Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts

Speedy renaming and merging

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

New requests


Opposed requests


On hold pending other discussion
  • None currently


Moved to full discussion
  • Category:Mass killings by ideology to Category:Mass murder by ideology – C2C: parent is Mass murder SMasonGarrison 20:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Smasongarrison: It should be Category:Mass murders by ideology per the other subcategories of Category:Mass murder. Mclay1 (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
    Good catch. I wasn't sure if it should be plural or not. :) SMasonGarrison 01:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose rename: The rename is inappropriate for most of the mass killings on Wikipedia, "murder" is a specific crime, it does not include all killings. A very large proportion of mass killings on Wikipedia occurred in active war zones, most definitions of murder exclude warfare. Even if the victims are civilians, very few war crimes are classified as "murder", these crimes have other names. Murder is also usually a crime at the national or state level, so given the only current subcategories are "by regime" the killers are the same people who wrote the laws around murder, and would determine that their own actions are legal. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 04:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    @LateNightCoffee: We don't have a main category for mass killings. Perhaps this should be renamed Category:Mass killings to broaden it, considering there are currently only two subcategories? Mclay1 (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Mclay1 we should probably bring this to full.SMasonGarrison 13:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Full discussion here. Mclay1 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Current discussions

Shortcut

May 11

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:WikiProject Marching band articles

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by Category:WikiProject Marching Arts articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). All are currently empty or self-redirecting. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Images of nature

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layers with ultimately only two subcategories. These subcategories are already in proper other images categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Nature by country

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Tribal communities

Nominator's rationale: Not a defined topic, unlike "Scheduled Tribes" categories (which are a legal classification). Two of these form category loops with their corresponding Scheduled Tribes categories. Compare Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_April_18#Category:Tribal_communities_in_Manipur and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_27#Category:Tribal_communities_of_Rajasthan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Moving any non-Scheduled Tribe groups that may be in the tribal communities categories to their respective states' ethnic group categories might simplify things. I've been meaning to approach this mess for a while, but every tine I've tried it became a bigger headache with how messy it is now. Arctic Circle System (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose this way, if articles are in the Tribal communities parent category but not in the Scheduled Tribes subcategory it means they are not a Scheduled Tribe, or at least it is not clear that they are. Possibly upmerge instead of downmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Carter family

Nominator's rationale: These categories cover the same family and form a complex tangle that includes two independent category loops and two categories of residences. They should all be merged into a single family category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Carter family (Virginia). This family does not include Jimmy Carter as well as probably other notable Carters, so I think we need a disambiguator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Hold and research. There seems to be no evidence that the Cash-Carter family (the musicians) are in any way (or in any close way) related to the Carter family (jimmy Carter cs). So we should not merge the categories about the musical family to the categories about the political famly, but keep them separate. How else to deal with the 3 cats can be debated, but unless good evidence surfaces the proposed merge seems wrong. Fram (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
    Which Carter family? How should Category:Carter family be renamed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
    Not? The issue are edits made by a TA in March, we should revert all these cats to the versions before the March edits by a TA. For things like category loops and so on ,it may be better first to check if someone messed with the categories before suggesting wrong merges and renames. Go back to the pre-vandalism/pre-bad edits status quo, and only then see if there are still issues that need CfD. Fram (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose on further review this looks like 3 different families. The one with Jimmy Carter needs to be renamed to Category:Family of Jimmy Carter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Nominator's rationale: Delete; subcategory alone suffices. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: a few articles were added - presumably by the creator - but the subcategory alone still suffices as the articles added don't have any direct relevance to Mayweather other than he took part in them with others. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The category is not redundant, as it contains not only a subcategory of fights but also 5+ directly related pages. These are valid non-fight-related associations that would be lost if only the subcategory were kept. In addition, the category serves as a proper eponymous hub for all topics directly connected to this boxer, and such categories are routinely retained even when relatively small, as they are expected to expand with related content over time. Teterev53 (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Teterev53, in which case you have a responsibility to populate the category as a creator. I will still leave it up because I feel putting in his family member and two shows he was in isn't enough to justify a category, but I will leave that up to others to judge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    These topics are directly related to Mayweather, including his promotional activities (Mayweather Promotions), business ventures (such as his racing team Team AmeriVet), and notable media appearances, some WWE events. The category is not limited to fights and has clear scope for broader, relevant content. Teterev53 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Teterev53, again, I will leave that to others. But if you're gonna make a category, populate it too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • At least Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 5 should be purged, Mayweather is not a defining characteristic of that article at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    Done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:NDPB galleries, libraries and museums in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: parent is Non-departmental public bodies of the United Kingdom government, but I don't think using the full name is a good idea given how clunky it would be. I'm very open to alternative names SMasonGarrison 13:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the "public" part of the initialism is important. I also believe all of the galleries included could be described as "art museums" (e.g. the Tate is also known as the Tate Museum). The only library is the British Library, which could also reasonably be described as a museum (it's in several museum categories, and used to be part of the British Museum), or it could be moved to the parent category. Thus we can simplify the category name considerably by using something like Category:Non-departmental public museums in the United Kingdom. pburka (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    or "...cultural organisations", for something more encompassing than "...museums". pburka (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    or discard with the British-specific NDPB phrase entirely and use something more internationally recognizable like Category:Independent cultural organisations of the British government. pburka (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Category:Non-departmental public bodies of the United Kingdom government in the GLAM sector? Cf. GLAM (cultural heritage). Ham II (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: a multitude of proposals, none of which have yet gained clear consensus. Trying another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:European Space Agency modern mission insignia, 2010s

Nominator's rationale: Using the insignia's shape as a descriptor would be consistent with Category:European Space Agency quadrilateral mission insignia, 1990s and Category:European Space Agency quadrilateral mission insignia, 2000s; and would be more appropriate that a vague "modern" descriptor. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Either merged them all (all decades, all shapes) to Category:European Space Agency mission insignia, or at most change to simple per-decade cats like Category:2010s European Space Agency mission insignia and so on. No need to subdivide per shape, and hardly a need to subdivide per decade either, not that many insignia. Fram (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'd support a simple rename to decades as sole qualifiers. — AFC Vixen 🦊 08:01, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support alt rename to Category:2010s European Space Agency mission insignia per Fram. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

TAKM

Nominator's rationale: TAKM involves five countries with some kinetic of connection, and every possible bilateral relations category except Category:Kazakhstan–Mongolia relations is on it. Of these, Azerbaijan–Mongolia contains no other contents, Mongolia–Turkey otherwise contains only the main article, and Kyrgyzstan–Mongolia contains the main article and two ambassadors who are both likely non-resident. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
I would support keeping the Kyrgyzstan Mongolia and Kyrgyz ambassadors to Mongolia categories, since those categories have multiple entries and seem useful, the others seem potentially useful, but as of now don't seem that useful. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all, the Kyrgyz ambassadors were located in China. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Sports identifiers

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated narrow categories. The contents are all categorised elsewhere in sport. While there are potentially more articles related to names of things related to sport, it would feel like an arbitrary grouping. Mclay1 (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support, the categories contain very unrelated topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Doctor Who serials written by Brian Hayles

Nominator's rationale: There are only three categories of "Doctor Who episodes serials written by". Broaden out the first two to match the TV episodes hierarchy. Upmerge the other, with only one entry, to "Works by". – Fayenatic London 22:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london I overall support this, but perhaps this should be refined slightly?
The other two Malcolm Kohll categories Category:Films with screenplays by Malcolm Kohll and Category:Novels by Malcolm Kohll should likely be upmerged into your proposed "Works by" category, since all of these categories are too narrow to warrant seperation from one overall Kohll topic (Being three or less articles in each; with such a small number of works by Wiki standards these should not be kept separate).
The serials by Hayles are not episodes but rather serials, which while similar is distinct from television. I'm admittedly unsure if the various Hayles subcategories should be upmerged to Category:Works by Brian Hayles, but I'm not sure about the renaming there.
Similarly, Briggs has two small subcats (This and Category:Novels by Ian Briggs (Which should probably be upmerged given it's just the novelisations of the serials listed in his Doctor Who category)) and the serial vs episode naming debacle also applies here. I feel the category for the Doctor Who serials should likely be retained with the same name and the novels category be deleted given its contents are entirely identical to the current television serials category. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
There are no wider category hierarchies for serials as opposed to episodes, so Doctor Who serials are categorised in Science fiction television episodes and British television episodes.
Malcolm Kohll probably does not met the requirements of notability, and if the bio article is deleted then all the related categories would go too.
I agree that novelisations by the original writer are not defining, and that Briggs' novels categories should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_April_20#Category:Doctor_Who_serials_novelised_by_Brian_Hayles. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london did not know about that distinction between serials and episodes, no issues there. I'd say for now, even if Kohll is non-notable, we should still deal with the categories and then delete it should Kohll's article get put up later. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:People executed under the Stuarts

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_8#Category:People_executed_by_Stuart_England_by_hanging,_drawing_and_quartering. It is not clear how to rename these categories, since the House of Stuart was a multi-kingdom dynasty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree that the entire tree needs renaming. the Stuarts, Stuart Ireland, and Stuart Scotland, are red linked; Stuarts redirects to House of Stuart; Stuart England redirects to Stuart period. The categories should use the relevant article titles. Gonnym (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:New York state constitutional officer elections

Nominator's rationale: As per naming scheme used at Category:New York (state) elections and throughout the state of New York. Gjs238 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
New @Gjs238 Disagree. Disambiguation is wholly unnecessary in this instance. Was necessary in the instance "New York (state) elections" because both NYC and NY state have elections. But only the state has constitutional officer elections. NYC (being a municipality) has a charter, not a constitution. There is no city constitution; thus no city constitutional officers; thus no city constitutional officer elections. SecretName101 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Question: So if I understand what you wrote, you advocate for "Category:New York constitutional officer elections" because no "state" disambiguator is necessary? Gjs238 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Gjs238 yes, I am against applying excess disambiguation SecretName101 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Change somehow, I am neutral about whether we need disambiguation, but if we do the brackets should be added for consistency. So either Category:New York (state) constitutional officer elections or Category:New York constitutional officer elections. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

May 10

Sino-Austronesian languages

Nominator's rationale: Not nearly enough support for it to be a good basis for a category. Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not a widely supported view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is a merely proposed language family. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Cabinet reshuffles in Canada

Nominator's rationale: I propose renaming this category because "Cabinet shuffle" is the term used in Canada, not "Cabinet reshuffle". All of the pages in this category are redirects to the 29th Canadian ministry. I've checked all of the quotes in that article, and the sources cited, and they all use "shuffle". Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Xibe-language newspapers

Nominator's rationale: Only one applicable article, Xibe is mutually intelligible with Manchu. Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Weather Underground (weather service)

Nominator's rationale: Category contains one eponymous article. Gjs238 (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Unity games

Nominator's rationale: Was previously deleted by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_4#Category:Unity_(game_engine)_games. Unable to find a new rationale, but relisting for courteous of stronger consensus from last time. Author has another similar category for deletion open, so perhaps advised to avoid boldly creating new categories for now. IgelRM (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Kind regards. I didn't see the previous discussion as the category name was different, so I would like to apologize, but seeing that it took place over 5 years ago it can be renewed.
From what I can see, the nomination and main rationale for the deletion was WP:NONDEF, arguing that "roughly half of all new games are made with it". However, from what I can read in this report , this accounts only for games released in Steam and not other distribution methods, so it doesn't represent all of the market. This is not surprising accounting only for the amount of released titles because of Unity's free license and how beginner friendly it is, but there's an important nuance: when talking only about sold units, this numbers drops down to 26%, behind Unreal Engine (31%) (page 6), an engine already with its own category: Category:Unreal Engine games. In the last years, the trend has actually been for the popularity and market share of Unreal Engine to grow (pag 10).
This brings another point, which is notability. There might be a lot of indie and small titles in Steam, but this doesn't mean that they are successful or well-known, and as such not all of them warrant a Wikipedia article, which is something that ZXCVBNM pointed out in the last discussion. Moreover, Unity is far from the only indie game engine being used, which include the aforementioned Unreal Engine, Godot (game engine), Ren'Py and RPG Maker, all of them with a growing popularity. This makes the category a WP:CATDEF.
Subcategories can be created if there are still concerns. Category:Unreal Engine games currently has over 1,000 articles between the parent and subcategories, far from the current population in Category:Unity games. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
PD: I also just noticed that the category already exists in 16 other languages (Q8880515). I'm well aware of WP:OTHERLANGS, but it should serve as an indicator of how important the category is. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
The category was nominated back in 2022, the discussion resulted in No consensus/weak keep. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Refugees of South Sudan

Nominator's rationale: overlapping categories. SMasonGarrison 23:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • The two categories are separate per WP:COPSEP but the titles aren't clearly different. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I do not know any better name so merging may be the best option after all. At least add an alternative sort key to these four articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Photographers on Wikimedia Commons

Nominator's rationale: Rename per actual content. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename to Category:Ugandan photographers on Wikimedia Commons or delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more week perhaps: rename, delete, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sure about the "need" for this category, but the above discussion is missing the fact that this new category is a duplication of a pre-existing category at Wikimedia Commons photographers. That is reason enough to delete. Οἶδα (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedians with a hereditary connective tissue disorder

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Surely delete Category:Wikipedians with a hereditary connective tissue disorder, after more than a year it still only has one member, so this is not helpful for user collaboration. On top of that I am generally sceptical about the whole tree of Wikipedians by disease, would rather merge/replace it by Wikipedians interested in diseases, but that is a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts, particularly on Category:Wikipedians with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:USERCAT, and it seems like both are instances of narrow intersections to begin with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals

Nominator's rationale: Category:Wikipedia naming conventions is for naming conventions that are Wikipedia guidelines. Its subcategory Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals is almost entirely populated by defunct proposals marked as stale or historical, but there are also a few current WikiProject advice pages and information pages mixed in. These aren't guidelines, so don't fit the scope of the parent cat. But they also aren't proposals, and it isn't helpful to have current advice pages grouped in with decades old failed proposals. The recent history of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Brussels) illustrates the gap. I moved it from the parent cat to the proposals subcat on the basis that it isn't a guideline. RGloucester removed that category because it isn't a proposal. Sam Sailor, presumably seeing no relevant categories, re-added it to the parent cat.-- Trystan (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There is no good reason to restrict Category:Wikipedia naming conventions only to pages that are guidelines, unless it is going to be renamed 'Category:Wikipedia naming conventions guidelines pages'. Information pages can be contained within the existing category without issue. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    That's certainly one possible outcome of this CfD discussion, but given that the category description has stated it is limited to guidelines for 20 years, and it is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia guidelines, I think that would be a change requiring consensus. It seems self-evident to me that it is beneficial to sort out guidelines that have community consensus from information and advice pages that do not.--Trystan (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Question: wouldn't it be clearer to have Category:Wikipedia defunct naming conventions proposals? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    I agree that would be clearer.--Trystan (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • My apologies for not reading Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Brussels) prior to (re)adding the cat; I have undone myself (diff). Best, Sam Sailor 08:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    No worries. All three options are unsatisfactory given the current category structure, so it is hard to argue against any one of them.--Trystan (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"Somalian" to "Somali" across the board

hidden: 298 other categories
Nominator's rationale: 'Somali' is the preferred demonym for both the diaspora and the residents. See Somalis and Somalia - both have the line, "Somalis overwhelmingly prefer the demonym Somali over the incorrect Somalian since the former is an endonym, while the latter is an exonym with double suffixes".

I know this has been discussed in the past with a small number of people weighing in each time, mostly in 2016 or earlier. The justification to keep "Somalian" has usually been that it reserves the use of 'Somali' for ethnicity, using "Somalian" as the term for affiliation with the Republic of Somalia. But that's still not the demonym used by most people in/from Somalia or by most scholars (Google Scholar search for "Somali" turns up 489,000 results; "Somalian" has 28,500). "Ethnic Somalis" is already its own category and can stay such. In other cases where there is a large diasporic population, that works. Like with Category:Armenian people and Category:Ethnic Armenians, we can just add a hatnote at the top of each category to clarify which category refers to which group.

Regularly in the past 10 years, discussions have come up with a consensus to rename an individual subcategory, but because it isn't the name of the parent category, it gets undone; for example, Category:Somalian Emigrants becoming Category:Somali Emigrants in 2019 got mass consensus, but then a speedy CFD in 2023 moved the category back to "Somalian".

I've put this in three batches: one for the bulk of the categories, one for the diaspora categories, and one for categories that are more explicitly about location of residence or involvement with the government. It feels like the diaspora categories are the most obvious case to switch to Somali, as being part of the diaspora is more of an ethnic identity than a national one. I would prefer to switch everything.

Feels like it's time to reopen the discussion, and to do so with all the categories I can find, as we haven't done in a very long time. Here's hoping MassCFD works properly with this much. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Question: is 'Somali' the preferred demonym not only for the 85% Somali-speaking people in Somalia but also for the 15% other ethnicities? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    I haven't been able to find any evidence that Somalian is preferred by any group in Somalia, except claims by individuals and British Somaliland advocates. Have you seen any evidence of the term 'Somalian' being an appropriate one for nationals? It's generally preferred in English-language style guides to use 'Somali' for both. Just about every country that is some amount a nation-state uses the same term for being a citizen vs. an ethnic descendant of the group that is its namesake. Some uses in English and such:
    Do you have evidence to the contrary? Every discussion I've seen that says "Somalian" is appropriate when referencing non-ethnic nationals is fraught with uncertainty and opposition. Essentially, I argue that the fact that Somali is a word that means two things doesn't justify using "Somalian," a term for which I can't find evidence of appropriateness. We don't use that to invent different words to distinguish Ethnic vs. National members other major diasporas, e.g. Armenian, Irish, Italian people - we instead use a disambiguator when referring to the ethnicity. At minimum, would it not be appropriate to move "Somalian diaspora" and its tree to "Somali diaspora" under "Ethnic Somali people" and rename? The diaspora is defined by the ethnic group more than the nationality.
    Alternate proposal 1: Rename from "Somalian people" to "Somali nationals" or from, e.g., "Somali journalists" to "journalists from Somalia" when possible
    Alternate proposal 2: Just move the categories that are explicitly about the diaspora into the overarching "Ethnic Somali people" category and rename them. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 20:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this is a case where Somali means people who are Somali by ethnicity regardless of country. Somalian means nationals of Somalia. With about a third of the population of Ethiopia being Somali I think we need to have two separate Category trees. I do not think we should Rename all Somalian categories to Somali.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    Support for rename: From what I've seen, most of the terms listed above refer to the Somali ethnic group, not to citizens of Somalia. At the very least, I think it would be easier to fix everything first and then revert only the parts that are incorrect. Can you point out any categories where we need to keep “Somalian”? Freetrashbox (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    I affirm that two separate category trees is appropriate, but those can still be renamed "Somali nationals" or "Somali people" and the current "Ethnic Somali people". The sources I see consider "Somalian" an English invention and to various degrees offensive, and most English-speaking WP:RS refer to the country, its people, and the ethnic group as Somali. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 20:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    Mildly Neutral on the core proposal, Oppose the alternatives. These alternative proposals are extremely chunky and inconsistent with the naming conventions on the category schemes. SMasonGarrison 21:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support rename per above QalasQalas (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Islamist conflict in Nigeria

Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Maltese Holocaust deniers

Nominator's rationale: Only one applicable article. Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Infobox rugby biography with deprecated parameters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Pages using infobox rugby biography with deprecated parameters. You could have just asked. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per consistency with most of the categories in Deprecated parameters, such as Pages using infobox military person with deprecated parameters - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedias in Sinitic languages

Nominator's rationale: There are no Bai or Cai–Long Wikipedias, so this category only currently applies to the Chinese branch of Sinitic. I am aware that Sinitic is sometimes used as a synonym for the Chinese languages, but this would make it less ambiguous, unless there are plans for Wikipedias in non-Chinese Sinitic languages. Arctic Circle System (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • If renamed, shouldn't it be Category:Wikipedias in Chinese language (singular) per article title Chinese language? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
    Maybe, though they're not being treated as dialects of one language here. They're far from mutually intelligible with each other, so it's hard to call them that in this context. Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 15:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:People of Welsh-Jewish descent

Nominator's rationale: This fails WP:Overcategorization#Narrow intersection with only one article entry and the subcategory "American people of Welsh-Jewish descent", which just contains three listings and should also be deleted when not containing enough to merit a category. Even if we combined the total people listed (four), it doesn't amount to much, and only appears to be a minor trait for each of them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't they be merged to the British-Jewish descent parent category? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I personally am inclined to say no because that just seems to be a container category (based on how only subcategories get listed there) and either way also isn't prominent trait for any of the four listed people. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on merge vs. deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 15:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Films directed by Faye Dunaway

Nominator's rationale: One article, unlikely to be more Fuddle (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 15:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to films by American directors. Smallcat was deprecated because it was recognized that 1 article categories hinder navigation. With 1 works by creator stations the page on the creator and the page on the work will be linked. There is no benefit to having thse 1 article categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Boko Haram activities

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Boko Haram by country

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Schisms of the Islamic State militant movement

Nominator's rationale: delete, "schism" is not a defining characteristic of Boko Haram, or of any organization for that matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Somalian businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Somalis are found outside of Somalia as well, which is one reason why the term "Somalian" is not widely accepted. In particular, people in Somaliland strongly dislike being called "Somalians." In short, the term "Somalian" is currently somewhat lacking in neutrality. I propose either using "Somali businesspeople" or creating a separate category called "Somali businesspeople" distinct from "Somalian businesspeople." Freetrashbox (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This category is about nationality, not location. You should take this up with the full category tree (Category:Somalian people) naming convention rather than piecemeail. SMasonGarrison 13:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, we currently use "Somalian" for nationality and "Somali" for ethnicity. If this should be changed a broader nomination is necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Split we should keep Category:Somalian businesspeople for nationals of Somalia who were businesspeople. Category:Somali businesspeople should be for businesspeople who were ethnic Somali who were not nationals of Somalia. This would include A. People who predate the creation of Somalia as a European colonial state. B. Somali who are nationals of Ethioia. I believe that Somali are almost a third of the population of Ethiopia. I believe they are the second largest ethnic group there after the Oromo. They are close in number but I believe more numerous than the Amhara. The Amhaea are historically connected to government, and dominate most elite positions, so we do probably have more articles on them. These are two seperate things and we should end the redirect and have two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Debt-relief-stub

Nominator's rationale: Newly created stub template of unclear necessity. It was created for use on just one page, which already had {{econ-stub}} on it and thus wasn't in any desperate need of this, but it was trying to file the page in a dedicated Category:Debt relief stubs category that does not exist, but could not be created: a stub template has to be on at least 60 articles before it can have its own eponymous category to file them in, and short of 60 articles it has to make do with a more general category like Category:Economics and finance stubs rather than getting its own dedicated category.
But since the one page with this on it is already in Category:Economics and finance stubs via a different template anyway, it wouldn't need both templates at the same time -- and since a stub template does still have to file its entries somewhere, it can't exist at all if it isn't filing the page in a category. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, delete. I'm not up on all the rules, it was categorized as another stub which made no sense and I saw that there were a bunch of related pages so I gave it a whirl, but I doubt it's even close to 60. John_Abbe (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

ISIL attacks

Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, in case of ISIL these are overlapping concepts. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. Thanks for cleaning up these categories. SMasonGarrison 13:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Kuwait

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. Thanks for cleaning up these categories. SMasonGarrison 13:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Spain should also be nominated. SMasonGarrison 13:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Right. Added to the nomination now. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Massacres of Christians in the 2nd millennium

Nominator's rationale: delete, for now it is a mere duplicate of Category:Massacres of Christians by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. Thanks for cleaning up these categories. SMasonGarrison 13:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Church bombings by ISIL

Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in this category, this is not helpful for navigation. I have added both articles also to Category:ISIL massacres of Christians, that can be done irrespective of the outcome of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. That's probably the cleaner category solution SMasonGarrison 13:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Royal carriages

Nominator's rationale: This category should be renamed to Category:State coaches and carriages because the scope is incorrect.

The problem with the current category name of Category:Royal carriages is that not all of these adorned or gilded ceremonial vehicles are royal. For example, Speaker's State Coach and Lord Mayor of London's State Coach are civic or parliamentary vehicles, not royal.

"Coach" is a subset of "carriage", and is essentially an enclosed carriage. However, the common term for these sorts of vehicles is "state coach", which refers broadly to official ceremonial vehicles used in royal, civic, or state processions. I presume "state coach" is more common than "state carriage" because the majority of these vehicles are technically coaches.

Not all vehicle articles in this category, however, are coaches—for example, 1902 State Landau, Canadian State Landau and Ivory Mounted Phaeton—so I cannot suggest renaming it to Category:State coaches.

For these reasons, the current title "Royal carriages" does not serve well as a category in Wikipedia, and a rename to a more inclusive and precise term is recommended. A category that starts with "State coaches..." is better than Category:State carriages because it is more natural to type and search, and thus I recommend renaming this to Category:State coaches and carriages.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Unceded territories in Ontario

This category seems to have been vacated by one individual, User:Abumoh00. I would like to open up the discussion as to whether this category should exist in the context of Indigenous land holdings, or if these lands should be considered like any other "Indian" reserve. FUNgus guy (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey! The unceded claim, last the article notes, was still in legal challange, having previously been dismissed. There is one Nation that has unceded in their official name, but Wiikwemkoong First Nation isn't one if them IIRC. Abumoh00 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
@Abumoh00 Please don't empty categories out of process. If you have a problem with the category, you should nominate it. SMasonGarrison 13:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Hey! I'm not sure what you mean by out of process? And what do you mean by nominate? sorry I'm not an expert. The articles were removed from that category because per legal facts, they don't apply. Putting them as such would be making a partial/political claim, a claim against previous legal rulings in most of the cases. Whereas in B.C. the official legal situation is the opposite. Abumoh00 (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I've just blocked Abumoh00 and struck their comments per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. I have also reverted several of their edits per WP:BANREVERT, which apparently has un-emptied the category. Despite this, I have no opinion on the subject matter. Toadspike [Talk] 07:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Gillingham Town F.C. managers

Nominator's rationale: The category is ambiguous between the clubs in Dorset and Kent. The sole member appears to be a former manager of the club in Dorset. Category could maybe be deleted if there are no other articles that could populate it. BlaqWiedow (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - only one entry, so simply not needed. If it is kept, then support the move. This could have been a WP:CFDS C2D btw... GiantSnowman 20:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    Did not know that speedies specific to cfd existed. I've had bad luck with nominating categories that could have been speedied recently. BlaqWiedow (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

May 9

Category:Comoros-United Kingdom relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted per G8. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The target category was deleted in a previous CFD. BlaqWiedow (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canada-Comoros relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted per G8. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The target category was deleted in a previous CFD. BlaqWiedow (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete per G8. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Soviet people of Egyptian descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete the one sub-category does not need to be in the parent category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:GRTC Pulse templates

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now, underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 21:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete per nom. Some time back an editor mentioned that templates do not belong in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Wirt County, West Virginia, in the American Civil War

Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 21:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Canadian slaves

  • Nominator's rationale This is a sub-cat of Category:Slaves in the British Empire and Category:Slaves in North America. There are similar categories such as Category:Slaves in Spain. Slaves as a group have a less clear direct connection to the nation where they are resident than the overall population, so the use of "in" instead of a demonym is a uniquely appropriate way to categorize this set up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The change of scope is ill-advised, and also based on a wrong understanding of nationality. Note that Canada did not exist as a country when these people were slaves, and that the nominator frequently removes content from categories related to a country in such a case precisely with this rationale, so this is a contradiction. Place Clichy (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  • It is a fair point, but keeping the category as is does not resolve that point. Then the category should be renamed to Category:Slaves in British North America. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    To be clear, I don't see an issue in placing in a Canadian category articles related to the history of Canada. At the time these people were enslaved, there was an Upper Canada, so I don't think this name is either imprecise nor irrelevant. Place Clichy (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
        • 7 of the 18 by nationality sub-categories of slaves by nationality and almost all of the over sub-categories of slaves by former country use in. Every other sub-category of Category:Slaves in the British Empire uses in. In is the standard form in this category tree and you have presented no arguments as to way this category should devastate from the rest of the tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I have revised the nomination because I am trying to listen to feedback and come to a good naming of categories. If the gripe is there was no Canada than it is even more clear there were no Canadians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment the Rename would also move this under Category:Slaves by former country where almost all categories use in and the name clearly links to country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I just fixed the link to the parent category Category:Slaves in North America. Two other sub-cats of Category:Slaves in the British Empire are Category:Slaves in the British West Indies and Category:Slaves in the Thirteen Colonies. I also removed one article. It was on a Native American women who was a slave at various locations in Michigan in the 1760s. At least part of the time this was thus in the Province of Quebec. There is no evidence she lived in modern Canada ever. She was manumitted at Detroit in 1766. Detroit was de facto part of British North America from 1783 until 1796. BNA does not exist before 1783. So I moved her to Category:Slaves in the British Empire which she clearly does belong in. The article is Monette (slave). These leaves 4 articles, 3 who seem to have lived at least part of their time as slaves in what was then Upper Canada, the other in the Colony of New Brunswick. 1 may have actilually however last been in the Province of Quebec before it was split into Upper and Lower Canada. With only 4 articles it might be best to merge it to Category:Slaves in the British Empire. However if we keep the category we have 25% of the contents as people who never lived in what was then called Canada, the term is primarily for what is now Quebec and Ontario until the 1860s. All 4 were clearly in British North America.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Slaves in British North America. The demonym implies that they were recognized as belonging to a nationality or culture of Canada, and that seems ahistorical. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose the renaming to British North America. Slavery in Canadia occurs before 1780s. This rename would unnessarily narrow the category. SMasonGarrison 13:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Europe by former diocese

Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer. upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 23:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Just delete, the target is equally empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I have populated the category. The parent category could likely be populated too. Mclay1 (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't understand what's supposed to be happening in this category. If someone was the Archbishop of Milan and becomes the Bishop of Rome, we don't categorize them as a former Archbishop of Milan, we just put them in an Archbishops of Milan category? I'm not sure what this is supposed to be doing? Jahaza (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Jahaza: this is about dioceses that no longer exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    I don't see the point of this category then. It's not defining that a person was a bishop of a diocese that no longer exists, it's a random intersection. The categories Archbishops of Anchorage is still a child of Archdiocese of Anchorage and a grandchild of Former Dioceses of Alaska, but Bishops of former dioceses doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Jahaza (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable, but it is a separate discussion that would also require nominating the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename both to use "defunct" (or some better word) instead of "former". No opinion as yet on the question of the merge. - jc37 22:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I am fine with "defunct", it makes it a slightly less ambiguous title. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: procedurally relist; I've tagged the the target (for a rename).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:History of Kerala (1947–present)

Nominator's rationale: rename, the state of Kerala was established in 1956, so that would be a better cut-off. Move subCategory:Travancore–Cochin directly under Category:History of Kerala. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons given at the discussion about other Indian states. This is a misunderstanding of chronology. Indian states and territories have changed internal border since independence in a complex fashion. Nonetheless, events between 1947 and 1956 belong to the history of Kerala. Better is the enemy of good. Place Clichy (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename 1956 is the start of the current existence of Kerala. This is the most logical year to split the category at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:History of Kerala; there doesn't seem to any need to draw the line anywhere here especially if as Place Clichy implies the line is blurred. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Anti-communist terrorist incidents

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 12:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • There are more than enough articles about massacres in the parent category, is there a specific reason why they haven't or shouldn't be moved to here? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Marcocapelle Frankly, I don't have the bandwidth to additional clean up after the category creator. If someone is willing to populate, it's probably fine to keep. But I think the bigger task is going to be the massive clean up in terrorism categories. SMasonGarrison 00:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @LateNightCoffee: generally, please do not create new categories unless you are willing to populate them at your best effort. Please populate the nominated category if you want to keep it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Considering the fact there is still only one article in the category merging as nominated is the best course of action. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Negro Republican Party politicians

  • Nominator's rationale This is a confusing category that I do not think we should have. It is tagged as if it is diffusiong by ethnicity (although it might technically be race) and so should be non-diffucsing. If this is by ethnicity we should use modern terms, not an outdated term that many people now look on as racist. However it also is trying to claim this was a recognized faction, if that is true than it should not have a non-diffusing tag. The problem is this was at best an informal faction, not an organized party in a clear way, so we should upmerge. We would want to do it manually because the parent is largely diffused by state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    • I came upon this category because it was on the article for Andrew F. Stevens. He was an African-American who was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature, elected as a Republican. It looks like this category is being as applied to mean "African-Americans elected as Republicans to office when the term "Negro" was in wide use". This is not how we do categories. There is no evidence that Stevens ever ran for office as other than a general Republican.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment, it seems there was a Negro Republican Party to which the subjects of the first two articles belonged. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Was it actually a seperate party? Stevens did not belong to it that is clear. Do we need a category for 2 articles? Especially when it has such a high tendency for miscategorization? If it was an actual party we really need to remove the nom-diffusing tag.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Afghanistan–Holy See relations

Nominator's rationale: Only content is a former Catholic church in Afghanistan (Our Lady of Divine Providence Chapel, Kabul), with no other connection to the Holy See. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:People of Mexican Texas

  • Nominator's rationale the actual political unit was Coahuila y Tejas. Politically it unified both the modern Mexican state of Coahuila and some of what is now Texas. Chihuahua, New Mexico and Tamalipas included parts of modern Texas, although de facto much of the area claimed by the first two was in the Camancheria. However what is today El Paso was a place clearly under Mexican control but not in Coahuila y Tejas. The name here matches the name of our article. In general we use from to connect people to places that are not countries, thus we have Category:People from Texas and Category:People from Coahuila as well as a lot of other similar categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. The topic of this category is not a former subdivision of early Mexico. It is the history of present-day Texas, when it was apart of Mexico. Place Clichy (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    The subjects here are biographies of people who lived in Coahuila y Tejas. We already have 1 sub-category that uses the target name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment among the people organized under this category are Juan Martín de Veramendi, who most clearly was "from Coahuila y Tejas" since he lived at various times in both the Coahuila and Tejas parts. By using the Texas name we incorrectly imply that the scope of this category might be modern Texas, when in fact those boundaries were determined, by a war, after this unit stopped existing. It is a clear case of imposing a modern point of view on the past and a violation of the general principles of neutral point of view for us to create categories that treat boundaries determined after a war as if they are innate in the way things ought to be. The neutral way to do things is to follow the lead of the articles on the place at the time, in this case Coahuila y Tejas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    Alternatively, wouldn't this be covered if we created Category:People from Coahuila y Tejas as a parent category? The current category is a child of Category:Mexican Texas and Category:People from pre-statehood Texas, so a renaming as is would break things more than improve them. However, it could be kept as a useful intersection category. Place Clichy (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to avoid anachronism. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:People from Turtlecreek Township, Ohio

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge for now. Underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 19:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:21st century in Hpakant

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. There's no need to divide this town category by century. merge to Hpakant, and selective merge to Category:21st century in Kachin State SMasonGarrison 19:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Hegel scholars from FOO

Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename these to follow the typical FOOian scholars of SUBJECT rather than Subject scholars from FOO. If not renamed as proposed, a few of them still need to be renamed to match the proper naming, like Hegel scholars from Britain would need to be Hegel scholars from the United Kingdom and Hegel scholars from America would need to be Hegel scholars from the United States SMasonGarrison 16:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the current names make the scope clearer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    Do you also oppose fixing the misnamed ones in this format? SMasonGarrison 19:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • If not renamed as proposed (which I am neutral about), I agree that a few of them need to be renamed per WP:C2C: Hegel scholars from Britain would need to be Hegel scholars from the United Kingdom and Hegel scholars from America would need to be Hegel scholars from the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom and Marcocapelle. This would better fit the parent categories at Category:Scholars by nationality, and be more descriptive for the biographies in the article. Also, terms like German or Italian are more inclusive that from Foo as we don't really care if a German Hegel scholars is/was actually a subject of Bavaria or Prussia or the FRG or the Duchy of Parma or Berg. Place Clichy (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Prehistoric fish stubs

Nominator's rationale: I came across this while updating redlinks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Science, where this was listed as feeding into Prehistoric fish stubs. Last year user:A Cynical Idealist redirected this to {{paleo-bony-fish-stub}}, apparently without discussion, then user:Trilletrollet changed the target to {{anguilliformes-stub}} (eel stubs). This PetScan finds only 19 pages that could use this intersection for prehistoric eel stubs, so it's not worth reviving. Only two were using this template, so I replaced it. I also ensured that all 19 pages in the PetScan are now stubbed both as anguilliformes and prehistoric.
For the record, as they all have more than 60 members, I have reinstated several prehistoric fish stub categories that had been emptied in a similar way apparently without discussion: Cretaceous fish stubs, Jurassic fish stubs, Prehistoric lobe-finned fish stubs, Prehistoric ray-finned fish stubs, Conodont stubs, Triassic fish stubs. As various former parents had also been deleted e.g. Category:Jurassic animal stubs, the redirections may have been part of a wider exercise removing hierarchies of prehistoric life stubs. If this was discussed on a project page somewhere, please link to it here. In future it would be helpful to link to such discussions in the edit summary when redirecting templates. Care is also needed to merge to all valid parents that intersect in a category. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: shouldn't this be in templates for discussion? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hardly seems useful. Grutness...wha? 05:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in Laughlin, Nevada

Nominator's rationale: WP:CATNAME
This is just a truth-in-advertising nomination since none of these stations are actually in Laughlin, and most aren't even in Nevada. Rather, all of these stations can be heard in the metro area covering the southern point of Nevada and neighboring areas in Arizona and California. If this passes I'll update the parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This area is known simply as "The tri-state area" which is super ambiguous. If and when we get a main article on the metro area we can speedy rename this title to match, unless anyone wants to suggest a better target name for now. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Procedural Background/Comment Prior to nominating this category, I inadvertently emptied it since there are no articles that belong here; I then repopulated it and brought it here to try and salvage it. If there's no consensus to broaden this category, it' effectively empty. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 17:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Split the contents into the state they are licensed in. I think that would be easier in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    Sure, that would work too. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Burn Notice characters

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 17:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge. Only contains a list article (read: no character articles). This is not helpful for navigation. Οἶδα (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:1358 establishments in Indonesia

Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 17:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Young adult novelists

Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent Category:Writers of young adult literature, especially given the potentially ambiguous title which could refer to novelists who are young adults. Grutness...wha? 15:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    Support per nom. Good idea SMasonGarrison 17:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename the current title probably should be for novelists who are "young adults" since every other novelists cat that is x novelists x describes the people not the work. French novelists, American novelists, Germany novelists, etc. The fact thag we have no categories that categorize people as defined by being "young adults" would make using it in that sense difficult John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:American young adult novelists

Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent Category:American writers of young adult literature, especially given the ambiguous title which could refer to writers who are young adults. Grutness...wha? 15:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename Actually based on our other category titles this is close to unambiguously saying the Writers as young adults. Category:French novelists for example is not novelists who wrote novelists in French but novelists who were French nationals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Soviet Georgian admirals

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection, they served the Soviet Union. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge the Soviet Union did not last even 80 years. I do not think we need this layer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Soviet people by period

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Soviet victims of crime

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Irish personnel of the British Merchant Navy

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge to parent categories per WP:OCLOCATION and WP:NARROWCAT. They are also not notable for being Irish members of the Merchant Navy, I would note. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Great Purge

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection, these were all Soviet people, responsible for the Great Purge commanded by Joseph Stalin. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Sub-districts of Semampir

Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary category layers for only one article. No merge needed because the article is already categorised in a parent category. Mclay1 (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Abandoned Articles participants

Nominator's rationale: These categories appear to serve the same function as one another, with one containing 11 times more users than the other. There is no reason to have duplicate categories. BlaqWiedow (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in Bloomington, Illinois

Nominator's rationale: Includes the metropolitan area Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Rev'n affiliates

Nominator's rationale: Rev'n and The Action Channel merged into one network. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Television stations in the United States by city

Nominator's rationale: Includes cities and metropolitan areas Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It doesn't include metro areas. Those are categorised in Category:Television stations in the United States by metropolitan area, which you have nominated for merging below. This is a subcategory of Category:Mass media in the United States by city so should use the same name format. Location is too vague as it could mean state, region, on the third floor of a building, etc. Mclay1 (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Categorizing by metros and cities seperately makes sense. If all the other noms pass, maybe this won't be needed but I don't want to presuppose the outcome of other nominations and, as long as we have both trees, they should have the appropriate parent categories. (Let the nominator know about group nominations going forward but, for now, pasted similar !votes on the other nominations.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose maybe a change to populated place. Are there any categories that are for towns or villages though?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Television stations in the United States by metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing redundant about it. The metro areas are often combinations of different cities and other surrounding places. The category is a subcategory of Category:Mass media in the United States by metropolitan area. Mclay1 (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose (as creator): Categorizing by metros and cities seperately makes sense. If all the other noms pass, maybe this won't be needed but I don't want to presuppose the outcome of other nominations and, as long as we have both trees, they should have the appropriate parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge I do not think the exact city of broadcast matters. What matters is metro area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in the United States by city

Nominator's rationale: Includes cities and metropolitan areas Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in the United States by metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing redundant about it. The metro areas are often combinations of different cities and other surrounding places. The category is a subcategory of Category:Mass media in the United States by metropolitan area. Mclay1 (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Categorizing by metros and cities seperately makes sense. If all the other noms pass, maybe this won't be needed but I don't want to presuppose the outcome of other nominations and, as long as we have both trees, they should have the appropriate parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge the city of offices does not matter. The metro if broadcast does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in the Jackson metropolitan area, Mississippi

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Television stations in Jackson, Mississippi Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not all of these places are in Jackson. Mclay1 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Nominated Television stations are usually licensed to the main city with a downtown studio; radio stations tend to be more dispersed which is the case here. No objection to boldly creating a true city specific radio subcategory though, assuming both would be well populated. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose The second item is licensed to Pearl, Mississippi not Jackson. Anyway due to how Radio matters what specific location the offices or broadcast tower is in does not matter. It matters what metro area. So much so Radio stations can move from city to city without much impact. Now if they moved to a new metro area that would be defining change but this is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in Norfolk, Virginia

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in the Hampton Roads-Tidewater area

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Television stations in Hampton Roads Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency. Mclay1 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Good call on this one, could have been a speedy nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in Greater Austin

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How is it redundant? No clear rationale has been given. The places in Greater Austin are not all in Austin so the direction of this merge doesn't make sense. Mclay1 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Background: We use headers in categories sometimes to help clarify the contents but in this topic area they often contradict the actual article title; see the top of Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh for one I haven't gotten to yet. That just doesn't follow current WP:CATNAME best practices. To fix that, I've been clearing similar headers and creating clearly named metro level parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Readers will more intuitively understand where to find suburban stations following the pre-existing city/metro parent categories trees we use for countless other topics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge being in Greater Austin is defining. The exact Municipality of location is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in the Milwaukee metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How is it redundant? No clear rationale has been given. The places in the Milwaukee metropolitan area are not all in Milwaukee so the direction of this merge doesn't make sense. Mclay1 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Background: We use headers in categories sometimes to help clarify the contents but in this topic area they often contradict the actual article title; see the top of Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh for one I haven't gotten to yet. That just doesn't follow current WP:CATNAME best practices. To fix that, I've been clearing similar headers and creating clearly named metro level parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Readers will more intuitively understand where to find suburban stations following the pre-existing city/metro parent categories trees we use for countless other topics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge the metro is defining, not the exact municipality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in San Francisco

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in Greater Los Angeles

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How is it redundant? No clear rationale has been given. The places in Greater Los Angeles are not all in Los Angeles so the direction of this merge doesn't make sense. Mclay1 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Background: We use headers in categories sometimes to help clarify the contents but in this topic area they often contradict the actual article title; see the top of Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh for one I haven't gotten to yet. That just doesn't follow current WP:CATNAME best practices. To fix that, I've been clearing similar headers and creating clearly named metro level parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Readers will more intuitively understand where to find suburban stations following the pre-existing city/metro parent categories trees we use for countless other topics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge the metro is defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in the Denver metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How is it redundant? No clear rationale has been given. The places in the Denver metropolitan area are not all in Denver so the direction of this merge doesn't make sense. Mclay1 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Background: We use headers in categories sometimes to help clarify the contents but in this topic area they often contradict the actual article title; see the top of Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh for one I haven't gotten to yet. That just doesn't follow current WP:CATNAME best practices. To fix that, I've been clearing similar headers and creating clearly named metro level parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Readers will more intuitively understand where to find suburban stations following the pre-existing city/metro parent categories trees we use for countless other topics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge the metro is defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in the Chicago metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How is it redundant? No clear rationale has been given. The places in the Chicago metropolitan area are not all in Chicago so the direction of this merge doesn't make sense. Mclay1 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Background: We use headers in categories sometimes to help clarify the contents but in this topic area they often contradict the actual article title; see the top of Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh for one I haven't gotten to yet. That just doesn't follow current WP:CATNAME best practices. To fix that, I've been clearing similar headers and creating clearly named metro level parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Readers will more intuitively understand where to find suburban stations following the pre-existing city/metro parent categories trees we use for countless other topics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge the metro not through city matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in Dallas

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in Las Vegas

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in Kansas City, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in the Phoenix metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How is it redundant? No clear rationale has been given. The places in the Phoenix metropolitan area are not all in Phoenix so the direction of this merge doesn't make sense. Mclay1 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Background: We use headers in categories sometimes to help clarify the contents but in this topic area they often contradict the actual article title; see the top of Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh for one I haven't gotten to yet. That just doesn't follow current WP:CATNAME best practices. To fix that, I've been clearing similar headers and creating clearly named metro level parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Readers will more intuitively understand where to find suburban stations following the pre-existing city/metro parent categories trees we use for countless other topics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge metro not city matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm really torn on these because two things are simultaneously true. Metropolitan area, not city, tends to be more relevant for a broadcast station because its signal will reach part or all of a metro. This is why our navboxes are by metro. But each broadcast station is assigned a city of license. It is possible for a radio station licensed to Phoenix to have its studios and/or transmitter elsewhere and likewise for a station licensed to a suburb of Phoenix to have its studios and/or transmitter in the city. (The latter is much more the case than the former in Phoenix. Nearly every station has its facilities in city limits, and the main FM/TV transmitter site is also in Phoenix.) But I feel like our readers would expect articles like KVVA-FM (COL: Sun Lakes, studios: Phoenix, transmitter: Phoenix) to be in a category about metropolitan Phoenix radio stations, especially where the link between the COL and the station's operations is tenuous at most. (KVVA is a very good example of this.) I am leaning reverse merge. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 21:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in Greater San Antonio

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How is it redundant? No clear rationale has been given. The places in Greater San Antonio are not all in San Antonio so the direction of this merge doesn't make sense. Mclay1 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Background: We use headers in categories sometimes to help clarify the contents but in this topic area they often contradict the actual article title; see the top of Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh for one I haven't gotten to yet. That just doesn't follow current WP:CATNAME best practices. To fix that, I've been clearing similar headers and creating clearly named metro level parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Readers will more intuitively understand where to find suburban stations following the pre-existing city/metro parent categories trees we use for countless other topics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge metro not city matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Radio stations in Greater Houston

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How is it redundant? No clear rationale has been given. The places in Greater Houston are not all in Houston so the direction of this merge doesn't make sense. Mclay1 (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Background: We use headers in categories sometimes to help clarify the contents but in this topic area they often contradict the actual article title; see the top of Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh for one I haven't gotten to yet. That just doesn't follow current WP:CATNAME best practices. To fix that, I've been clearing similar headers and creating clearly named metro level parent categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Readers will more intuitively understand where to find suburban stations following the pre-existing city/metro parent categories trees we use for countless other topics. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge metro not city matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Church bombings by religious paramilitary organizations

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer, delete for now. The only relevant child category Category:Church bombings by ISIL is already in Category:Church bombings by Islamists SMasonGarrison 03:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:ISIL attacks on churches

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer that's underpopulated. Upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 03:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Book publishing companies by genre

Nominator's rationale: Most of these aren't genres, only one actually is, and "interest"/demographic is the more defining trait for book publishing. Also to align with Category:Publishing companies by content PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Songs written for Indian films

Nominator's rationale: Per Filmi, these categories are synonymous, and they form a category loop. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge I think we should use the name that will be more clear to more editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if merge, which way?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Medieval Polish writers

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mclay1 (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Archaeology of France by region

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Manually move Category:Archaeology of Corsica directly under Category:Archaeology of France. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete/upmerge per nom. Mclay1 (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Natural heritage sites in Ukraine by region

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Pointless container category. Mclay1 (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Biodiversity of Bhutan

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; largely redundant, as there's only one article in here... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Although the category now has just one article, it will not be a good idea to merge them as they are different from each other and articles will also be different. For the biodiversity category we will add the different species in that category later. So, requesting not to merge them and retain the category. Phuentsho (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
@Phuentsho: You created the category over six years ago. If you were planning to populate it, that should have happened by now. It's not helpful to keep underpopulated categories just in case they get populated. Categories should be populated when created and only created if their are already articles to populate them. Mclay1 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Striking the second merge target per further discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Bankers from Wyoming

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Underpopulated category. SMasonGarrison 02:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Attacks on alleged members of Hezbollah

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining and wp:association SMasonGarrison 23:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Why is it not defining? The category name is a bit wieldy though, it may be renamed to Category:Attacks on Hezbollah. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Attacks on Hezbollah. In all of these cases, known members of Hezbollah were intentionally targeted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm in support of the rename. SMasonGarrison 22:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Attacks on Hezbollah. (Even while the original cat name is quite truthful. Extra legal executions indeed, outside the law. But a lot of Wikipedians can't stand that.) -- Just N. (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per above. Mclay1 (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: The allegation itself is the defining characteristic. In some cases the claim was only asserted by the killer and is either unconfirmed or disputed by others. There are some pages about attacks on undisputed members of Hezbollah, e.g. Hassan Nasrallah, but the short version would be a narrower and less useful category. A somewhat analogous example is that there is a Category:People convicted on terrorism charges and not a category of "terrorists". Category:Attacks on Hezbollah is also ambiguous because it could refer to political "attacks", i.e. criticism of the Hezbollah political party. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile there is only one article and one redirect in the category. Wasn't there more in an earlier stage? If not (re)populated the category may as well be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Scientists from Idaho by populated place

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. there are only two populated places in here, which isn't very helpful for navigation. SMasonGarrison 01:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Publications

Nominator's rationale: Ok, this is a bit of a broad scope topic but there is a massively confusing terminology and redundancy issue here that has been bothering me for years. I am not particularly attached to HOW we solve it, as long as we solve it.

Firstly, "publication" is an ambiguous word. It can mean one of several things:

  • the act of publishing something. This is what the article Publication is about. However, none of the categories here are related to this definition.
  • any work ever published. This includes single distribution "publications", like books or movies. Some subcategories of this use this definition, like Category:Publications by format. If we are using this definition, this category is wholly redundant to the Category:Creative works and Category:Mass media trees, and this should be merged there. Despite the long description of "mass media", that is not the definition we are using, and the publications categories are currently already subcategories of mass media - so what do we have this for?
  • any periodical media. This is the definition Category:Publications by interest, all the lists of publications by date, publications by language, are all using. This excludes single-issue publications like books. Many, many publication categories are using "publication" as a synonym for periodical. I consider this to be the most problematic and, as an editor of many magazine and newspaper related articles, the one I most want to solve

As is, we have highly overlapping and inconsistently delineated categories for:

  • Creative works (any individual work, not serialized stuff like newspapers)
  • Periodicals (any serialized work in print)
  • Mass media (all of the above)
  • Publications (all of the above)

There are nuances to this of course, but none worth having so much inconsistency and redundancy. Publications is the most redundant and most confused. Publications, for how we are using it, is sometimes used in categories that exclude individual works, sometimes ones that exclude serial works, sometimes that include both, and in all of these cases overlaps with the other use cases.

I am unsure how to resolve this. I think "Publications" is by far the most ambiguous term so I would prefer it if we merge some of the categories to works, some to mass media, and rename the ones that are all about magazines/newspapers to periodicals. Apologies if I did not format this right. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  • In principle, merging makes a lot of sense. In the way it is currently used, nearly everything here seems to be about Works and most of it about Literary works, that we each already have a category for. That is, I would count newspapers and magazines as Literary works too. Surprisingly, to me at least, is that Category:Publications is not even in the tree of Category:Creative works. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    Well, a serial is not a "work" imo. That is the crux of the distinction. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

May 8

Category:Esperanto-language singers

  • Nominator's rationale The ability to sing in a language is not defining. Nor is the language sung in. Singing is not a generative pursuit. Almost all singing is done with words already created. Songwriting is generative. Although some people do both, at least at the level where it is defining almost no one sings extemporaneously, and even if they did it would still be the at the moment song writing and not the singing that would be defined by language. This category is not defining and we should delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) (please ping on reply) 23:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian cancer survivors

Nominator's rationale: Repost of category previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/October_2007#Category:Wikipedians_who_survived_cancer. Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, "survivor" is very specific. If applicable, users should rather create and subscribe to Category:Wikipedians interested in cancer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: Within the "cancer community," the term "cancer survivor" means anyone who currently has, or previously had, a cancer of any type. We prefer the term "cancer survivor" to "cancer patient" and "former cancer patient." This category currently has 53 members. There are currently over 50 million cancer survivors worldwide. I'm a cancer survivor despite the fact that I have an active, incurable, and lethal case of the plasma cell blood cancer multiple myeloma. I have survived this disease for 11.6 years, which is about double the normal survival expectancy. I wish to collaborate with other cancer survivors to include survival stratagems in Wikipedia articles about various types of cancer. I believe this category facilitates this collaboration, and definitely belongs among the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by medical condition.
Category:Wikipedians interested in cancer would be another valuable collaboration category, although it would primarily comprise cancer clinicians and researchers rather than cancer patients themselves, although the two categories are not mutually exclusive. I contribute to the Multiple myeloma and other Blood cancer articles, despite being a retired-by-cancer engineer. I'm fascinated by multiple myeloma, but I'm much more concerned with my own survival and the survival of others with this disease and other cancers.
Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 22:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) (please ping on reply) 23:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Engvar

  • Propose renaming Category:Engvar to Category:National varieties of English on Wikipedia
Nominator's rationale: Expand abbreviation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure this category is actually useful at all. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 03:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Seems like a useful maintence category for collecting pages and templates about ENGVAR topics. Mclay1 (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European languages on Wikipedia

Nominator's rationale: Useless intermediate layers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Members of the clergy convicted of crimes

Nominator's rationale: To quote my nom for the American subcategory, "This category is named "of the clegy" - clergy meaning leaders within established religions", like Christianity or Judaism - the problem is, the vast majority of the category are the exact opposite, instead leaders of small, fringe religious movements, a la Marshall Applewhite or Matthew F. Hale or Wallace Fard Muhammad. So the vast majority of this category is not actually clergy." There is no clear differentiation between religious leaders and clergy as used here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge Ill-defined distinction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support, then rename sub-cats accordingly. I was working on merging/renaming clergy cats to religious leaders a few years ago, but haven't followed through on that. I remember that someone objected that a couple of Anglican deacons with articles were clergy but not leaders. See Category talk:Religious leaders. – Fayenatic London 23:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    Clergy is defined as a type of leader, and we have the clergy categories setup as subcategories of religious leaders... to be A leader you don't have to be the ultimate leader. Alternatively it is used for people who are ordained in a recognized tradition, which are very few of the people in these categories. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Bengaluru North district

Nominator's rationale: Match renamed main articles Bengaluru North district & Bengaluru South district. Delete Rural education category which has no valid content; any Bengaluru subcats should be within Bengaluru Urban district, not Rural. Delete Ramanagara education category which would have only a college and a museum. Upmerge Colleges category as it has only 1 page. Upmerge stub category which now has only 41 stubs (disclosure: I updated the ones about locations in Bengaluru South district). Rename old Rural template over one that I just created. – Fayenatic London 19:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Shakti pithas in Karnataka

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. No need for double merge, the article is already within the other parent via two other hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Musicians from Idaho by populated place

Nominator's rationale: dual upmerge for now, redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 17:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:People named in the Epstein files

Nominator's rationale: recreated category with a very similar name: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_4#Category:Prominent_individuals_mentioned_in_the_Epstein_files I recommend that the category creature search previous CFDs to see if the category already existed in a similar form SMasonGarrison 17:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Pinging previous participants: @Muboshgu @The Anome SMasonGarrison 01:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment this was requested at WP:AFC/C. As AFC reviewer I accepted it as reasonably named, thus I appear to be the category creature, and we do our best. It's good to find that autocarrot affects everyone equally. You will find the request in the archives and may wish to offer advice to the requestor. I have no horse in this race and am thus neutral. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    @NesserWiki: courtesy ping to the requestor. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Timtrent lol. That's definitely an amusing autocorrect 🤣 SMasonGarrison 23:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose I will concede that both categories are similar; however, I believe they are different enough to be judged separately. This current Category:People named in the Epstein files encompasses anyone who appeared in the Epstein files in the context of cultivating a relationship with Epstein. As opposed to the previous category, which had the arbitrary qualifier of "prominent individuals." Furthermore, I believe being named in the Epstein files is a defining characteristic, as evidenced by the the extensive coverage of the naming of people in the Epstein files from reliable sources. It is so defining a characteristic, in fact, that several of the ledes of articles mention the fact that the article's subject was named in the Epstein files. Overall, this current category is distinct enough to be judged separately from the deleted category, in addition to meeting the defining characteristic requirement.
NesserWiki (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
in the context of cultivating a relationship with Epstein
Nowhere in the category name does it communicate this intended restriction. Nor would it be defining. Οἶδα (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4. Everyone who has a Wikipedia biography is "prominent" in some way. I see no difference in these categories. And being named in these files is not a defining characteristic. Some journalists were named in the Epstein files because Epstein (or someone else) discussed an article they wrote. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4. Οἶδα (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is potentially a defamation liability. There are many people in the Epstein files simply because they've been mentioned in passing or some other reason that in no way makes them connected to Epstein. Mclay1 (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Merely being named or referenced in the Epstein files isn't a defining characteristic, it's a very vague and massive list that includes anyone Epstein or his associates ever talked about. It even encompasses people he never communicated with. BoneAppleTee (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    And already listified, albeit controversially, at List of people named in the Epstein files. Οἶδα (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category: Members of the 1925 Chilean Consultative Comission

Nominator's rationale: This category first came to my attention when I noticed that it had a spelling error. I started a conversation at the Teahouse, where several other editors noted that this probably shouldn't even be a category anyway since the commission doesn't have an article and is not mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia. Marquardtika (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep but move to correct spelling. This, the "Subcommission on Constitutional Reforms" is the committee that drafted the 1925 Constitution, So contrary to the nom, it is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, in 1925 Chilean constitutional referendum. The Spanish article on the constitution lists all members.

Category:WikiProject AI Cleanup open cases

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard has been renamed to WP:AI noticeboard, this would update a tracking category used at the noticeboard to be inline with the move, all pages contained within have already been moved to be subpages of Wikipedia:AI noticeboard. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Strong support as category creator. Borderline WP:C2D. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Support - per nom and Chaotic Enby. InfernoHues (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: An (unresponsive) editor has started prolifically adding the various years of this category to virtually every electronic device under the sun (game consoles, smart phones, tablets, calculators, etc) and its made me realize that really, wording like "computer-related" is too vague and fails WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I'm uncertain how exactly it should be changed - I'm open to other suggestions. It just shouldn't stay like how it is currently. A note that, prior to an editor and IP (that I suspect are the same) mass addition to everything under the sun, the category did previously seem to cover things related to actual computers. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Massacres

Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping concepts. Of course, if there is consensus about this, I will also nominate the subcategories. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion; @PARAKANYAA and LaundryPizza03: pinging the contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Massacres are usually done by larger, organized groups (governments, terrorist groups, war factions, ...), while mass murders can also be done by one or a few individuals. The massacres category contains things like pogroms, genocides, ... Something like the Massacre of Samothrace (1821) would not be called a mass murder, and the entries in Category:21st-century mass murders in Australia would not be called massacres normally. While there is probably some grey area between the two, I don't think simply merging them is beneficial. Fram (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    No, they aren't. The majority of these categories as used are mass murders. The definition of massacre is "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people."
    21st century mass murders in Australia would be called massacres, that is the exact problem we had with the past CfD, where Marcocapelle suggested merging the mass murder categories to murder because there is such high overlap with the massacre categories as to make them totally redundant. Why wouldn't they? How are they not "indiscriminate and brutal slaughters"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    The definition of massacre as given by our article is "A massacre is an event of killing defenseless human beings or other animals. It is generally used to describe a targeted mass killing of civilians by an armed group. " Emphasis mine. It's a subset of mass murders. Fram (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    Wikipedia's definition diverges from scholarly usage, and also even going by that definition, all mass murder is also "killing defenseless human beings or other animals", generally does not mean always. All mass murder articles could be moved to the massacre subcategories, as has been done for years. This is redundant. It having the connotation does not mean it is always used in a context of war or armed groups; looking at the categories, the vast majority are not such cases. For example, look at Category:Massacres in the United States, or many of the other categories, which is almost entirely not done by armed groups, many of which have "massacre" in the title.. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support, the distinction between these two things is a Wikipedia fiction. Most of the categories are already mass murders. The inclusions are mass murders already, so (as demonstrated by the past CfD) either we have to get rid of the massacre categories or the mass murder categories, as there are no entries in the mass murder categories that cannot be subcategorized into the massacre categories. Since massacre literally means "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.", which is really just a POV term, that is the one we should get rid of. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    I do actually agree that conflating state/militant mass killings and non-state mass murders is bad, but the massacres and mass murders categories already do this, as they are synonyms with slightly different connotations, so we would not be making the problem any worse and would reduce the conflation from 2 trees to 1. The massacres category tree is the locus of this problem and its continued existence perpetuates the problem because massacres often refers to both. An alternative possibility, as discussed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 7, is that we split off "Mass killings" to be about the state/other kind. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's a clear contextual difference between the two. Murder is a crime. Massacres are not always legally murder in the country they take place (e.g. state-sponsored killings), though they may be war crimes, which ordinary mass murders by civilians are not. It's helpful to keep them separate. If the categories currently need cleaning up, then that can be done. Mclay1 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
    We are already combining civilian and state killings in the massacre categories. We are not keeping them separate with this, most of the inclusions are mass murders by civilians. What would you suggest we clean up, because massacres are not exclusive to states, e.g. the École Polytechnique massacre, which was a civilian massacre with no criminal conviction, or the Columbine High School massacre, etc. What mass murders are not massacres? What massacres are not crimes? Not all murders have a criminal verdict because a lot of the perpetrators kill themselves. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Ambassadors of Bahrain to Japan

  • Nominator's rationale The categories are too narrow to aid navigation. These narrow cartegories make it harder to find articles. I think there are only around 15 total articles in Category:Ambassadors of Bahrain. Japan, Belgium and Russia are all too narrow categories and so we should merge to the parent categories. Tunisia the article is also in Category:Ambassadors of Bahrain to France, which has 4 articles including a list article. I decided not to nominate that one at least for now. So that category only needs to be merged to Ambassadors to Tunisia, not to the Ambassadors of Bahrain category since it is in another sub-cat. The article is tagged as being in the form of a resume as well. The Luxembourg and Denmark cases are non-resident ambassadorships and so those categories are none defining and need to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Same-sex marriage in Brazil by state

Nominator's rationale: Only two. Is it needable when Cat:Same-sex marriage in Brazil is already small? Dudzcar (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Years in the Basque Country

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCYEAR, many of these categories only have one article, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge the autonomous community did not exist in this years. These categories are anachronistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:The Happy Fits albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Theleekycauldron deleted this category under G7. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains redirects to the group's page, which only contains basic info on each album. Not an aid to navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scholars of the Nasrid period

Nominator's rationale: parent is People from the Emirate of Granada, but maybe I'm missing something obvious? SMasonGarrison 03:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

FOOth-century Sufis

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. These two categories 400 years apart and aren't very helpful for navigation at this time. SMasonGarrison 03:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. For now, "medieval" suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Striking my vote per discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. – Fayenatic London 10:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand and populate the hierarchy. I looked at 10th to 14th centuries and easily started categories for those dates, which I have added to this nomination so as not to be disruptive. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:1358 establishments in Southeast Asia

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 01:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Populated places in Ngawi

Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category, upmerge for now. If not merged, it should be renamed to Populated places in Ngawi Regency to match the parent category. SMasonGarrison 01:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Regencial capitals in East Java

Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category and highly overlapping. upmerge for now. theres a template and one capital. SMasonGarrison 01:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

People from villages in Ngawi Regency

Nominator's rationale: All of these categories were created by the same user and are underpopulated, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 01:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Spanish singers by populated place

Nominator's rationale: Multi-upmerge for now. There are only two cities in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. SMasonGarrison 01:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, can easily be populated further with singers from Seville, Valencia, Málaga, ... Fram (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

May 7

Category:1967 disestablishments in the United Arab Republic occupation of the Gaza Strip

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need an isolated category like this? SMasonGarrison 21:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • More specific target per discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

A.E. Hansen

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers. The only contents of this tree is a category Category:Snowbird (sailboat) SMasonGarrison 20:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Professional wrestlers who competed in MMA

Convert Category:Professional wrestlers who competed in MMA to article Professional wrestlers who competed in MMA
Nominator's rationale: This feels more like the subject of an article rather than an intersection between being a professional wrestler and a mixed martial artist SMasonGarrison 23:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Category. X sport who were also in y sport is not a category we do. Creating an article is dependent on having reliable sources that meet specific guidelines. I do not think we have the expertise at CfD to mandate articles. At least I have never seen a category that had enough sourcing to pass as an article. People are free to submit this proposed article to articles for creation whatever we say here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:2026 Canadian provincial elections

Nominator's rationale: Subcategory of unclear necessity. There is no established scheme of subbing Canadian provincial elections down into their own separate subcategory ghetto -- except for this new creation, all Canadian provincial-level elections prior to 2026 are just in the "elections in Canada" categories, not in their own separate "Canadian provincial elections" subcategories. And with only ten provinces and three territories, there just aren't a huge number of Canadian provincial elections each year to warrant such a scheme anyway -- even with provincial elections filed in the national-level parent instead of a provincial-level category, the largest national-level category in the entire scheme still has less than 25 articles in it total, so they're just not large enough to need this on size grounds. But regardless, this is a scheme that would have to exist comprehensively across the board for all years or not at all, not a thing that's uniquely needed for 2026 alone. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, but I would be alright with a Category:Provincial elections in Canada if someone created that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. But I agree with Marcocapelle that we should have a Category:Provincial and territorial elections in Canada

Category:Gay user templates

Nominator's rationale: Current name is a bit confusing, as the term "gay" can also be used more broadly for all homosexuals, or even all LGBTQ+ people in general. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom, though some entries will need to first be moved to more appropriate categories like Category:LGBTQ user templates, which Trilletrollet appears to have at least started doing (thanks for handling that on my userbox by the way) ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 20:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Support nominated rename or rename to Category:Gay men user templates. All to be non-ambiguous, and the second suggested rename to align with the Gay man article. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Against it is not confusing to mistake Gay, Lesbian and LBTQ, they are different terms. Catfurball (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Gay men user templates instead, and sorry to @Trilletrollet: I forgot that there was an article named Gay men. Catfurball (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Support. Gay means gay men within the LGBT community. The adjective "gay" also means carefree and merry — these templates are not about carefree and merry users. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – not queer. 10:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Forgot to add it in the nom, but I think we should also move Category:Gay Wikipedians to Category:Gay male Wikipedians or Category:Gay men Wikipedians for the sake of consistency. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 20:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:People of the 1113–1115 Balearic Islands expedition

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Question: Would the final rung rule apply here because both of the categories are religions? Like maybe non-diffusing per EGRS? Christians of the 1113–1115 Balearic Islands expedition (10 P) Muslims of the 1113–1115 Balearic Islands expedition Thoughts? I'm not opposed to merging if EGRS doesn't apply. SMasonGarrison 19:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge nominee into parents, or merge subcategories into nominee?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment Subcategories tagged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Mass killings by ideology

Nominator's rationale: Since there is currently no parent category for Mass killing, broadening this category would allow the category to expand outside of the two subcategories. Mclay1 (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Mass murders unless/until there is clear room for expansion for a renamed Category:Mass killings. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    Going by the article Mass killing, there are plenty of examples. The category would also then clearly differentiate state-sanctioned killings from the crime of murder. Mclay1 (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Ok, I am not against the proposed name by all means. Feel free to populate the category after the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    Either delete or totally split the tree from massacre and mass murder as is being discussed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 8. I think it might be good to have all the state/militant group type killings in one category and the lone wolf type mass murders in another, as these are generally not discussed the same in sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Founders of Oxbridge colleges

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:The Presets members

Nominator's rationale: Not required to link the 2 sole members of a musical group when it is already mentioned in the individual and group's articles. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:19th century in the Basque Country (autonomous community)

Nominator's rationale: rename, current name is anachronistic, the Basque autonomous community was established in the second half of the 20th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Rename per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:State Unani Medical College Allahabad alumni

Nominator's rationale: Only one member, Hakeem Muhammad Akhtar. He became an Islamic scholar rather than a medical practitioner, so I don't think a merge to Category:Unani practitioners would be appropriate. There is no article on the college, which for the record is stated on the category page to be located in Prayagraj, formerly and colloquially known as Allahabad. Only two other colleges of Unani medicine have articles, and neither have alumni categories, so this is not part of a hierarchy on that topic. – Fayenatic London 22:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
I tried to look around through a Google search for some other prominent alumni, though the institution must have well known alumni in Unani medicne, but that isn't really something I can search for extensively. I couldn't find anything good. I don't have any issues if this category is deleted. signed, Aafi (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Delete for now, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreation of the category when a couple more articles can be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, just underpopulated. -- Just N. (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
No clue what "merge" is being referred to. Οἶδα (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Roman sites in Burgundy

Nominator's rationale: merge, only 1 resp. 2 articles in these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sennecaster (Chat) 00:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

