Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< December 28
December 30 >

December 29

Category:Thioacyl chlorides

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... 21:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category:Thioacyl halides has no direct members, and its only subcategory is Category:Thioacyl chlorides, so it is a redundant layer. I want to downmerge Category:Thioacyl halides to Category:Thioacyl chlorides so that the parent categories of the category resulting from the merge can be more specific, and an upmerge followed by a move seems like the most technically friendly way to do it. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge The extra layer is not adding any navigational value. (I'll defer to the nominator or others about what the remaining category should be named.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge. Looks like I screwed up when I created these as separate categories. While non-chloride thioacyl halides exist, e.g. thiocarbonyl fluoride [zh], none of these have English-language WP articles associated with them yet, per searches 1 and 2. Preimage (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. tricky but good solution. -- Just N. (talk) 14:58, 4 January 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.

Template:HaymanaAnkara-geo-stub

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 11#Template:HaymanaAnkara-geo-stub

Template:ÇubukAnkara-geo-stub

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 11#Template:ÇubukAnkara-geo-stub

Category:Health care occupations in 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: keep and purge subcats. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I think this is an example of WP:OVERCAT. Each of the articles put in here can be categorised under their respective profession (e.g. Medicine, Nursing, Allied health) which is a more natural place to find them. Dan :] (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Because it contains biographies, not articles about occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 5 January 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:People from Hartshill

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). GoldRomean (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category is for people from Hartshill, Staffordshire, which is why it is a subcat of People from Stoke on Trent. Renaming is necessary to avoid confusion with Hartshill, a place in Warks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 29 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.

More people murdered categories

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: Closing in favor of #Category:People murdered in the 1790s * Pppery * it has begun... 21:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale There are lots of cases where it is not clear if something is murder or just a killing. First off do we use current legal understanding, do we defer to legal understandings then, and how do we treat people who were executed by a regime that was shortly afterward overthrown, and so their killers were then tried for the execution. There are issues of the ambiguity of if something was a mob killing or a legal execution, and if something was a murder of an incident in a low level intermittent war. There is also the issue of do we classify anything that was ruled self defense as not a murder, even though such is normally included in homicide statistics. For these reasons I think it will be much easier to just have the People killed in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • This should be closed the same way as this earlier discussion regardless of its outcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Defer To the outcome in the other nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment because of category size issues I could see an argument that in some cases we would want to only diffuse people murdered down to the decade level but diffuse people killed which is inherently a larger category down to the year level. Because of the difficulty in defining what should and should not go in the people murdered categories I think this approach unwise, but there is a way to argue that these categories should be merged but the more broad 1790s category should still have a people murdered sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
      @Johnpacklambert Please don't make disconnected nominations like this. It's much harder to manage. SMasonGarrison 05:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment If the decision is to not merge the people murdered in and the people killed in these 1 and 2 article categories should at least be upmerged to Category:People murdered in the 1790s. In these categories we are using "killed" as a short hand for "killed by people". We are excluding cases where it was rumored or alleged the person was killed by others acts and only including cases where it is fully agreed this was the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 6 January 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:Valley High School alumni

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). GoldRomean (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The Valley High School disambiguation page lists almost 300 different schools, including approximately 30 that are named exactly "Valley High School." The disambiguator is needed here to match the name of the corresponding article, Valley High School (New Mexico). Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename to match article name. We should never have a category name that is more ambiguous than the article name. Sometimes we need it to be less ambiguous, but it should never be more ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename to match the article name. -- Just N. (talk) 15:19, 4 January 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:Iranian Baloch people

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 5#Category:Iranian Baloch people

Category:Iranian Arab people

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 5#Category:Iranian Arab people

Category:Figurative Abstraction

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) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Created by SPA Tamari1995 (talk · contribs), whose drafts Draft:გელა მიქავა (Gela Mikava) and Draft:პოსტ-სოციალისტური რადიაცია (Post-socialist radiation) have both been G11'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:57, 29 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:Wikipedia pages using merged-from template without oldid

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 4#Category:Wikipedia pages using merged-from template without oldid

Category:Peddlers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Delete for now. (The category creator has been asked repeatedly to please populate the categories you create.) SMasonGarrison 03:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose This category now has 5 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
    Then populate them when you create them JPL. SMasonGarrison 05:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, cat now populated Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Better populate a category instantly instead of moving to something else and possibly forget about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep/oppose because it now has six members Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. -- Just N. (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The issue is not with the creation of this cat, but with the deletion nom. WP:SOFIXIT. Fram (talk) 10:09, 5 January 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:Arab people in Iran

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 11#Category:Arab people in Iran

Category:Frontierswomen

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 to take any specific action here. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection in an underpopulated category. SMasonGarrison 03:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a very defining intersection. The roles and actions of women on the frontier were very different than those of men. This category can be populated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Category's populated, and what are going to do with those six article? Have to put them into the next higher category "Frontiersmen". But they're not men! They're women, and that matters. All these things get complicated cos "man" can mean "male" and/or "human", but the current situation is the best solution IMO. Herostratus (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Even Category:Frontiersmen is very under populated. I just added about 20 articles but there are probably a lot more that could be added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • We also have the pioneers tree and the explorers tree. Isn't there a considerable overlap? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Explorers are different. They are people who journey into an area and made records of their travels. The pioneers tree and the frontiersman tree overlap a lot. My general experience is pioneers is at times applied to people who really do not belong in there, but were put there because they were an early example of a specific ethnic group in an area, or an early example of a women in a certain profession. At least that is the feel I got reviewing Category:Colorado pioneers. We have a lot of articles that use the term "frontiersmen". On the other hand one sub-cat is "mountain men". In some accountings the pioneers are the people who come after the mountain men and create permanent settlements. In general though I think "frontiersmen" is a better term because it clearly covers those people and does not really have a different meaning. Pioneer is also a term used for the people who made breakthroughs in a given industry or field of study, and is also a term for people in the military. So I think "frontiersmen" is the better term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: Per above. "Frontiersmen/women" and "pioneer" are not interchangeable, although there is considerable overlap. For example, I would not refer to Hugh Glass as a pioneer, and I would hesitate to refer to Charles Ingalls as a frontiersman. I think the real distinguishing factor, at least when applied to the American West, is the status of the political organization and population density of the place when the settler arrives. To me, frontiersmen constitute the first "wave" of (Anglo-American) settlement in an area, before permanent structures, and might even live in isolation. But that's just my interpretation. In any case, "frontierswomen" certainly warrants a separate category. – TCMemoire 22:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Hugh Glass is an explorer and I can somewhat understand the difference between explorers and pioneers. But frontiersman and -women is a third category in this area and just one too many. Support deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I was wondering if Category:Homesteaders might be a viable category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. -- Just N. (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Purge/Merge/Delete per wp:overlapcat. To start off with, Frontiersman redirects to Frontier, not American frontier, which makes me question if there is an international usage of the term "frontiersman/woman", and if so, per the contents of the categories, and the comments above, then at the very least, both should be renamed to American frontiersmen/women. Besides this, I'm wondering why these cats are under the generic "occupations" cat tree, rather than directly part of the Category:American frontier tree. Or better, as a member of its subcat Category:American pioneers. And then when looking at American pioneer (the main article for that category), I'm not seeing the distinction between terms, as asserted above. Are the terms American frontiersman and American pioneer different enough to be categorised separately? And is application of that distinction heading into wp:or territory? Could we - per WP:OCEGRS - write a separate main article on this topic? I think that these are fair questions worth additional discussion. I suggest that Category:Frontiersmen also be tagged, and this discussion be relisted please. - jc37 19:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Adding this to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep for the category. This is a Term used to describe a huge number of articles. A good number of them in parentheses. I do not think we should run roughshod over a large amount of actual use and just plain not categorize by a term that is widely used in sources to describe people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
    How would you suggest we deal with the WP:OVERLAPCAT issues with Category:American pioneers? - jc37 19:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
    Personally I think that is the category we should look at scrapping. A lot of people in that tree are there incorrectly because they were pioneers in a field. However it is clear above some people think there is a difference. What is clear is that frontierman is a widely used term. Pioneer is an ambiguous term with a lot of other meanings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
    While I understand your point, the difficulty lies in that the article name is American pioneer. While Frontier and American frontier exist, Frontiersman is a redirect, and American frontiersman doesn't exist.
    Should the article American pioneer be renamed to American frontiersman per verifiable, reliable sources? - jc37 17:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
    As a follow-up thought, what would you think about renaming Category:American pioneers to Category:American frontier pioneers or Category:Pioneers of the American frontier? - jc37 17:29, 16 January 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:Taichung Metro

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 5#Category:Taichung Metro

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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: It only has one article and no subcateogries, so I propose upmerging it to its only parent. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:37, 29 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:Building technology

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: split. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Some of the articles in the category, such as 3D concrete printing, Construction 3D printing, and Digital modeling and fabrication, are about technology used in the construction process. Other articles in the category, such as Air barrier, Cowl (chimney), and Rainscreen, are about technology present in buildings that have been built. These two things should not be lumped together. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • good idea CN1 (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. -- Just N. (talk) 15:42, 4 January 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:Antakya District

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/rename * Pppery * it has begun... 03:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Same reasoning as before. The main articles of each category, such as Antakya, are about both a municipality and a district. I'll let you know if I spot any more - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support, these are cases when a district and a municipality coincide. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose like above. Different fact patterns should not be mis-matched due to formal similaity like same-name observation. -- Just N. (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    @Justus Nussbaum Sorry I don’t understand - please could you explain more simply perhaps with an example Chidgk1 (talk) 12:38, 19 January 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:People murdered in the 1790s

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 4#Category:People murdered in the 1790s

İznik District

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 5#İznik District

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks