "by country and year" categories that have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 members, wouldn't we also upmerge "by country and decade" categories with as few members? What is our opinion on Category:1920s Finnish novels, for example? Οἶδα (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Future elections by year

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layers. Future elections in any year, including ones that will be held later this year, will be somewhere else in Category:Future elections. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Category:American writers of Middle Eastern descent

[edit]

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 academics of Turkish descent

[edit]

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 [3], [4] 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:Heroes in mythology and legend

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

October 19

Category:Tiamat

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, this is a hodgepodge, likely the result of "what links here". Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chaoskampf is the type of narrative "first used with respect to the destruction of the chaos dragon Tiamat", Dilmun as the "creation site" of mythology is depicted as the place where Tiamat's salt water mingles with the fresh water of Abzu, Rahab as the "water dragon of darkness and chaos" is described as a Jewish equivalent of Tiamat, the Saint George and the Dragon fairy tale is described in the text by E. A. Wallis Budge as "one of the many versions of the old-world story of the conflict between Light and Darkness, or Ra and Apepi, and Marduk and Tiamat, woven upon a few slender threads of historical fact. Tiamat, the scaly, winged, foul dragon, and Apepi the powerful enemy of the glorious Sungod" are also described by Budge as the prototypes for George's dragon. The Tablet of Destinies is the item which Tiamat bestows on Kingu when he becomes her new consort. Tethys has an entire section explaining why this goddess is identified with Tiamat, and that her name seems to be a Greek rendition of Tiamat: "This possible correspondence between Oceanus and Tethys, and Apsū and Tiamat has been noticed by several authors, with Tethys's name possibly having been derived from that of Tiamat.[1]". Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons) is a fictional depiction of the goddess. Tihamah is explained as a linguistic equivalent to Tiamat in the text. The sea god Yam is described as "essentially analogous" to Tiamat in the comparative mythology section of the text. [2]Dimadick (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose nomination as there seems to be enough there to justify its existence, but also wanted to comment that a number of these are not strong connections and are probably sufficient as links within the respective pages. From my quick look Tablet of Destinies, Dema deity, Dilmun, and Saint George and the Dragon seem like they would be fine as links/see alsos. The Dema deity one doesn't even make sense since Tiamat is one example of a type of deity, but that conception has no actual category. WinstonDewey (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Marcocapelle, it's just a bunch of random loosely-associated things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you rebut Dimadick's argument? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can. I still have significant doubts as to the definingness of the category members remaining, as it is unclear if the subcategory "Offspring of Tiamat" passes WP:CROSSCAT. Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons) is not an accurate depiction of the goddess (if we go by the actual mythological conception of her, it has nothing about multiple heads) and only has a copied name, so it's like saying that Bahamut from Final Fantasy is the same as the legendary sea monster. We do not do categories with a WP:SHAREDNAME and nothing else.
    This WP:SHAREDNAME issue is also the case with Tethys (mythology), with her name possibly having been derived from Tiamat but the connection otherwise being scholarly speculation and not defining for the Greek goddess. Apparently the Tablet of Destinies is only bestowed by Tiamat in a certain Babylonian epic. Given that this is not always the case, I can't see how it's defining for the tablet either. These vague connections are not sufficient to prove something is defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I loved Joseph Campbell's series The Power of Myth because it really highlighted how some archetypical myths reoccur again and again. It would be fine to have categories for "Overcoming the Monster" in The Seven Basic Plots or Chaoskampf so long as reliable sources described them this way. But that's not what's happening here: 1 of the 44 sources in Saint George and the Dragon compares the stories and "also likens George against Dadianus to Horos against Set or Ra against Apep". Categorizing each example of a storyline means we could also categorize Tiamat under St. George and the Dragon or categorize them both under Apep. We don't categorize topics under each example of that topic because it would create endless overlap. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle and RevelationDirect. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I've gone through the cat and removed pages that didn't have strong enough links per discussion above and added two. I'd say it's coherent now as a category about the goddess Tiamat rather than any mythological concept. WinstonDewey (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ West 1997, pp. 147–148; Burkert, pp. 91–93. For a discussion of the possibility of oriental sources for the Illiad's Deception of Zeus passage, see Budelmann and Haubold, pp. 20–22.
  2. ^ Tugendhaft 2013, p. 191.

Category:Former counties of Scotland

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As the explanatory note at Category:Counties of Scotland states, "County local government functions are now defunct having been transferred to the council areas of Scotland. County functions remain for Lord-Lieutenancies and as land registration counties." In this respect there seems to be no difference between the counties categorised in Category:Counties of Scotland and those in Category:Former counties of Scotland. Can we please be consistent and put them all in the same category? And if they still fulfil two important functions, there is nothing "former" about them. Mhockey (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 23:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethiopian Lutheran theologians

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I think we should repurpose this underpopulated category to include all theologians SMasonGarrison 23:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

Businesswomen

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The subcategories of Category:Businesswomen are currently inconsistent between "businesswomen" and "women in business". There is a topic article Women in business; however, I think it's better for the set categories to use the natural feminine form of the gender-neutral category name, i.e. Category:Businesspeople and Businesswomen, in the same way we do for other occupations, e.g. Category:Actors and Category:Actresses. Mclay1 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Women in business is intended to be much broader. I'm sure that there are previous CFDs on this. Can you link to some of them so we can get a better sense of what the arguments are? SMasonGarrison 03:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nuetral on the name, but whatever the outcome, we need to leave redirects to make sure that templates behave correctly. SMasonGarrison 03:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women in business was created as a topic category to separate out the non-biographical articles, but it was merged to Category:Businesswomen at CfD several years ago. The nationality businesswomen subcategories were later speedily renamed to match other women in business subcategories, which probably shouldn't have happened. If there are any "women in business" who are not businesswomen, I don't think they should be included, because that's too vague a term. Mclay1 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is worth doing, and I agree that "women in business" includes some women who are not businesswomen, but if we're going to move some cats so everything can match, I'd prefer the "women in business" name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women vegetarianism activists

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:EGRS. We only have very few intersections of women and specific activist cause. I don't think these intersections meet the threshold for a defining intersection. SMasonGarrison 00:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all back to the non-women categories. Categories such as this one that ghettoize women should not be honored on Wikipedia. It's like a man has every right to be an activist, but the women activists are herded into their own corral. The patriarchy is so 20th century. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet Avoiding ghettoization isn't a reason to merge a category. I encourage you to read WP:EGRS. Several categories do exist that aren't balanced. But that is because the intersection for women is defining but for men it is not. In those cases, what happens is that we make sure that the category is a non-diffusing subcategory. Which means that the women are also to be found in the parent category. SMasonGarrison 03:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, as a trivial intersection, but shouldn't they also be merged to a women activists by nationality category? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair concern. I think that a selective merge also to a women activists by nationality category is good improvement. (For whoever closes, I'm happy to do that clean up work. Just ping me) SMasonGarrison 18:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd prefer to keep the focus on sourcing and categorization policy rather than general statements about gender. These categories were not intended to separate women but to reflect their documented historical role in the vegetarian and vegan movements. Reliable sources such as James Gregory's Of Victorians and Vegetarians and Leah Leneman's "The awakened instinct: vegetarianism and the women's suffragemovement in Britain" describe women's especially prominent involvement and the links between vegetarianism, feminism, and humanitarian reform. That context is what these non-diffusing subcategories were meant to capture. Throughthemind (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I hear you, but the question is whether there is something defining about the specific intersection of vegetarianism activists and women activists, not just that women were involved in the movement. Like is there something unique here that constitute a distinct and identifiable group above and beyond women activists? Likewise the same question holds for veganism. SMasonGarrison 23:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair question. The distinction isn’t only that women participated, but that their activism within vegetarianism has been documented as a distinct historical current, tied to humanitarian reform, domestic ethics, and early feminist movements. I recently created Women and vegetarianism and veganism advocacy to summarise this aspect of the movement, drawing on secondary sources that specifically analyse women's framing of dietary reform. In that sense, the categories reflect a well-documented intersection rather than a purely demographic overlap. Throughthemind (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I feel like you've missed the key distinction here how is this specific activism a unique intersection above and beyond? I would strongly encourage you to review similar WP:EGRS cases to help formulate your argument here. SMasonGarrison 18:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I have to say the phrase 'Fooian women vegetarianism activists' is just unnatural and queer to read or speak. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women veganism activists

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This has the same issue of EGRS. SMasonGarrison 00:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

Articles to be merged

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The current names are unclear and are easily confused with Category:Articles currently being merged and Category:Articles currently being split. I wanted to renname these because “Articles to be merged” misleads people into thinking those pages already have consensus for merging, when in fact they are still under discussion. When I was new to WP, I myself was ready to merge all of the pages in these categories but I only stopped after I realised that the discussion on one page was against merging. Only then I discovered Category:Articles currently being merged.
In a recent example, it caused an inexperienced editor to perform a merge before consensus was assessed after being misled by the category title. This is how they explained it:

I came to this article from [Category:Articles to be merged from January 2025] which seemed to me to indicate that the pages are ready for merging.

“Articles for merging” is clearer because it mirrors how we handle deletion and other discussions (e.g. “Articles for deletion”, “Categories for discussion”, etc), indicating that the articles are under consideration rather than already approved. Same pattern for related processes like “Articles for section moving”, “...for splitting”, or “Article sections for splitting”. Another option would be “Articles for merging”, but that would deviate from the other standard venue names. However, I support anything other than the current titles! FaviFake (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, that did confuse me as well. EatingCarBatteries (contributions, talk) 07:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Modified my original proposal from "Articles for ..." to "Articles proposed for ..." following the comments below. See my original proposal. FaviFake (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: Oona Wikiwalker as the editor who first suggested this to me in Talk:Brian Mulroney § c-Oona Wikiwalker-20251013195400-FaviFake-20251013151300 FaviFake (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am the editor who made that mistake. I have a concern here. Merging and deletion are outward actions that, by definition, effect a change in an article. Discussion is not. So, "Articles for deletion," as Wikipedia currently uses it, is ambiguous in a way that "Categories for discussion" is not. I worry that other editors like me would make similar mistakes about deleting and merging. I edit here in addition to working full-time (my boss lets me edit as long as my work quality stays high), so I don't have the time to invest in learning the nuts and bolts under the hood. Surely there must be other editors with time challenges that keep them newbies and who might make the mistake I did? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Articles proposed for splitting from May 2020 and Category:Article sections proposed for splitting from August 2025 for example.
  • The new name should make it clear that it's a proposal otherwise the issue still exists (as in X for deletion).
  • There's a few more bits and pieces that may need renaming, but if there is consensus let me know and I'll take care of it.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Support alternative proposal: I agree that the current category names are misleading (and have been for a long time) and that a change will help readers less familiar with the customs/protocols/peculiarities. I support the alternative idea of including the word proposal, as that is more precise (in a way that is warranted); getting this concise is also important too. Perhaps Articles proposed for merging or Articles with merge proposals (or similar). Klbrain (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I've now modified my original proposal from "Articles for ..." to "Articles proposed for ..." following the comments above. See my original proposal. I agree it is clearer. FaviFake (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on whether Articles nominated for merging is better? I'm ambivalent. FaviFake (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish novels by year

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dispersed trees with gaps and where only two categories have more than four articles per year. Most novel articles are related to English-speaking countries (or Japan) – e.g. of the Category:2020 novels contents (391 novels), 91 per cent sits in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Nigeria, United Kingdom, and United States subcategories, leaving some 35 categorised by genre, in small country categories or the main category. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Category:1963 Danish novels. Nomination includes the creation of some new country–decade categories. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Category:Animal spirits

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The main page of this, animal spirits, is a DAB page, so this is too vague to be a viable category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, alter cat, while the DABs are messy, the content they go through to is pretty solid imo. I've gone through them and added a couple more pages to this cat, I think the issue is that currently the category is too broad and should be edited as follows: 1) Remove subcat Animal deities, per Spirit this cat should be for animals that are not deities, something inbetween that and mortal. 2) review both Spirit animal and Animal spirits DABs and clean up, including adding any further pages to this cat. WinstonDewey (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Incubi and succubi

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Multi merge to suggested category and other parent categories. Somewhat falls under WP:SHAREDNAME. There is no main article combining the two demons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

Category:Historical figures with disputed parentage

[edit]

Convert Category:Historical figures with disputed parentage to article Historical figures with disputed parentage
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. This should be a list instead to ensure that claims have sourcing SMasonGarrison 05:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and endorse your proposal. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Creator; sure, make it a page. Valorrr (lets chat) 14:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I am not very good at that. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This sort of information is better suited for a category rather than a list of people who otherwise have nothing connecting them. However, it's clear to me that this category needs cleanup and stricter guidelines for inclusion. I would restrict the category to figures whose parentage remains a subject of notable debate among scholars, such as alleged illegitimate children of notable figures. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don' really get the scope here. It does not just cover people whose parentage is uncertain, but also those whose parentage is entirely unknown. We have articles on Pharaohs, queens consort, military officers of various ranks, etc. whose parents are entirely unknown, because they were never recorded in the primary sources to begin with. Should we list them all? Take for example a historical dispute concerning the parents of Sneferu. The man was an important dynasty founder, but the identity of his mother is mentioned in a single primary source (of unclear accuracy) and no primary source mentions who his father was or whether he was related to his predecessors. We know practically nothing about his life before rising to the throne, or how he managed to get the throne in the first place. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; add Sneferu, as well as anyone else as you see fit. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think the whole class of by-blows and bastards officially denied by their fathers for reasons legal and social are in fact a cohesive class. jengod (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

Category:Aircraft industry

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. The nominated Category:Aircraft industry (2017) is older than the target Category:Aerospace industry by country (2024), but poorly organised into the wider structure. It is a bit of a mixture, but there are also issues in the wider tree. (Perhaps some of them may only be resolved with the advice of people familiar with the relevant terminology; I'm open to being corrected). One of the main motives for this proposal comes from the fact that Aircraft industry in the United Kingdom redirects to Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom, but Category:Aircraft industry and Category:Aerospace industry by country are completely separate trees. I've added Category:Aviation industry as a parent to Category:Aviation companies already, so that Category:Aircraft companies remains its grandchild, but via a more appropriate tree. I'm not sure whether Category:Aircraft companies should be a child of Category:Aerospace companies, or whether they should also be merged, or kept separate? (Open to suggestions, but I've not nominated it for now). NLeeuw (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: In favour of 'aerospace' over 'aircraft', I might add that the former is broader (because it includes the space industry; Category:Space industry is a child of Category:Aerospace), and is the title of three main articles, including the aforementioned Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom, Aerospace industry in Puerto Rico, and Aerospace industry in Taiwan. There are also a couple redirects named Aerospace industry in Fooland, usually redirecting to a section in the article Economy of Fooland.
On the other hand, Aerospace industry of Russia redirects to Aircraft industry of Russia, and there is a separate article on Space industry of Russia. The only other article with Aircraft industry of in the title is Aircraft industry of Serbia, which does not have a space industry article. Nevertheless, the article Space industry of Scotland exists, and is almost completely separate from Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom, rather than a distinct chapter or spin-off of it. Finally, both aerospace industry and aircraft industry redirect to Aerospace manufacturer, which doesn't have an identically named category. That doesn't add much to make our decision, but overall, I think 'aerospace' should be favoured. NLeeuw (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aircraft is not spacecraft. Aircraft is about planes, a category wide enought to merit its own separate mention even without rockets and satellite transporters. This discussion may be about sparse assignments to the category, it cannot be about its separate relevance. Thus: keep. -- Kku (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kku Newsflash:
... all redirect to Aerospace manufacturer.
Apparently aircraft and spacecraft are not "wide enough to merit their own separate" articles. NLeeuw (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, sloppy use of language combined with a peculiar type of linguistic sloth has effectively prevented either one of the subcategories of developing into perfectly justified proper concepts in their own right. Happens from time to time. How about that? The mere fact that something has developed in some way or another is never a good justification to assume that it has thus achieved perfection. Just look at evolution. So: I am not convinced. -- Kku (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judges of insular areas of the United States

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Both of these categories are for judges presiding over Article IV tribunals. The supposed difference between them is that the "territorial judges" worked in territories that later became states while the "judges of insular areas" have not. But these terms are synonymous. The territories that later became states were insular areas. Whether or not current territories will become states one day is irrelevant to how these courts are organized. Moreover, Category:Judges of defunct United States courts exists and can differentiate the territorial courts that no longer exist, whether because the territory became a state or any other reason. lethargilistic (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, *thinks about it for one second more*, I suppose the real move might be to rename Category:United States territorial judges to "Category:Judges of defunct United States territorial courts" and rename Category:Judges of insular areas of the United States to "Category:Judges of United States territorial courts." That would maintain the (useful) separation without mixing the two or implying territories and insular areas are somehow different. lethargilistic (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 2 - I like the defunct courts construction jengod (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: cats tagged for rename discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The existing Category:Judges of insular areas of the United States entry is consistent with "FOO of insular areas of the United States", an extensive tree branch that contains hundreds such "FOO of insular areas of the United States" categories. Consistency is important. Also, any name containing "territorial" anything is generally used to allude to those courts that are part of the federal court system (e.g., the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the District Court of Guam). However, Category:Judges of insular areas of the United States groups not only the federal judges in those jurisdictions but also the local, municipal, and insular judges and justices not part of the federal court system. Renaming to "territorial", which alludes exclusively to courts part of the federal court system, would no longer properly describe the contents of the category. The "insular areas" term more accurately describes the category contents. In addition, the term "insular area" is also more precise as it is used only by United States whereas "territory" is used by many other sovereign states. Mercy11 (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this is the case. The subcategories like Category:Alaska Territory judges do not distinguish between federal and local officials. So this division you're talking about does not currently exist here? But even if it did, using the words "territorial" and "insular area" does not make sense when the difference between the two categories is whether they still exist, not the supposed difference between "territorial" and "insular area." lethargilistic (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To achieve what you want, we don't need to do anything to the Category:Judges of insular areas of the United States. What needs to be done is "to rename Category:United States territorial judges to 'Category:Judges of defunct United States territorial courts' "; this has already been suggested by other editors above. Category:Judges of insular areas of the United States can then stay as is thus supporting tree naming consistency. For example, we already have Category:Governors of insular areas of the United States and Category:Baseball players of insular areas of the United States, and hundreds of other similar "Category:FOO of insular areas of the United States." Mercy11 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rename option was suggested by me. I suppose it doesn't matter which is chosen, but I do not see why the name structure ought to be different just because one is defunct and the other not. That is, is there a reason we should not rename Category:United States territorial judges to Category:Judges of former insular areas of the United States? The "territorial courts" category is not limited to federal judges; the difference between these two categories is status as a territory, not federal versus local. lethargilistic (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination proposes merging Category:Judges of insular areas of the United States to Category:United States territorial judges. The rationale states that "the territories that later became states were insular areas." I am not sure where that statement comes from because "insular" means "island" and, other than Hawaii (an island/archipelago), the plethora of former Territories (i.e., Oregon, Kansas, Wyoming, etc.) are --TTBOMK-- not described as "islands" anywhere: all of those former Territories which later became states were all non-island (aka, non-insular) territories. The rationale also states that "these terms [i.e., Territorial and Insular] are synonymous". That is incorrect for the reasons just stated above. I do not believe Category:United States territorial judges should be renamed to Category:Judges of former insular areas of the United States because that would be a bad descriptor since the Territorial judges were not judges of island jurisdictions but mainland North America jurisdictions (again, the only exception would be Hawaii). Mercy11 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Insular area" is a term of art that refers to all US land holdings that are not states or Washington, DC. There is no justification for limiting it to islands based on etymology. This is like saying the Insular Cases didn't apply to New Mexico Territory. lethargilistic (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And even if there was, terminology is drifting us away from the main point here: the territories that are islands are territories just like the mainland territories were. The federal courts currently described under Category:United States territorial judges are the same sort of Article IV tribunals as the ones currently described under Category:Judges of insular areas of the United States. The fact that a territory later became a state should have nothing to do with categorization here because the courts of the territory ceased to exist when the territory became a state. Thus, these separate categories are covering the same topic. The one salient difference between them is that the former covers courts that no longer exist. Either that is fine and they should be categorized under similar names that clearly describe that difference, or that is not fine and they should be merged because they cover the same topic. I note that Category:Governors of insular areas of the United States does include bother current and former territories, so there is precedent for a merge. I don't particularly care which we do, but the current situation is nonsensical. lethargilistic (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Syntax and context are important when creating or changing a category. When a comparison is made between the current name and the proposed name, the focus of the category is lost with the second name. Yarfpr (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

Category:Fictional gay boys

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we usually distinguish between ages for categories like these, for simplicity's sake. In any case, there are a bunch of articles in Category:Fictional gay men that would better fit in Category:Fictional gay boys, so it doesn't appear this category is being properly maintained. Or we could just move Category:Fictional gay men to Category:Fictional gay males for clarity, which was the original name before it was speedily moved two years ago, overriding previous non-consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome to recategorize the articles that would better belong in Category:Fictional gay boys rather than Category:Fictional gay men. The category is new, so obviously many articles that belong in the former rather than the latter have not yet been recategorized. --Justthefacts (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant pages that were previously in Category:Fictional gay men have been recategorized and there are now a total of 52 pages in Category:Fictional gay boys. --Justthefacts (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name of Category:Fictional gay boys is meant to mirror the name of Category:Fictional gay men. A rename to Category:Fictional gay adolescents would mean that the name of the former would cease to be consistent with the name of the latter, because Category:Fictional gay adolescents could refer to adolescents who are either males or females as gay can also be a gender-neutral term. Moreover, both Category:Fictional adolescents and Category:Fictional children are the parent categories of Category:Fictional gay boys. --Justthefacts (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In common usage, gay can be a gender-neutral term, so it is best the names of Wikipedia categories considers that fact. --Justthefacts (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do tend to agree with this, the broader use of 'gay' to be inclusive of men and women. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 23:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the genres that are often associated with gay boys as fictional characters are very different from the genres that are often associated with gay men as fictional characters. Also, the relevant pages that were previously in Category:Fictional gay men have been recategorized and there are now a total of 52 pages in Category:Fictional gay boys. --Justthefacts (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As was also stated above in reply to Marcocapelle, the name of Category:Fictional gay boys is meant to mirror the name of Category:Fictional gay men. A rename to Category:Fictional gay adolescents would mean that the name of the former would cease to be consistent with the name of the latter, because Category:Fictional gay adolescents could refer to adolescents who are either males or females as gay can also be a gender-neutral term. Moreover, both Category:Fictional adolescents and Category:Fictional children are the parent categories of Category:Fictional gay boys. --Justthefacts (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly resolved with Category:Fictional gay male adolescents? Longer, but fits in those various cats as well as Fictional gay males. CMD (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the name of Category:Fictional gay boys is meant to mirror the name of Category:Fictional gay men. A rename to Category:Fictional gay male adolescents would still mean that the name of the former would cease to be consistent with the name of the latter, because the latter is named Category:Fictional gay men, not Category:Fictional gay male adults. Would it not be more sensible and simpler to simply keep it at Category:Fictional gay boys? It perfectly mirrors Category:Fictional gay men. Furthermore, while Category:Fictional gay boys fits into both Category:Fictional adolescents and Category:Fictional children, Category:Fictional gay male adolescents would only fit into Category:Fictional adolescents, but not Category:Fictional children, obviously, as adolescents and children are often defined mutually exclusively. Moreover, there is no Category:Fictional gay males, but, nevertheless, Category:Fictional gay boys would still fit into a hypothetical Category:Fictional gay males, obviously, in the same manner as Category:Fictional gay men. --Justthefacts (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the name of Category:Fictional gay boys is meant to mirror the name of Category:Fictional gay men. A rename to Category:Fictional gay male adolescents would still mean that the name of the former would cease to be consistent with the name of the latter, because the latter is named Category:Fictional gay men, not Category:Fictional gay male adults. --Justthefacts (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional gay boys is both accurate and consistent with Category:Fictional gay men. Both accuracy and consistently are considered important in the naming of articles and categories on Wikipedia. --Justthefacts (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to rename Category:Fictional gay boys to Category:Fictional gay male adolescents any more than it is necessary to rename Category:Fictional gay men to Category:Fictional gay male adults. Both renames would be unnecessarily convoluted, long, and contrary to Wikipedia naming norms that the names of articles and categories reflect common usage. Obviously, both Category:Fictional gay boys and Category:Fictional gay men reflect common usage, but both Category:Fictional gay male adolescents and Category:Fictional gay male adults do not. --Justthefacts (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic chapels

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT
We have a whole category tree for Category:Roman Catholic chapels with subcats and hundreds of articles. In contrast, the parent Category:Catholic chapels contains only a single direct article, Oratory (worship), and that is already well categorized. (Maybe this was an attempt to remove the word "Roman" like with Category:Catholic church buildings, but the right approach would be a rename proposal here at CFD for the whole tree, not a single duplicate category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the shorter name except that just changing the parent would put it out of sync with the 40 subcategories which all include "Roman". I did tag the parent category to give the closer more flexibility and have no objection if you want to expand the nom further and tag the subcats. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • REJECT Deletion: When I started looking into this, I thought "hey, no problem" but I started thinking of the distinction between "chapel" and "church" and that distinction is definitely not used for this category ('chapel' being a small worship venue vs. 'church') as the Sistine Chapel is in the Roman Catholic Chapels category ... it is a chapel in NAME ONLY and is by no means a 'small worship venue'. So, I think the category by inclusion covers both Chapels and Churches, meaning that Category:Eastern Catholic Churches should reasonably be included as a sub-category. This whole line of thinking complicates matters and does bring up the notion of properly defining the inclusion criteria for the category before moving forward with any revisions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceyockey: what is proposed here is not to merge the chapels and churches categories, but to either call them Catholic or Roman Catholic. In the Catholic Church, places of worship are consecrated either as churches or as chapels, they can't be both. It is not a question of size. I believe other Christian faiths make the same distinction. This contrasts with parts of Protestantism where pretty much anyone can call themselves a pastor, open a congregation and call it how they feel without reporting to a higher earthly body. The Sistine Chapel lies within the Apostolic Palace and right next to St. Peter's Basilica (which is a church, the largest in the world), so it is understandable why it is "only" a chapel. Place Clichy (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good argument, @Place Clichy, based on deeper knowledge than I have on the matter. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ahh as an additional matter, I think that it would be useful to include such specific and informative inclusion criteria into the category description ... I think that wuold be helpful all around. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of film by country

[edit]

Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: The naming of subcategories in Category:History of film by country is currently inconsistent. Also, many of them use demonyms, which is unideal because it can be confused with language (e.g. Category:History of French cinema could refer to films from France in any language or to French-language films from any country). I see two options: A) Name the subcategories to be consistent with Category:History of film and Category:History of film by country; or B) rename Category:History of film by country and its subcategories to be consistent with Category:Cinema by country and its subcategories, which these categories also belong to. Mclay1 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Category:History of Bangladeshi cinema, support that merge too, it is a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To break the deadlock I'm prepared to support option B instead of my self-proposed option C that no one else has supported so far. The consequence would be that all parents might need to be renamed from Cinema of Fooland to Cinema in Fooland. It's a hassle, but I would support that, too. NLeeuw (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current wordings, although not totally systematic, seem more or less fine. No one (I assume) uses "French cinema" to refer to cinema made in the French language in other countries (Switzerland, Gabon, Canada, etc); the other categories either are not the name of any existing language (Indian, Nigerian) or are not concerned with such problems (Japan). Not opposed to renaming the one about Japan to "Japanese cinema", though. But "French cinema" or "Indian cinema" compared to "cinema in France", "film in India", respectively, for example, sound more natural and seem more to the point ("film in India" seem to put more potential emphasis on "film(s) made in other countries as they have been received in India, and to focus more on the technical aspects, but maybe that's just me...).--e.ux 23:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ukrainian is a language. If renaming the Japanese category to Japanese cinema, would you also rename the American category to American cinema? Mclay1 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ukrainian is a language, yes, thank you, but, again, if you say "Ukrainian cinema"/film, no one is going to think that you are talking about films made in another country in the Ukrainian language. Again, I am against renaming anything, except, maybe, the one regarding Japan- although it does not strike me as necessary. Not opposed to renaming the one about American cinema either, no, indeed, if you are seriously asking. e.ux 23:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional child deaths

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Almost entirely just stories, not characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposed to dispersion of the content per nom's later reply. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative suggestion --> rename "fictional child deaths" to "deaths of children in fiction", and place the new cat as a sub-cat of "Works about child death": Working through this I note that the category name "fictional child deaths" is not terribly good in that it is semantically confusingly inclusive of both "fictional deaths of real children" and "deaths of fictional children" without supporting a distinction, which are really orthogonal concepts. It might be useful to entertain an alternative --> "deaths of children in fiction", where the fictional or real nature of the children depicted are dependent upon the description of the children so involved. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American sports commentators

[edit]

or
Nominator's rationale: Note: it is not possible to do both above. These two categories are side by side in Category:Sports commentators by nationality. Category:American sports announcers is by far the older. The article is at Sports commentator but both articles are tagged as English varieties may have an impact on the naming. According to one editor in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 28#Category:Australian racecallers, "broadcasters" is the most used term for this occupation. Currently, "announcers" is more frequent than commentators among the subcategories, but use is varying – "announcers" holds one "commentators" category and seven "broadcasters" categories, while "commentators" holds three "announcers" categories. I have no clear specific opinion on the name but I propose creating Category:American sports announcers/broadcasters/commentators by sport afterwards to host people engaging in specific sports. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian sports commentators

[edit]

or
Nominator's rationale: Note: it is not possible to do both above. These two categories are side by side in Category:Sports commentators by nationality since Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Category:Sports broadcasters. Category:Australian sports broadcasters is by far the older. The article is at Sports commentator but both articles are tagged as English varieties may have an impact on the naming. I have no clear specific opinion on the name. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works about the illegal drug trade

[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename targets have been added to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aded reverse rename to nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because I agree with @Ham II. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Ham II (who !voted after I did, but with a better explanation. Something went wrong when I posted my response.). NLeeuw (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct/disused/former railway stations

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A disharmonious category naming system. There might be more that I missed, since most were grabbed through Special:PrefixIndex. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 439 categories have been collapsed to boxes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the "ghost stations", Marcocapelle, that has a very clear local meaning. The problem with "disused" is that properly it means out of use but still existing. "Former" is more inclusive. Moonraker (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be one category for all once-were railway stations, whether they still exist or not. Perhaps "Former". Then one for the concept of railways stations which still physically exist, but no longer function. "Disused" seems fine for this. CMD (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until the proposer makes their proposed solution clearer. While I like the idea of making things more uniform is cldar that there are two different concepts here - a "former" station is one that no longer exists, where all of its structures no longer exist or are now in a form that would prevent the reactivation of the station, and a "disused" station is one that continues to exist in some form that could be reactivated - for example, the disused stations of the London Underground like York Road tube station. Attempting to merge these into a single concept world be destructive. I would also object to changing the names of leaf catgories where there is a well-established local name like the ghost stations of the Paris Metro. — The Anome (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also an existing category for "Repurposed" train stations. These are former stations which are used as museums or whatever. They are not really disused stations to my mind, although perhaps they fit into that category.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that some consolidation is a good idea. In spot-checking several of the categorized stations in different countries, I found no articles that referred to the stations as "disused". In general the articles would say their topic was a former station, or simply "was a station". So for a consolidated category, I think that "Former stations in <location>" would be the right format, with "Former <company> stations" as a related category. --Elonka 12:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My preference is 'former station' as many of them have been demolished. 'Defunct' or 'disused' implies that they are still standing. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge defunct into disused (second preference merge the other way), keep the rest as is. Per the above, "disused" and "former" are two distinct concepts - "disused" stations still exist and could be used again without needing to start again from scratch while "former" stations no longer exist as a railway station (of the specified type/on the specified system). For example Essex Road railway station is a former London Underground station but is very much not disused, York Road tube station is a disused station - it could relatively easily become an active station again if desired, Broad Street railway station is a former station - it no longer exists as a station in any form. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moonraker had a good point that "former" is all-inclusive. Stations may be demolished or just no longer in use, but "former" fits all. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my and others' comments, "former" is not all-inclusive - it excludes railway stations that are fully extant but simply not currently used by scheduled passenger services. "Closed" is closer to all-inclusive but it can also cover stations that are temporarily closed (e.g. Cutty Sark DLR station). Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Former" (except Category:Ghost stations of the Paris Métro) based on Elonka's evidence. It looks opposers sees a conflict between the current names that doesn't exist. There are no cases where there are more than one of Category:Defunct railway stations in the United Kingdom, Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom, and Category:Former railway stations in the United Kingdom (except Canada where one is a redirect to the other); defunct, disused and former are side by side in Category:Defunct railway stations by country. What differs the former railway stations in Bangladesh (e.g. Fulbaria railway station) and the defunct in Singapore (e.g. Bukit Panjang railway station) in terms of categorisation? Regarding if it would be useful to categorise all these by degree of disusedness/formerness, I imagine it will be hard to define the scale (unless there would be a standards scale), and therefore not useful. Is it when no trains halt, when there are no longer any platforms, or when there are no tracks on the place anymore (or anything else)? Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All - Every former station is a former station by location or operator for one reason or another. Two former Long Island Rail Road stations could be former station in two different ways. The one in Center Moriches, New York is just a vacant parking lot and a neglected low=level platform with no structure, while the one in East Moriches, New York is a very small private house. I don't know how anybody could live in such a structure, even with the rise of tiny houses in the United States, but somebody is actually living in the thing. Likewise the Jesup Amtrak station in Jesup, Georgia is a former Atlantic Coast Line Railroad station, while the Jacksonville Amtrak station was a replacement for the former Jacksonville Union Station. The existing former stations category can always be a parent category of the defunct, disused, abandoned, ghost, repurposed and other station categories. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support harmonisation, no specific preference yet. It's unusual to bring a question like this to CFD without a specific proposal to resolve a perceived problem, but I think it's OK to gauge (no pun intended) what others think before narrowing down the options to one or perhaps two or three. Unless there are terminological distinctions made in (specialist) literature, it's a good idea to bring about some uniformity in this category tree. I would guess is that a "defunct" or "disused" railway station may still physically exist and could theoretically be made operational again, while a "former" railway station might have been demolished already and would need to be rebuilt from the ground up (unless the building has been repurposed or something). I'll ask a friend who works at the national railways what he thinks. In the meantime, I don't have a specific preference yet. NLeeuw (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SUPPORT per @Nederlandse Leeuw 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 03:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge "defunct" and "abandoned" to "disused". Keep "former" and Category:Ghost stations of the Paris Métro. There are two clear categorisations: railway stations that either no longer exist or have been turned into something else and railway stations that still exist but aren't being used. It seems useful to separate the concepts. Additional categories may need creating to properly recategorise the tree. Mclay1 (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

Category:Churches in the Marche by city

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Renamed to be le Marche in a 2014 discussion, category naming has since then developed to a disorder where there are 35 Marche (not counting Category:Marche in fiction and similar), 22 le Marche, and 21 the Marche categories, seemingly randomly applied. This is possibly because in Marche and in the Marche both are more frequently used in English according to ngrams (this graph tries to exclude usages such as in the Marche region and musical marches but there may be better terms to search for).
The lead of the article Marche is Marche (not The Marche as in the Netherlands article and seems to have never been, at least for a longer period) and the Marches but the article itself then also uses the Marche (never le Marche). Topic and list articles related to (the/le) Marche are Elections in Marche, Flag of Marche, Politics of Marche, List of municipalities of Marche, and List of railway stations in the Marche. Precision and concision don't seem to differ much in between the three.
This leads me to suggest renaming all to Marche only as it is consistent with article-space titles and more natural than the 2014 decision according to ngrams. I'm tagging all relevant categories as I think internal consistency is more important than exact name, however Marche and the Marche looks particularly stronger than the 2014 le Marche. If the outcome is "the", Marche needs to be added to Template:Country prefix the. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Above nGrams and article titles do not support this. Neither do spot checks in JSTOR or within article text. Sometimes it is used as proper noun, "Le Marche", in news articles and guide books, but the that is not the article title or other Wikipedia use. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment I'm leaning towards renaming all to include "the Marche". This issue doesn't seem ever to have been fully resolved at Talk:Marche. The ngrams already linked to above seem to suggest that "the Marche" is more often used. (The) Veneto seems to be a similar case, although "the Veneto" isn't used in any subcategories of Category:Veneto despite its apparently being more common in English. I think the standard should probably either be "the Marche" and "the Veneto" or "Marche" and "Veneto"; these regions probably shouldn't be inconsistent with each other if both can sometimes have definite articles in English. Ham II (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think these are parallel. I don't actually recall ever hearing "the Veneto" in English. In Italian il Veneto exists but is not that common. --Trovatore (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Veneto" is the formulation I'm most familiar with from art history, and the ngrams suggest it's the more common form in general use; there are at least three guidebooks in the results with "Venice & the Veneto" in their titles. There's also a World Heritage Site called City of Vicenza and the Palladian Villas of the Veneto. Ham II (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least the names should become consistent. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "le Marche" for all per the above (probably "the Veneto" too). Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "of/in Marche" for all and, of course, "of/in Veneto" too. Please note that the official name of the Marche region is "Marche", not "le Marche", thus any option including "le Marche" is a non starter. Please also note that, in Italian, all region or country names are usually preceded by a definitive article. Consequently, having "of/in Veneto" would be like having "of/in the France" or "of/in the Germany". Surely, the case of Marche is a little bit different, as the name is plural like the Netherlands or Flanders, which is never preceded by "the" in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Thus, it safer to have "of/in Marche", consistently with "of/in Flanders", and obviously "of/in Veneto". --Checco (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a fair point. We should discount how it is used in Italian language and only focus on how it is used in English. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Discounting usage in Italian and considering only usage in English doesn't necessarily mean leaving out definite articles for all regions because Italian includes them for all regions. In the ngrams I found the versions with the definite article to be the most common for (the) Marche and (the) Veneto. (The) Aosta Valley seems to be another one like (the) Veneto, where our category tree doesn't use the definite article but majority English-language usage may be different. Ham II (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize Somehow/Favor No Article, "the", then "le" The most important thing is to standardize this list somehow. I favor No "Article", "the", then "le" but all three are better than the status quo. I only oppose no change/no consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that standardisation is important. Of course, I stick with my preferred option: no article. However, "the" would surely better than "le". Thus, I completely agree with User:RevelationDirect, as well as nominator User:Kaffet i halsen and User:Marcocapelle. --Checco (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – We should be naming all subcategories to match the usage in the main article, Marche. If changes need to be made to the article, that discussion should happen on its talk page. If we do need the use the definitive article, we should obviously use English. The previous CfD came to a bad conclusion. Mclay1 (talk) 01:22, 29 October 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"