May 6

Category:Orators

  • Nominator's rationale These two things overlap a lot. So much so the Rhetoricians lead says the subjects are both. Orator more often refers to people who go around giving public speeches. Rhetorician can mean this as well, but I think is used a bit less, but also can refer to people who instruct others in the art. However a lot of people historically who were instructors in the art were also practitioners. I think this is a case like Category:Dramatists and playwrights and several others where we have two different terms that primarily overlap and that are both used so that it does not make sense to choose just one, but is best if we have the category name have both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I am not opposing the nomination but if perhaps we keep the categories then we could make a better distinction by renaming Category:Rhetoricians to Category:Writers about rhetoric. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless every single person in this category is both these sorts of combined categories are misleading. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Can you name one person who was an orator but not a rhetorician? A rhetorician and not an orator? How would you define the scope. We have combined categories like Category:hatters and milliners. Hatters made hats for men and were normally men, milliners were women who made, decorated, and sold hats for women. The two professions were distinct, although in the last 80 years they have largely merged. We have lots of people pre-1945 who were clearly one or the other. The Mad Hatter is not the mad milliner, and since women did not wear felt and milliners did not get mercury poisoning from treating it, there were not mad milliners as there were mad hatters. However there is just not enough to justify a split. I think we have a similar case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
      From my reading of the articles, they don't seem to be the same thing at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment the heading of the Rhetoricians Category says "Category of Rhetoricians/Orators". So clearly some people think they are different. My reading is that both are people known for giving public speeches. If people feel there is a difference it would be best to actually explain what the difference is and give clear examples of who falls under each category. Right now it looks like orator is the more common name, but both are used to describe people who engage in public speaking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sennecaster (Chat) 00:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I think. My take is that orators are indeed "are people known for giving public speeches" (which in probably most older cases do not survive), but rhetoricians are writers on and teachers of the composition and delivery of speeches, a considerably different thing, though of course there is a big overlap. For example Cassius Longinus (philosopher) is categorized as a rhetorician, and is one of the most famous classical ones. His fairly long article makes no mention of him making public speeches in any context other than teaching. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
The same might be said of John Franklin Genung (1850-1919). I'm sure some people are in the wrong categories - I'm not sure the only person in Category:Israeli orators belongs in either, and clearly that category is under the wrong parent! The ones we should probably merge are Category:Rhetoric theorists (including George Orwell) and the very dubious-looking Category:Trope theorists (including Charles Dickens, James Joyce, and Martin Amis - these last two were certainly not orators). Including Gail Simone may well have been a joke. I think someone has been running amock here, adding people mentioned in some book in communication theory. These two categories seem to be mostly modern American academics, and older Jesuits etc. But I think more specialist advice is needed. Probably the three most famous English orators, Edmund Burke, William Ewart Gladstone and Winston Churchill are nowhere in this tree, and where are the preachers?? "Orators" are apparently mainly classical or American. Does the List of female rhetoricians contain a single "orator" before very recent times? I think not. Merging to create a larger mess probably won't help; the whole tree needs a proper audit. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Video game spiritual successors

Nominator's rationale: While some games are referred to as such, nothing is particularly gained by grouping them together in helping to understand the concept, and it is often extremely loosely defined (and poorly). Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep The spiritual successor article offers a well put classification for titles: games by the same studio, games by the same staff or only common themes.
This category is similar to the existing Category:Sequel video games. A description is already included, and if needed there can be a higher standard to categorize articles based on the categories above, but this doesn't mean that the category has to be deleted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
But Sequels are a very easy thing to define and a fact, while spiritual successor is subjective to opinion and with very loose definitions.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
It might be the case sometimes, but the criteria that I mentioned and a mainstream point of view makes the definition more objective. There are many titles whose team develop the game specifically with a spiritual successor in mind; sometimes because they lost the intellectual rights, others just as an inspiration. This makes it a defining category. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete The conditions for an article's inclusion in the category are unclear. A game may be intended as a spiritual successor to another one by its developer, who e.g. wants to emulate the original game's properties but has no licencing rights to develop a proper sequel; or it may be considered as a spiritual successor by a game reviewer, or by the general public, often as a result of the developer, consciously or not, making a game that is similar to their previous one, e.g. because it uses the same game engine. All of these are subjective. So, how should we decide if we put an article in the category? Is it enough for the game's creators to state that their product is a spiritual successor? Should the creators actually use the phrase "spiritual successor" or is it enough for them to say the game "plays on the same themes"? Or maybe we should consider whether the game is commonly considered a spiritual successor by the gaming reviewers? How many reviews we need to validate the claim of "successorship"? Is one enough?
It does not help that NoonIcarus, the editor who created this category, makes a mess of its contents. Case in point: Kenny Dalglish Soccer Manager was included apparently because it links to the spiritual successor article in the sentence "Kenny Dalglish Soccer Manager is a spiritual successor to the 1982 video game Football Manager". This sentence contains a reference to a 1989 Your Sinclair review that merely states that "As for the underlying strategy, well unsurprisingly it's very similar to the original Football Manager", and does not name Kenny Dalglish a spiritual successor (although that's not even surprising given that the phrase "spiritual successor" was apparently not coined until the 1990s). So the reason for Kenny Dalglish's inclusion is, seemingly, because one reviewer noticed that, being a football manager, its gameplay is obviously similar to another game in the same genre. If that is a criterion for an article's inclusion in the category, then it would make the category useless. 99% games on the market are derivative of others - they share ideas, gameplay mechanics, game engines, story elements, mood - simply because that's how humans create in general: they take other people's ideas and try to improve on them. Finding a game that is not noted for similarity to another title in at least a few game reviews would be a daunting task, I assure you. --Krótki (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Many thanks for the notice. I have already removed the category and changed the content of the article accordingly (), as it was original research. Spiritual successors need to be described as such by the development team or many reviewers, and not simply because they have a few similarities. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete The criteria for being a spiritual successor is insanely vague. For example, is every action FPS a "spiritual successor" to DOOM, or is Ultrakill a spiritual successor because it's fast-paced and brutal? It falls under WP:SUBJECTIVECAT without a doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Both examples are absolutely not spiritual successors or fit for the category, starting with that they fail WP:CATV. There has to be more similarities for critics to use the term "spiritual successor", or simply be stated by the development team. So far I have tried avoiding categorizing articles where this opinion is voiced by a single review or person, or where the original vision of development changed. In some cases, the titles are so similar that they have the same sprites or the same user interface.
As I mentioned before, the description can be modified for a more specific scope, but that doesn't mean that the category has to be deleted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
While theoretically it can only be limited to games that critics have called "spiritual successors", the category itself heavily invites miscategorization by using a label that is subjective. Another example would be a category called "evil people". There are many people that have been described by reliable sources as evil, but it would be inappropriate due to how much it invites subjectivity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete we should categorize by clear concepts. This is an inherently loose connection. It is too loose and debatable for a category to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Non-defining, non-resident ambassador categories

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining categories for non-resident ambassadors containing only a single article. Unhelpful for navigation and contributing to over-categorisation of individual articles. AusLondonder (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Most likely already in other categories for ambassadors from the same country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should not categorize non-resident ambassadorship. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete we don't include non-resident ambassadors as per consensus. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete non-resident ambassadorships are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Transport disasters and Category:Transport accidents and incidents

Propose merge: I would suppose to merge “Category:Transport disasters” into Category:Transport accidents and incidents.
Nominator's rationale: There in not a difference in “disasters” and “accidents and incidents” in the (sub)category-trees.
Category:Transport disasters is a subcat of Category:Transport accidents and incidents. Because it’s a subcat, all pages in the “transport disasters” category should be only disasters and not general accidents and incidents. However in most of the (sub-)category trees this is not the case at all.
Some examples:
~2026-27559-91 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Nominator's rationale: rename removing Iraq and Levant. Meanwhile it is a global organization with "provinces" in many different countries. The main article is Islamic State but for a category name just Islamic State without disambiguator is probably too ambiguous. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Islamic State per WP:C2D. I'd argue we don't need the disambiguator. Unqualified, Islamic State is unambiguous and the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's only similar to the generic Islamic state, from which it is already distinuished by WP:DIFFCAPS, plus singular common noun phrases like that generally aren't used as category names, so there's no chance of confusion in category space. Category:Islamic State already redirects to the category so clearly there's no need for the disambiguation. If we do disambiguate, perhaps the disambiguator should be Category:Islamic State (Islamist group) per Category:Islamist groups? Otherwise, we should use organisation for consistency with the article's WP:ENGVAR style. Whatever the name ends up being, the subcategories should follow suit. Mclay1 (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to Islamic State. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Carriage museums in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Mclay1 (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Cricket trophies and awards

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. An unnecessary tangent. Please merge into Category:Cricket awards and rankings, which is the main category for cricket trophy articles. Jack (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi, Mclay1. Sorry, it must be yonks since I last used CfD. I recall there being some drama over SMALLCAT a few years ago, but I didn't know it had been scrapped. As you say, this should be a merge, so I've reworded the nomination. Thanks very much, Jack (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Mclay1 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, not a clear difference between these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT. No opinion on the target name, but these appear to cover the same area. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Wisden Trophy

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT which has no potential for growth. WP:OCEPON, per Mclay1 below. Like all cricket awards and trophies, the main article belongs in Category:Cricket awards and rankings. No other cricket trophy has its own category, so this one is an unnecessary tangent. Jack (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. But note that WP:SMALLCAT and "no potential for growth" are no longer valid reasons at CfD. Mclay1 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep The Wisden Trophy is neither an "award" or a "ranking". It's the trophy that was played for approximately twice every four years by the England cricket team and the West Indies cricket team, during a series of four or five Test matches played over the course of two or three months. Whichever team wins the most Tests in the series will win the trophy; if the series is tied, the current holder retains the trophy. There are other cricket trophies that are also played for by just two teams on a similar basis; the Ashes (England and Australia) is the oldest and best-known, but there are also the Frank Worrell Trophy (Australia and West Indies); Basil D'Oliveira Trophy (England and South Africa); Trans-Tasman Trophy (Australia and New Zealand), and several others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    There are numerous "trophy" articles in the awards category already, including the ones you mention. Wisden Trophy is not a special case, and certainly should not have its own category. Marcocapelle is spot on saying it does nothing to help navigation, and thereby our readers. Jack (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    Well, how about suggestions of other articles that might belong in the category? For instance, West Indian cricket team in England in 1963; West Indian cricket team in England in 2020 and a whole bunch between? There are 28 of these in all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete for Now per WP:NARROWCAT since it consists of only the Wisden Trophy and List of Wisden Trophy records, which are already crosslinked and well categorized. No objection to recreation though if multiple new articles appear on the individual matches or years. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:KickFlip

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category with minimal content and subcategories that sufficiently interlink from one another. WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Knight Commanders of the Order of the Defender of State of Penang

Nominator's rationale: Correct plural per Category:Knights Commander of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of Sarawak, etc. StAnselm (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not think this meets the very narrow conditions in which an award is defining enough to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Johnpacklambert. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per nom. While an award for a subnational level is not as notable as a national award as in the above nomination, this seems notable enough. The criteria for award categories are not "very narrow"; per WP:OCAWARD, the award simply has to be defining for its recipients. Furthermore, this is part of a group of categories in Category:Recipients of the Order of the Defender of State of Penang and it wouldn't make sense to delete just one. Mclay1 (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comments in the discussion below. Jack (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    See my responses below. Mclay1 (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Subnational awards in general have trouble being defining, for instance with all the state-level halls of fame in the US we deleted. Looked through the articles and the high ranking military and civilian recipients generally list this one in passing as one of many awards they received. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Knight Commanders of the Order of Queen Sālote Tupou III

Nominator's rationale: Correct plural. StAnselm (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not think this meets the very narrow conditions in which an award is defining enough to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Johnpacklambert. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per nom. It's classic Wikipedia systemic bias to think that we can have categories for orders of chivalry for European countries but not Tonga. The criteria for award categories are not "very narrow"; per WP:OCAWARD, the award simply has to be defining for its recipients, which such a national award definitely is. Furthermore, this is part of a group of categories in Category:Order of Queen Sālote Tupou III and it wouldn't make sense to delete just one. Mclay1 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Mclay1. Deleting only one out of a larger system of categorization will only feed systemic bias. If these award categories are to be deleted, it needs a broader discussion not bit by bit deletion. Katzrockso (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't agree that receiving the award is a defining characteristic of the recipient. What defines them is the real life experience which earned the award. As for award categories worldwide, not just those about European chivalry, I would delete all of them, including Oscars and Players of the Year. None of them define their recipients, who are chosen subjectively. Awards may be mentioned in the recipients' articles, but they should not be category subjects unless they have a consensus-based special dispensation. I think OCAWARD should be discussed elsewhere. Jack (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    We can't delete one specific award category on the basis that you think all awards categories should be deleted. Either we should discuss the whole system or this category on its specific merits. As it stands, we have a categorisation system for awards into which this one fits. I don't understand why it would not be defining to receive a national honour or prestigious award; it would certainly be a defining moment in the life of many people. Mclay1 (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    My reason to delete this is that no award is a defining characteristic of the recipient. Johnpacklambert above said the conditions are "very narrow" but, unless there are some extra-special cases, I can't accept that any subjectively-chosen award defines a recipient. As I did say, we need to discuss OCAWARD elsewhere. Jack (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    And I responded to that argument. It's not a reasonable argument that no award is defining; Oscar-winning actors, for example, are very frequently referred to as Oscar-winning actors. That's not a trivial characteristic for their profession. As I said above, even if you think there should be no awards categories, that's not the rules we're playing by, so this category should be judged against the existing guidelines. Similarly, I pointed out in my first comment that Johnpacklambert's comment is completely incorrect. Mclay1 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Clicked through all the articles and they're mostly high ranking Tongan officials plus a rugby union player and none treated the award as defining. Open to future nominations for other awards many, but not all of which, may fall short of WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Fictional populated places in Chile

Nominator's rationale: Only entry is a mythical city that, in some accounts, is placed in Argentina instead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • merge per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge we should not be more precise than we can be accurate. Also we should not have 1 article categories. They actively hinder navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Fictional populated places in Egypt

Nominator's rationale: Only one article about a legendary city that, in some accounts, is placed in modern-day Libya instead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • merge per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge we should not be more precise than we can be accurate. Also we should not have 1 article categories. They actively hinder navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Environmental organisations based in Egypt

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge It is already in a subcategory of Category:Organizations based in Egypt. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Nostalgia television shows

Nominator's rationale: A more accurate description given this category is discussing shows where nostalgia is a major theme, not necessarily that the shows themselves are recognized as being nostalgic. Nostalgia is not a defined genre, and this category should make its topic clear. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 02:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I've changed the parent cat to Category:Television shows by topic. Οἶδα (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • It isn't really about (the feeling of) nostalgia, it is more about (what happened in) the past. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
    It is about things viewed as being nostalgic, but not every show in the cat is considered nostalgic on their own, which is what the present name implies. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 00:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Either way nostalgia is beside the point. This is more something like Category:Television shows about the history of popular music. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
      If you have an applicable alternative title to suggest, then I am all ears, but this is what I proposed. Not every entry in this category is about older music. Some are about older television and culture. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 01:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
      • Ok, then the better alternative is Category:Television shows about the history of popular culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
        Yeah this is tricky. Some articles don't belong because they're not really "about nostalgia", but rather products of nostalgic interest in past decades, like those described at 1970s nostalgia and 1980s nostalgia. That's probably less aptly described as being "about nostalgia" compared to, say, Songs about nostalgia, where the lyrics are actually identifiably about a longing for the past. Happy Days and That '70s Show, for example, would moreso technically be historical fiction or even period pieces, but only loosely because most literature wouldn't probably term them that. I get the motivation here hough. Shows like Happy Days, That '70s Show, The Goldbergs (2013 TV series) are defined by a brand of nostalgic kitsch that differs from a period drama like Mad Men or period comedy/drama The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. That being said, the other many articles contained in this category are moreso historical/cultural showcases presenting media from the past. I'm not sure how we'd categorize that. Television shows about the history of popular culture sounds right. Though Television series about the history of popular culture matches similar categories. Though "history of popular culture" is not precedented in the category system. I tried looking and found articles for similar retrospective shows like The Sixties (miniseries), The Seventies (miniseries), Dark Side of the 90s, The '90s: The Last Great Decade but none have categories that would solve the issue here. Οἶδα (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Companies based in Batu, East Java

Nominator's rationale: One article only. I am not sure if the article (Jawa Timur Park) is, or even should be, in a subcategory of Category:Companies of Indonesia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: dual merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Modern liberal media in the United States

Nominator's rationale: The term "Modern" is imprecise. What was modern in 1990 is probably historic in 2026. While I have made a renaming suggestion, I believe the community can choose a more closely defined term, perhaps date bracketed.
There will be other categories similar to this. An example is the subcat of this category Category:Modern liberal media in the United States. I have chosen to nominate only one, but see no obstacle to the inclusion of others and by other editors 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • It seems this refers to Modern liberalism but we do not even have Category:Liberal media in the United States so let's start with that as a target. I doubt if we need a "modern liberal" subcategory within liberalism. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete this is functionally an opinion Category which we generally do not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:2023 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup

Nominator's rationale: No links to this category redirect except for adjacent {{Category series navigation}}. Unnecessary for, and impedes navigation. See adjacent cats which unnecessarily link to 2023 & 2024.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - the parent article was originally at 2023 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup; the tournament was moved back a year. Having a redirect makes sense. GiantSnowman 18:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
    So keep the mainspace #R, but the category has no associated mainspace article, and no links to it, and it hinders navigation, so it shouldn't exist.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
    Why/how does it hinder navigation? GiantSnowman 19:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    See Category:2024 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    I don't see how the 2023 category hinders navigation... GiantSnowman 18:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
    • It is confusing, when you click 2023 you get 2024. It gives the impression that a mistake has been made. It would be clearer when there is no possibility to click 2023. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
      I don't get confused, but if that's the issue, add a note to the 2023 category. GiantSnowman 18:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
      Why add a note? The category has no associated mainspace article and no non-navigation links to it. You're proposing a solution to a problem caused by the category's existence, to justify its existence.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per above discussion. A note on the 2024 category page ("this was originally meant for 2023") may make some sense because that is where people land on. A note on the 2023 category page will not even be read. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Bermudian women journalists

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry which is already in Category:Bermudian journalists. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:The Antioch Review

Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles, only the magazine and a single editor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Fiction about crime

Nominator's rationale: Essentially synonymous, form a category loop. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Merge - agree, clearly a category loop. And also agree that Crime Fiction is the clearer category name to keep, consistent with other fiction type naming conventions. Stormh99 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose this way, the subcategories do not necessarily contain crime films as a genre. Maybe rename to Category:Films by criminal topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose, crime fiction is a genre that is not entirely overlapping with fiction about crime. Crime fiction should be subcategory, that closes the loop. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Women association football coaches in Africa

Nominator's rationale: Category:Association football coaches not diffused by gender or continent. Gjs238 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The article can perhaps be added to Category:Female association football managers, the article text uses "coach" and "manager" interchangeably. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Women association football coaches which could also include women like Izzy Christiansen, Sarina Wiegman, Emma Hayes, Marie-Louise Eta and quite a few others, and which could be part of the women by occupation tree. Notable subject. Fram (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Fram: In football, the term is generally "manager" and those women are all in Category:Female association football managers. Mclay1 (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    Those women are now all in that cat, after you added them; they weren't all at the time I wrote my comment. And this means that the nom is incorrect, and that football coaches are diffused by gender already. Anyway, merge to Category:Female association football managers instead, with no objection to division by continent or country if that category gets bigger. Fram (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    I only added two of them. Also someone else already added the one article in the nominated category so no merge is needed. Mclay1 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Women association football coaches. Also the manager category would best be renamed to use women as well. Generally women in the word used to refer to adult human females, and in both these occupations all the articles will be on adults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The above commenters who suggested renaming the category to Category:Women association football coaches are mistaken in thinking it is a needed category. In football, the people they're thinking of are managers not coaches, and we already have Category:Female association football managers. Mclay1 (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mclay1 et al. Typically, football does have "coaches", but these are assistants to the managers, & rarely notable until they become managers. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

May 5

Tangut women by century

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that we have enough people to really populate this tree. Most of these categories only have 1 person in them. Upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 23:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Also in the spirit of WP:FINALRUNG. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge only to Tangut people. In general we treat women by ethnicity as a container Category. We only use it to hold other categories mainly women by ethnicity plus occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Private Practice (TV series) episode redirects to lists

Nominator's rationale: Every episode is a redirect-- some are here twice because of different capitalization. It's unlikely that any will become articles. Fuddle (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
OK, I misunderstood the point of this category, but the sentiment is the same. Are we just adding every episode for every show just in case? Fuddle (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Peru at the 1930 FIFA World Cup

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article, 1930 FIFA World Cup Group 3, on Peru's grouping at the 1930 World Cup. Serves no navigational purpose. AusLondonder (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Guyana–Peru relations

Nominator's rationale: Category containing two articles about participation by Guyana at Pan American Games hosted by Peru and a redirect to Foreign relations of Peru. The first two articles don't belong and a category with a single redirect is useless for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Barbados–Peru relations

Nominator's rationale: Category containing two articles on the participation of Barbados at Pan American Games hosted in Peru. Not related to bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Parganas of sarkar

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that these categories are helpful for navigation. They all seem to be villages, and contain descriptions like: "Parganas listed in the Ain-i-Akbari as belonging to sarkar Tanda, in Subah Bengal." Perhaps they should be merged or listified? SMasonGarrison 23:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. I am not sure whether it is useful to listify either, it might become an endless list of all villages in India that existed in the 17th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Liechtenstein–Norway relations

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article, Liechtenstein at the 1994 Winter Paralympics, which quite obviously does not belong. AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Conservative professors

Nominator's rationale: This is a new category, and for various reasons Wikipedia has never before used "professor" to categorize anyone: for one thing, it means different things in different countries. We could possible move this to Category:Conservative academics, but I'm not sure we really need it. StAnselm (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Notability:
Academia is the object of intense political controversy. It is frequently claimed that there are few or no conservative professors. Many departments and universities have no conservative faculty. Arguably, being a conservative academic is itself noteworthy.
  • Precedents:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scholars_and_academics
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Lists_of_scholars_and_academics
There are many, many subcategories under the category "scholars and academics," and many lists on the page "Lists of scholars and academics," many of which regard identity, background, methodology, credentials, etc. etc. It is strange that 'conservative,' alone out of all these subcategories, would be deemed unnecessary.
Fine to change the name to 'conservative academics' if that is better. AvidReader11663 (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial intersection. We should diffuse academics (or any other occupation) by what stands out in their job, not by a mere opinion about something that is unrelated to their specialism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
    On the contrary, politics affects every field in the humanities and social sciences. It affects the choice and priority of research topics, the research questions that are asked, decisions about teaching and curriculum, etc.
    Many academics identify themselves as "scholar-activists" and lend their academic authority to political causes. Many professors are visible and effective advocates for political programs. Politics has a noticeable effect on many areas of academia.
    For example, in the study of history, progressive historians often pay particular attention to marginalized peoples and groups in society, while conservative historians are more concerned with the biographies of powerful military and political leaders. AvidReader11663 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    • We can't put biographies together in categories because they might pay more attention to one or the other topic as inferred from their political preference, we should put them together if they actually do pay more attention to one or the other topic. E.g. Category:Historians by field of study is a valid way of categorizing. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
      Have you looked at the academics who are included in this category? Every single one of them is notable for having some aspect of their academic career inflected by the question of politics, e.g. conservative vs. progressive. All of these "conservative academics" actually do pay more attention to themes and values that have a conservative tone, for example, religion, tradition, hierarchy, etc.
      For example, in English literature or art history, conservative academics tend to defend the traditional Western canon of "great works," while progressive academics aim to "decolonize" their fields of study by calling attention to marginalized works by artists who were formerly neglected due to racism or colonialism.
      "Historians by field of study" would include, for example, all historians who study the British empire. This one field includes both progressive academics who call attention to the domination and oppression of colonized peoples under British imperialism, as well as conservative academics who defend the achievements of the empire.
      Within "Historians by field of study" is the category: "British Historians of World War II."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_historians_of_World_War_II
      In this category is included, for example, David Olusoga, a progressive historian who researches the role of African and Asian soldiers in the war, as well as Niall Ferguson, a right-wing historian who argues that the British empire defended freedom.
      "Conservative vs. progressive" provides useful information about the actual academic work of professors within a field of study, for example Olusoga vs. Ferguson. AvidReader11663 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
      Let's look at the very first entry included in this category: Mortimer J. Adler
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_J._Adler
      A major part of his entry is his work on the "Great books of the Western canon." This is an essentially conservative concept. Progressive scholars would question the very notion of "Great Books," and prefer to focus on literature by marginalized authors.
      Simply listing Adler as a "philosopher" and "Educational theorist" (which he is) fails to capture this important aspect of his academic work, which is that he advanced a conservative conception is his discipline.
      Political controversy is a major aspect of all of the academic work that these academics actually do. It is just strange to claim that it is trivial, or somehow unrelated to their specialism. AvidReader11663 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
      • It escapes me how the research topics of e.g. Mortimer J. Adler are related to conservatism. To me this whole category makes a strong impression of WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
        Here are examples from within the field of history. Both these cases are example of how the academic field of history is affected by political disputes: How to understand the history of fascism and communism? Progressive academics argue that Nolte and Payne are too uncritical of their right-wing subjects.
        Ernst Nolte "Nolte was a prominent conservative academic from the early 1960s and was involved in many controversies related to the interpretation of the history of fascism and communism, including the Historikerstreit in the late 1980s. In later years, Nolte focused on Islamism and "Islamic fascism".
        Here is a longer article on the controversy surrounding Nolte's work: Historikerstreit "The position taken by conservative intellectuals, most prominently Ernst Nolte, was that the Holocaust was not unique and therefore Germans should not bear any special burden of guilt for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question".
        Stanley G. Payne "In the 21st century Payne's later works became known for their "revisionist" approach, and received criticism from other historians as overly benevolent towards Falangism and for allegedly spreading Francoist narratives."
        Every academic in these fields is aware that political questions shape their work. This is an article about a broad campaign, across many disciplines, to reshape the fields of study to undo the systematic biases of colonialism, etc. Decolonization of knowledge The academics in favor of decolonization are on the progressive side of the controversy, and the conservative academics are on the opposite side of the controversy. AvidReader11663 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
        The Wikipedia entry on Adler's project, Great Books of the Western World, describes how the project received criticism for being too focused on white European males. [1].
        The very concept of the "Western canon" is also criticized for lacking cultural diversity. [2]
        The author of a book about Adler describes how his project was controversial because his ideas aligned with the conservative side of the "culture wars." [3]
        All of these are examples of Adler's work becoming part of political controversy, on the conservative side. Many academics, both conservative and progressive, would say that advocating "Great Books" or the "Western Canon" is a conservative position.
        [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World#Criticisms_and_responses
        "The selection of authors has come under attack, with some dismissing the project as a celebration of European men, ignoring contributions of women and non-European authors. The criticism swelled in tandem with the feminist and civil rights movements."
        [2] Western canon
        "Recent discussions emphasize the need for greater cultural diversity within the canon that are more encompassing of wise and accomplished humans."
        [3] https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/12/18/interview-tim-lacy-dream-democratic-culture-mortimer-j-adler-and-great-books-idea
        "Of course this resistance linked back to Adler, who late in his life — in concert with conservative culture warriors --- declared that the canon was set and not revisable. Some of the biggest promoters of the great books idea had, ironically, made it unpalatable to a great number of intellectuals."
AvidReader11663 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if their political interests were central to their notability (as might be true of some professors and unlikely to be true for most), "conservative" means too many different things in different countries at different times to have a clear categorical meaning. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    How is "conservative" possibly more unclear than "literature" or "philosophy" or "art"? Every one of these terms can encompass a vast range of meaning.
    The only professors in this category are those whose academic work reflects a certain political orientation. AvidReader11663 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete We avoid opinion categories when the meaning is clear. In this case the term has different meanings in various times and places. I do not think this unclear opinion Category is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
    This category is not a matter of opinions but of specific, concrete values. A professor whose academic work emphasizes values such as hierarchy, tradition and order is a conservative professor. A professor whose academic work emphasizes values of liberation, decolonization, and equity is a progressive professor.
    Every category has different meanings in different times and places. Here are two members of the category of "Art Educators:
    Category:Art educators
    Aminata Dembélé Bagayoko " She is President of the Association pour la Formation Féminine et Appuis Communautaires (AFFAC) In 1996 she founded the school Promo-femme: Center of Audiovisual Education for Young Women, which has "changed the gender demographic of photographers working in Bamako""
    Johann Gottfried Niedlich "In addition to his work as a teacher, from 1800 to 1824 he created several large oil paintings on mythological subjects. In 1802, he created ceiling paintings at the City Palace, Potsdam. In 1818, following a fire at the Schauspielhaus Berlin, he participated in reconstructive work by providing allegorical wall paintings. He also did decorative paintings for Charlottenburg Palace"
    The meaning of "art educator" changes massively between Niedich and Bagayoko, and yet the category still applies to both. AvidReader11663 (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete for terminology too vague to be useful. The meaning of "conservative" drifts over time and between nations. This vagueness in turn invites synthesis. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Candidates in the 2022 Colombian presidential election

  • Nominator's rationale The 3 categories here combined have a total of only 22 articles. That is not enough to justify splitting a category. Having 1 category will make it easier to navigate between articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Terrorist incidents in the 2nd millennium

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Generally, there is no need to have this many category layers. We already have enough ways to organize Category:Terrorist incidents by time SMasonGarrison 13:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are only three century categories, no need for a millennium layer on top of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Khojaly Massacre memorials

Nominator's rationale: Now only has one list and one article. Other articles have apparently been merged and redirected to the list. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: If not merged, category should be renamed to Category:Khojali massacre memorials C2D. 13:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Junior Eurovision songs of San Marino

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 23:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if merge, dual merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I already added the lone page, but sure, happy to dual merge. SMasonGarrison 13:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Philosophical terminology

Nominator's rationale: split, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and one article. The subcategory should be moved directly under Category:Philosophy; the article should be moved to Category:Academic terminology. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

History of the Basques

Nominator's rationale: merge per History of the Basques, Category:History of the Basques and to avoid confusion with Category:History of the Basque Country (autonomous community). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism in Maiduguri

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories (or one subcategory, if the deletion proposed below goes ahead). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Men's T20 World Cup statistics

Nominator's rationale: Just 3 pages, others have been deleted by AfD. Category could just be up-merged now. Vestrian24Bio 03:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:History of the Men's T20 World Cup

Nominator's rationale: This title would be more accurate to describe the contents of this category. Vestrian24Bio 03:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Belgium–United Arab Emirates relations

Nominator's rationale: Only contents are an expatriate subcategory and a UAE → Belgium embassy article that is at AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

May 4

Category:Wars of Castro

Nominator's rationale: these two pages are already interlinked. this category at present isn't helpful for navigation SMasonGarrison 22:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Provinces of the Islamic State militant movement

Nominator's rationale: per discussion at speedy SMasonGarrison 21:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
More information speedy ...
Close

pinging @Mclay1: SMasonGarrison 21:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Shia Muslim civilians killed by opponents of Hezbollah

Nominator's rationale: extremely narrow intersection for 1 page and 2 redirects. SMasonGarrison 19:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if this category were larger, I don't think third parties being killed by any opponent of an organization is defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: There are probably more pages available, but it's still a narrow intersection and non-defining. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 01:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Terrorist incidents against Shia Muslims by time

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse Terrorist incidents against Shia Muslims by decade, especially since there are only 20 pages across the two categories. Many of these categorizations are by the same user, who has a unique grasp of what defining means. SMasonGarrison 19:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. A too recent phenomenon for a diffusion by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Pottsville Antarcites players

Nominator's rationale: Fix longstanding misspelling (Anthracite vs Antarcite). User:Namiba 18:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Just delete, neither of the two articles mentions it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Deleting would be bad precedent. Minor league categories are ubiquitous across baseball articles and the teams are not always mentioned in the article.--User:Namiba 20:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • If kept, it should be Category:Pottsville Anthracites players ("RA" instead of "AR"). Fram (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
    Agreed.--User:Namiba 14:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Films about cancer in France

  • Nominator's rationale I think what is actually defining is the intersection between the subjecto f the film being cancer and the nationality of the film. Setting of the film is often a matter of debate. Some films may have a setting that is more guessed at than ever stated. This change will cause of change of scope and require some films being moved in or out, but I think the targeted name is a defining aspect of a definition of a film. The current name also makes it unclear if all films set in x place with cancer as the subject belong, or if the subject of the film needs to be "cancer in France"; "Cancer in Spain" or "Cancer in the United States". The literal reading is the latter, so the film would need to say something about cancer in that locality broadly, not just something about cancer. I would not oppose upmerging this categories and the other by country sub-cats of Films about cancer. I am not actually convinced that we need to break this subject up geographically, however I am not sure it is unneeded either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose these are not synonymous. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 00:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator already said in the rationale that the change of scope is intentional, so just that is not a reason to oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support if the change of scope is actually followed through, i.e. each and every article in the categories are checked for their "country". Easier said than done. It cannot be assumed they are synonymous, because by definition they are not. Though I also question whether we even need this diffusion by country at all. Would Category:Films about cancer really be too large to navigate? I don't think so. We're going to end up with the subcat situation at Category:Films about Alzheimer's disease. I don't find this country+subject intersection meaningful or helpful. Οἶδα (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Films about cancer per Οἶδα. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Films about cancer in the United Kingdom

  • Nominator's rationale I do not think we should categorize a film by Americans or other non-British production teams with the UK just because they happened to chose that as the location for their film. What is defining to a film is the production team national affiliation of the makers of the film. The location of the film is much more incidental. This change will lead to removing some of the films here (the first one in the category appears to be an American film) and may lead to adding some films that are British in production and about cancer but the location is not clear. One key advantage to this change is there are some percentage of films that do not have an explicit location. Another problem is subject "cancer in the United Kingdom" asks are these films "about cancer" and set in the United Kingdom or is the subject "cancer in the United Kingdom" and so merely being set in the UK and being about cancer is not enough, but we have to have the broad subject of "cancer in the United Kingdom" as the film subject. The target name makes it clear that the subject is cancer. I think this is a much better way to name the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support: For consistency with Category:Indian films about cancer. In fact, Category:Films about cancer in the United States should be renamed accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support if the change of scope is actually followed through, i.e. each and every article in the categories are checked for their "country". Easier said than done. It cannot be assumed they are synonymous, because by definition they are not. Though I also question whether we even need this diffusion by country at all. Would Category:Films about cancer really be too large to navigate? I don't think so. We're going to end up with the subcat situation at Category:Films about Alzheimer's disease. I don't find this country+subject intersection meaningful or helpful. Οἶδα (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Films about cancer per Οἶδα. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Hawaiian songwriters

  • Nominator's rationale It is not fully clear what the actually difference is between these categories. For places that are not indepedent nations we generally use the Booians from Foo format. All other states have Songwriters from categories. I see no benefit to having both these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is the difference between Category:Native Hawaiian people and someone from the state of Hawaii.--18:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namiba (talk • contribs)
    • If that is the case we should use that name. Also if that is the case it should not be a sub-cat of Songwriters from Hawaii, because not all Native Hawaiian people are from Hawaii.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • At least we should not keep it as is, because the current situation is just confusing. Possibly rename to Category:Native Hawaiian songwriters. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Do we have an article Native Hawaiian songwriters? Can we create such an article that is A-based on multiple indepdent reliable sources that are secondary and B-more than just a list article. If the answer to 1 or 2 is not the case, then this rename would lead us to having a category does not work with EGRS rules. Also is the difference between Category:Songwriters from Hawaii and Native Hawaiian songwriters big enough that it will avoid EGRS issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Question would work instead to merge these two categories and then create Category:Songwriters from the Kingdom of Hawaii and Category:Songwriters from the Territory of Hawaii?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • New proposal on further review I think there are multiple categories here. We should split the two existing categories into 3. We should keep Category:Songwriters from Hawaii and also split out Category:Songwriters from the Hawaiian Kingdom (our article is named Hawaiian Kingdom) and Category:Songwriters from the Territory of Hawaii (our article is named Territory of Hawaii). Based on my review we will have 5 or more articles in each of those categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • That is also a good way to solve the current confusing situation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Indian films about cancer

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Films about cancer in the United Kingdom. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a change in scope. The current category is for any film that is "Indian", exactly how the national affiliation of a film is decided is another issue, that deals with cancer. The target is for films that have as their subject cancer in India. This would exclude A-films that are Indian (I think this is normally based on the nationality of the production team) that either i-are about cancer but elsewhere ii-are about cancer but their setting is unstated or unclear. However it would B- include films produced by nationals of any other country that have as their subject cancer in India. I am not sure how many films there are that we have articles for that are in sub-set A or B, these may all presently be films set in India made by production teams from India. Overall there are a lot more American films set in Britain than in India (probably also more American films set in France than in India), so I would suspect that the British film categories would have less overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Well the first film in this category is one about cancer. If I read it right the subject is shown with cancer in India, Brazil and the United States. The film has two different language versions, and they set it in different cities in India in each.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subject + location of production is a lot more defining for a film than subject + location covered by the film. Also the new name brings up big issues, such as, if we have a film made by an Indian production team, and at least partially set in India, but where our subject who has cancer for part of the film is suffereing from cancer in Brazil, do we have to categorize this under a Films about cancer in Brazil? I believe what is defining for a film is nationality of production, and then subject matter. I think we should rename the other category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Withdraw: Agree that your comments make sense. The UK cancer category is being tagged for renaming, but that and the US cancer category should be jointly nominated. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and the related discussions also happening now (above). Οἶδα (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Films about cancer per Οἶδα, as they proposed in the discussions above. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Pages with editnotices

Nominator's rationale: This category is for the editnotices themselves, not the pages attached to them. Issue raised at Wikipedia_talk:Editnotice#All_editnotices in relation to a pitch for a Category:All pages with editnotices. If renamed as proposed, Category:Editnotices will need to be renamed as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps use "edit notices" rather than "editnotices", as the latter is not actually an English word. Also consider adding "Wikipedia" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
That's what they're called though on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Editnotice. I would support renaming that page, but that's a separate discussion. Mclay1 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little more participantion would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SMasonGarrison 13:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. I don't see the benefit in not categorising these hundreds of pages, which is what would happen if we deleted all these categories. There are a number of categories that may seem redundant to WhatLinksHere, but that doesn't necessarily mean the categories aren't useful. Mclay1 (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Sectarian ideologies

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in this category. While I'm sure more could be added, I am not sure it's necessary given other religion and politics-related categories. Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, the articles already are somewhere else in the tree of Category:Religion and politics and I doubt that we can further populate this category with ideologies in particular. If kept rename to something more neutral. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Cook Island people of Finnish descent

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't it be merged to Category:New Zealand people of Finnish descent? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    changing merge target. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Do we really want to include people from constitutent countries in the main country category. I have seen similar debates on whether Puerto Ricans go under American categories. Although I have seen some of those settled based on the fact that specific Puerto Rican in question had spent much (in some cases all) of his or her life in New York City, Orlando, Florida, somewhere in Texas, or other places within the incorporated United States so the person was without question fully and indisputably an American national. Puerto Ricans are recognized as nationals of the US even if neither they or any of their ancestors have ever lived in the incorporated US (the percentage of Puerto Ricans for whom this is true is not all that high, many Puerto Ricans have moved to the incorporated United States for short periods of time, in the 1970s or so the net migration between the incorporated US and Puerto Rico was more people moving from the incorporated US to Puerto Rico than the other way around, many Puerto Ricans in Orlando and Texas have parents born in Puerto Rico, and grandparents born in New York City). I do not have an easy answer to this. Some of it may boil down to how much we want to try to diffuse categories by nationality at all. I am not yet sure which side of the debate to fall. Part of me thinks it might be a case by case basis. Clearly People from Hawaii, at least those who have been residents of Hawaii since 1959 indiputably go in American categories. The same applies for people from Martinique in French categories since Martinique was given status as a department of France. On the other hand as we move to constituent kingdoms, colonies, protectorates and so on it becomes less and less clear we should include them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:War crimes by perpetrator

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. But move Category:War crimes committed by country under Category:Criminal activities by perpetrator (the other subcategory is already deeper in that tree). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom SMasonGarrison 21:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Activities of criminal organizations

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. But move Category:Activities by jihadist groups under Category:Criminal activities by perpetrator (the other subcategory does not belong there). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Artefacts

Nominator's rationale: Category:Archaeological artifacts, the parent (or grandparent) category of all of these, uses "artifact", as does Artifact (archaeology) (mostly), so shouldn't these also use that for consistency? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:ENGVAR. Keep what was created and what is linked. Many of the categories above have strong national ties for artefact, not artifact. Not everything needs to be in US English. Leave the status quo, just because the parent category (which is just a container) is artifact doesn't mean the sub-categories need to be. Especially when there is a national ties issue. There is no need for consistency in categories, only within an article. 08:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    I see your point about WP:ENGVAR, and I might withdraw those affected by it. I didn't know that applied to categories, but I guess that makes sense. But why should Category:Types of archaeological artefact, Category:Textile artefacts, and Category:Archaeological artefact groups use a different variety of English? Maybe we don't have to be consistent, but wouldn't it be weird if almost every subcategory in Category:Archaeological artifacts by century used "artifact", but Category:15th-century artefacts didn't? Chess enjoyer (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Chess enjoyer Canterbury Tail and per WP:ENGVAR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Sirfurboy, I'm the nominator. The editor you agree with is Canterbury Tail, who presumably used five tildes to sign their !vote instead of four. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks. Yes, the name part of the signature seems to have gone astray, thus my confusion. Fixed now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Apologies, I must have not signed it properly. Canterbury Tail talk 10:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment from the nominator: Okay, I've struck through the region-related categories that have ties to artefact, judging from the english of their main articles (ex. Wales is written in British English, so I struck that category). One category I didn't strike is Category:Japanese artefact types. Japan is written in American English, so shouldn't they match? Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    No. WP:ENGVAR is not inherited from related pages. The nomination is fundamentally flawed in that it seeks to privilege one variant of English. ENGVAR is clear that all varieties of English are equally acceptable, and as it is clear that there will not be uniformity across all names, the attempt to move some pages has no clear rationale. Consider: wouldn't it be equally acceptable to rename Category:Archaeological artifacts tor Category:Archaeological artefacts? But we won't do that either per WP:ENGVAR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Generally oppose, except for Japanese one. Japan has (to the extent English is used there) strong ties to American not British (or other Commonwealth) English. The struck ones are correctly struck (English used in those places is derived from England English, with "artefact" spelling). As for the rest of the non-struck ones, there isn't a compelling reason to change them, so they should be left as they are per MOS:ENGVAR. However, if there are any mismatches between parent and child "generic" categories (i.e., not named for a particular country/culture), they should probably be normalized, child to parent, unless parent conflicts with most or all of muliple children. It's not helpful to veer back and forth between the spellings without an ENGVAR reason to do so in a particular case, and we do have a principle of consistent naming in categories (absent a compelling guideline/policy reason for a particular category to diverge from an otherwise-consistent pattern).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:3rd-century pseudonymous women writers

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge, isolated underpopulated categories with only one page across them SMasonGarrison 03:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge only to the women writers categories. I do not think it is justified to categorize writers as pseudonymous. We categorize people by what they are not what they are named. Plus the line between a screen name, a changed name and a pseudonym is blurry. I do not think it us a defining trait we should categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. We may well discuss pseudonymous writers but it should be a separate discussion about the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and Marcocapelle. Mclay1 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Polish animal rights activists

Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 02:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Medal for Long Service (Poland)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD SMasonGarrison 02:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:DanTDM

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted per G5. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for one article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Older discussions

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of unclosed discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions. For older closed and unclosed discussions, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI