Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 13
December 15 >

December 14


Category:People's Republic of China politicians by province

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: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians by province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Anhui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Beijing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Chongqing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Fujian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Gansu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Guangdong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Guangxi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Guizhou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Hainan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Hebei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Heilongjiang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Henan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Hubei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Hunan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Inner Mongolia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Jiangsu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Jiangxi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Jilin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Liaoning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Ningxia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Qinghai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Shandong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Shanghai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Shanxi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Shaanxi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Sichuan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Tianjin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Tibet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Xinjiang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Yunnan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:People's Republic of China politicians from Zhejiang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent in recent days of categories renamed or deleted that were named People's Republic of China per WP:Commonname - we don't use formal names of countries. Categories like these with the formal names are WP:Overcat due to the fact that all entries are for PRC which per commonname is China.

And all entries in the subcats are in fact in other categories that are specific to other categories that are [politicians from place in China]. Plus, we have Category:Chinese Communist Party politicians by province and Category:Political office-holders in China by province. Both these categories contain the entries of these nominated categories.

There is also a separate Category:Republic of China politicians by province - a period based category of the ROC from 1912-1949 and they include current Taiwan politicians from China before, during, and after it was the ROC and even those since the ROC moved to Taiwan in 1949 and onward.

Overall, these PRC cats entries are already well categorized and we do not need these cats. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2025 (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:Thai occult

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 10#Category:Thai occult

Category:English expatriates in Newfoundland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Newfoundland Colony people. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Propose merging Category:English expatriates in Newfoundland to Category:British expatriates in Newfoundland Colony
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 17:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Newfoundland Colony people. The one person in this category died before 1707 and so does not belong in British categories at all. It is also somewhat debatable if expatriates is the right word for nationals of a country who are in a Colony controlled by the country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Alt merge per JPL. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Alt merge per JPL. Seems a good solution. -- Just N. (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2025 (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.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia maintenance category that could be plausibly confused with a content category; compare Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename to make it clear this is a Wikipedia specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Wp specific cat. -- Just N. (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2025 (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:Mining industry

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to previous CfD that merged Mining industry by country to Category:Mining by country. There's no clear difference between mining in general and the mining industry, and Category:Mining currently contains much industry-related content. The article page Mining industry redirects to Mining. Mclay1 (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
The previous CfD was incorrect in merging them. The mining industry is a type of extractive industry, not an activity; mining is an extractive activity, not a type of industry. This is clearly visible if you read the article Mining on this Wikipedia: "Mining is the extraction of valuable geological materials and minerals from the surface of the Earth." The same article includes industry as a separate heading, so it clearly does not falsely equate the two as being the same thing. - Yupik (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, in case it's not clear. -Yupik (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
@Yupik We don't have separate categories for every heading in every article. Mining, the activity, is done almost exclusively by the mining industry. There's no need to separate the two. You could say "I work in mining". Unlike fishing and the fishing industry, there's no real recreational mining. Mclay1 (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Recreational gold mining exists. Amateur mining exists. Artisanal mining exists. Etc. etc. These are not part of the mining industry and have been coded into law separate from laws pertaining to the mining industry. Conflating these with the mining industry by merging Category:Mining industry into Category:Mining is not a bright idea. - Yupik (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge we have Catrgory:Mines as a sub-cat of both, and I cannot see which one Category:Miners would be in. From a category perspective I think everything just going under Category:Mining would make finding articles easier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge, very difficult to draw a line here. With most other industries it is easier to distinguish an industry because they are involved in manufacturing and trade. But here, mining is at the heart of the mining industry. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    The mining industry is more than just its mining stage. Prior to the actual activity of mining, the mining industry has to actually find something to mine, so its activities include exploring feasability/prospecting and planning and developing the necessary infrastructure if the project is deemed feasible. Once mining (=extraction) has occurred, the mining industry is then responsible for refining, distributing, recycling, and/or reclaiming the extracted material. And the loop continues.

    According to the Australian Department for Energy and Mining: "Less than 1% of exploration projects result in mining..." What it doesn't say is that "Less than 1% of exploration projects result in the mining industry...". - Yupik (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Even if I admit to the differences as existing it's better to have a single category. -- Just N. (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2025 (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:Teams in international cricket

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: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories (WP:OVERLAPCAT). My understanding is that Teams in international sports was an old wording used before a national sports teams category hierarchy was completely organized. Place Clichy (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge These are duplicate categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep not all international cricket teams are also national teams e.g. West Indies cricket team comprises many countries. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    So then West Indies should be purged or it should become a reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    West Indies are in child Category:Multi-national teams in international cricket, which is intended for this purpose. However as said by another user below, it does compete in international competitions on par with other nationals teams, and for all practical purposes is regarded as one. It was a national team at the time of the West Indies Federation, and its status probably derives from that.
    It is not the only multi-national team in international sports: Ireland and Korea field joint teams at the Olympics and other competitions, and Germany and post-Soviet countries also competed as unified teams. Place Clichy (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge/split, looks like duplicates but I believe the destination category will be unhandy to navigate, split instead to continental subcategories of the proposed destination category, e.g. Category:National cricket teams in Europe (or Category:European national cricket teams) as done in Category:National association football teams, Category:National ice hockey teams, and Category:National rugby union teams. Regarding West Indies cricket team, this shouldn't be a problem – the article has since long been included in Category:National cricket teams and {{National cricket teams}}. We categorise teams that compete as national teams. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced about splitting by continent at this step. Could we first agree to merge? Also, I notice that articles about national teams are often both in the root category and a national child category, which is redundant. If we removed this redundancy, would it be easier to navigate in your opinion? Place Clichy (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, they can be merged first. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep/rename, but in a different approach; we could use these to not only categorise the national teams, but also things like competitions hosted by nations and rivalries between the nations whilst also renaming this to "Category:Nations in international cricket". In this sense, it would bring a better connection between these subcategories and actually be worth something. This can even work for other international sports. FastCube (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
    Parent Category:International cricket serves precisely that purpose. Place Clichy (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2025 (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.

Online retailers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, only 1-2 articles in each of these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge These are narrow categories that are not helpful to navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge for Now per WP:NARROWCAT with no objection to future recreation if several articles are ever published for a given country. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Narrow cats. -- Just N. (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2025 (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:Fictional female military personnel by rank

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 22:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: An unnecessarily narrow sort for fictional characters, where some categories are too small. Category:Fictional female sergeants is the most recent extant category created by CensoredScribe sock Atvica (talk · contribs · logs · filter log · block log). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support these are overly narrow categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. First, some categories are too small hasn't been a valid argument ever since we deprecated WP:SMALLCAT.
Second, in practice, SMALLCAT was understood to mean a minimum of 3. Well, I see 5 admirals, 18 captains, 3 colonels, 4 corporals, 17 generals, 20 lieutenants, 8 majors, and 4 sergeants; so none of them would be too small per SMALLCAT if it still existed as a rule.
Third, WP:MFN (the successor of SMALLCAT) establishes no hard requirement for a minimum, just a recommendation of 5. In practice, I rarely use it to upmerge categories with 3 or 4 items, and I see few other users do it (but hey, if you really push me, maybe I'll agree to upmerging those colonels, corporals, and sergeants, but not the rest).
Fourth (as already shown earlier), some categories means the rationale doesn't even apply to all nominated categories, but they are apparently inappropriately lumped in anyway. Really, I must object that this is not sound reasoning against well-populated categories, and risks a WP:TRAINWRECK.
Fifth, WP:NARROWCAT just doesn't apply if upmerging 5 fictional female admirals to Category:Fictional admirals will put them in a category with 21 non-female admirals, or if you put 17 fictional female generals in a category with 80 non-female categories.
Sixth, of all possible people by occupation categorisations we can make, the military is one where gender differences are still extremely relevant, whether in reality (where only 15% of the world's militaries has female personnel in commanding positions) or in fiction (which always influences how people in the real world think about the role people play in society). The fact that e.g. Kathryn Janeway is a fictional female captain (and later a fictional female admiral) is a central premise in the whole Star Trek: Voyager series, one that is extensively discussed both onscreen, behind the scenes, and within media and Trekkie fandom; the series would have had a very different style and impact if the main character had been male. And so on. NLeeuw (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
PS: Not all content created by a sock must automatically be deleted. That's just guilt by association. Granted, 4 items is not a lot, I don't feel too strongly about the sergeants category. NLeeuw (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
For #1, the original conversation around deprecating SMALLCAT at least partially involved using NARROWCAT instead, which is a more stringent editing guideline with fewer qualifiers. At this point, MFN is an essay although I still reference it at CFD. Of course, on both counts, community consensus can evolve over time.
I'll defer to smarter editors on whether or how to apply these standards here! RevelationDirect (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment The narrow category guidelines discourage categories that have few articles more than the small category guidelines. So being too small is a valid argument still. What is no longer a valid argument is that the small category should be kept because it is part of a larger pattern.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I would also argue that in fiction military rank is not really defining. It is a trivial background detail which has little if any actual relevance to most characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge, military ranks are trivial, we do not even categorize real people by rank apart from admiral/general/officer and we do not even categorize military officers by an intersection with gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge – Rank is trivial. Characters will sometimes change rank during stories; it doesn't make sense to categorise them the same way as real people. What matters is that they are fictional women in the military, and that is being preserved. Mclay1 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    Mclay1 (talk · contribs) Does this comment or Marcocapelle's warrant a CfD for the gender-neutral counterpart categories as well? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
      • I would say yes, but would do that as a seperate nomination. I would argue military rank is often trivial in fiction, in some types of fiction can change a lot for the same character. Also in some cases like captain the level that is is not generally the same in the army and navy, and a lot of uses of the term captain are more about sea captain which is not a military rank at all. Also in some forms of fiction, especially science fiction and fantasy, it is possible to have made up ranks. There is also the question, do we categorize people by the highest rank reached (which I think in the few categories we have is what we do for real people) or do we categorize them by most common rank given in fictional works, or by every rank held?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
        Exactly. I would say we should keep just the most general ones, like officers, generals, naval captains, etc. Mclay1 (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Possibly keep just the most general ones, like officers, generals, naval captains, etc. -- Just N. (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2025 (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:Family in dependent territories of the United Kingdom

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge category with only one subcategory. Not helpful for navigation. Mclay1 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge Not needed for a container category that just contains one sub-cat. The fact that the sub-cat only has one article means it probably could be upmerged to the society category as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. A better solution. -- Just N. (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2025 (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:Art of Europe

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: Not renamed The RM discussion failed. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Art of Europe is the only outlier ("Art of X") in the Category:Art by continent category, all other entries there are in the "Fooian art" format like Asian art, African art, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't quite see yet how this related. Can't we have a discussion about Europe without a discussion about Asia? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • His argument for consistency in the nom is untrue - Asian art is a redirect. That is all this nom is about. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, these issues are not related. Someone is being very WP:POINTy here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm don't know if the !vote is pointy or not, but it's definitely inscrutable! RevelationDirect (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Art of Europe is not and never was a single artistic movement, and the name of main article Art of Europe probably reflects that. Place Clichy (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    How does the proposed name imply it's a single movement any more than, say, Category:Australian art? Mclay1 (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    Because IMHO of Europe is more appropriate to describe a collation of otherwise unrelated topics based on the geographic extent of the continent. Place Clichy (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    Unlile Asian art, which is used commonly to describe art from cultural centers as diverse as Middle Eastern and Far Eastern? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be opposed to moving the categories of the other continents to match Europe. What makes sense for one continent should also make sense for all the others. I don't see there being a unique case. Mclay1 (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    The article about Asian art, before you tampered with it, did not mention Middle Eastern art, and rightfully so. Middle Eastern art is completely unrelated to Asian civilizations. Among the cradles of civilization that appeared in the Neolithic, the Levant civilizations were totally unrelated to the Indus and Chinese civilizations. Place Clichy (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Related Nomination There is a formal RM request to rename Art of Europe. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Defer to match the outcome of the requested move, whether I agree with the name or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    @RevelationDirect In case we value consistency, looking at subcategories, I don't see any "of Europe", but we have Category:European contemporary art and Category:European folk art already. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    WP:C2C and WP:C2D both have value of course, but I'm very sensitive to not second-guessing main article names in a venue outside of WP:RM. We don't want to repeat the mistake of Birmingham / Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is titled Art of Europe. I think in this case matching the article makes sense. If the article is renamed we can consider renaming the category, but I think for now we should use the name of the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2025 (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.

Milliners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale The base article is at hatmaking. At one point milliner meant women involved in the design, production and sale of women's hats. Hatters were men designing, producing and selling hats to men. The hat industry is no longer quite divided that way, and when we move to a global scale we start to find cases that do not fit under that scope well either. We have 3 sub-cats where the only article is on someone who was a hatter, not a milliner. A 4th, the Swiss, is on a 19th-century Swiss man called a "hatter", but he was mainly known for the women's hats he designed and sold. The current term is not the right term for at least some of the contents, the character from Alice in Wonderland is the Mad Hatter not the mad milliner, and this is part of a larger use of the term because men's felt hats in the 19th-century were being treated with mercury so the men involved in the manufacture of hats were developing mercury poisoning at high rates. The joint title seems the best way to move forward, since the exact lines when you consider them globally by both time and place are in a lot of cases hard to draw, there are people who clearly would never have thought of themselves as either hatters or milliners and yet there are people who could easily described as both, plus the size of this category is not big enough to justify splitting it into two different categories. We have similar joint named categories such as Category:Dramatists and playwrights. I have also nominated for renaming all sub-cats with 4 plus articles and upmerge all sub-cats with 3 articles or less. Because of changing nature between being fashion designers designing hats, shop clerks selling hats, owners of hat retail shops, or people involved in the manufacture of hats but not the sale, I think we should manually review what other categories to upmerge the various articles to. A few of the articles being upmerged to the new Hatters and milliners parent from small by nationality sub-cats we would also not want to upmerge because they are already in other sub-cats of the other parents they would be merged to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Upmerge 1, 2 en 3-article categories, they are not helpful for easy navigation. I do not have an opinion on hatters versus milliners. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support – Makes sense. Mclay1 (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge/Rename per nom. Seems a good solution. -- Just N. (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support per above --Lenticel (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2025 (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.

Template:Nazi Germany-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Grammar edit; spaces are not typically allowed in stub template names - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 04:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency, and you could probably have just moved the template normally. However, I think all stub templates have dumb names and we should move them all to plain English like we did with all other templates. Mclay1 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment, this probably means all 200+ articles have to be edited manually. Or can it be done with a redirect? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, redirect. No need to delete the old name. It'll be a standard page move that will presumably cause no change to anything. Mclay1 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2025 (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:United States spacecraft stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per consistency with the parent categories in Spacecraft stubs - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 04:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment, this probably means all 200+ articles have to be edited manually. Or can it be done with a redirect? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    The category is populated by a template. Updating the template with the new category name will move all the contents. The category moving bot seems to update stub templates automatically. (No opinion on the move proposal itself. Stub categories often seem to be inconsistent between country and demonym, and I don't know which way works best. There's also Category:Soviet Union spacecraft stubs.) Mclay1 (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2025 (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:Churches in Peru by populated place

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge category containing only one subcategory. Mclay1 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Underpopulated. -- Just N. (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2025 (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:Roman Catholic churches in the Department of Cusco

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: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge category containing only one subcategory, which is already categorised within Category:Roman Catholic church buildings in Peru by populated place. This category is also in two layers that contain nothing else so can be deleted. Mclay1 (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Just delete, not every church building is a tourist attraction. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Marcocapelle. Categories about churches (or other buildings, or probably any category) should not be parented to a Tourist attractions category, as this characteristic is never inherited by default. Place Clichy (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    Even if you think they shouldn't be, they usually are, and its parents are. But delete is fine by me too. Mclay1 (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    Wikipedia was not built in a day. What would it be if we didn't leave a little room for improvement here and there? Place Clichy (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2025 (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.

Articles using infobox

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: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: These categories include all pages transcluding their respective templates, with no specific maintenance use. This isn't usual for infoboxes. After a discussion with the creator, it was determined they are no longer needed, but I'm bringing it to a full CfD just in case. Mclay1 (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all — consider this a G7. They were initially used in handling some project tagging requirements, particularly because {{Infobox television channel}} had thousands of articles not tagged into WP:TVS (because it was a North America–centric project). I also wanted to ensure that radio stations and TV stations were appropriately tagged that had been missed over the years. You have my blessing to remove the categories from each template and delete. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:05, 14 December 2025 (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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI