Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< July 1
July 3 >

July 2

Ku Klux Klan members

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 13#Ku Klux Klan members

Category:National minority ministers of Ukraine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 14#Category:National minority ministers of Ukraine

Category:Jewish ministers of Ukraine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 14#Category:Jewish ministers of Ukraine

Category:Silent radio stations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 14#Category:Silent radio stations

Category:Lists of science fiction television characters by series

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 19#Category:Lists of science fiction television characters by series

Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 10th millennium BC

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 14#Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 10th millennium BC

Category:Madurai bridge 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: merge to Category:Tamil Nadu stubs and Category:Asian bridge (structure) stubs. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Not enough transclusions to warrant a stub category, which in this case, doesn't even have its own template and is not even affiliated with WikiProject Stub Sorting... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:52, 2 July 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.

Vietnam provincal merger

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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) SMasonGarrison 18:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: After the Vietnam's Provincial Merger 2025 came to effect on 1 July 2025, Vietnam reduced its number of provinces and cities into 34. The Wikipedia categories need to follow the new provincial administrative units after merger. I propose merge all these categories and their subcategories to their new corresponding categories and subcategories.– Lâm 16:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Support per nomination's tie to real-world decisions (edit: while I do support it, I still believe we should wait for further information on the decision) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Thplam2004: thank you for taking this to full discussion. The pages of the nominated categories should be tagged as I did for Category:Kiên Giang province. Also note that subcategories are not automatically included in a nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge all per precedent for former countries, such as cleanup of Category:Republic of Artsakh after that state dissolved in 2023. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    And yes, the subcategories should have been included. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 13 July 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:Expansion of slavery

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) 01:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, it is unclear how the subcategories represent "expansion" per se. They contribute to the status quo at the time, but that is all to it. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 16:22, 5 July 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:South Asia Institute Heidelberg faculty

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 14#Category:South Asia Institute Heidelberg faculty

Category:Roman royalty

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) 01:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with parent categories. This was opposed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
More information copy of speedy discussion ...
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Roman royalty to Category:Ancient Roman royalty – C2C: Ancient Romans by occupation is the parent SMasonGarrison 02:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    This category has as a dependent category Byzantine Emperors down to the 15th century. Jahaza (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    • That subcategory should be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
      ok... Why? Roman emperors are clearly in scope for "Roman royalty"? Jahaza (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
      • We generally do not have "Roman" categories on top of "Ancient Roman" and "Byzantine". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Close
  • @Smasongarrison and Jahaza: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Support to distinguish between that and various conceptions about the Church's upper ranks in the Middle Ages -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 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:Law firms disestablished in 1861

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) 01:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in each category. Per WP:OCYEAR, categorising down to the year level is not needed here. – numbermaniac 07:53, 2 July 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:Adultery

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:Adultery. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, the difference between the two categories is not very clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I am fine with a manual reverse merge (and redirect) too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 6 July 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:Marthe Donas

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) 01:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: only one actual page in here SMasonGarrison 04:56, 2 July 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:Jef Lambeaux

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) 01:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: already interlinked SMasonGarrison 04:55, 2 July 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:North Shore Albions coaches

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) 01:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry, also merge with Category:Sportspeople from the Auckland Region. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 2 July 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:People on stamps

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:Postage stamps featuring people , etc. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Propose renaming Category:People on stamps to Category:Stamps featuring people
  • Propose renaming Category:Elizabeth II on stamps to Category:Stamps featuring Elizabeth II
  • Propose renaming Category:Queen Victoria on stamps to Category:Stamps featuring Queen Victoria
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain primarily articles on stamps, not articles on people. This reinstates the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Category:People on postage stamps, which was undone by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_21#"(Artworks/Art)_depicting_(subject)" without sufficient consideration. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Ham II's suggestion to broaden this nomination and add the word "postage"? If so, which categories should be added to the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Clarification For all 3 nominated categories, I would favor "Category:Postage stamps featuring Foo" as my first choice and "Category:Stamps featuring Foo" as my second choice, favoring either over the current names. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    As nominator, the only thing I care about is make the first noun "stamps". None of the other issues are of any import to me, so do as you see fit there. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename to postage stamps okay. -- Just N. (talk) 16:31, 5 July 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:Anticonvulsant 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: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This stub category has less than 60 mainspace articles in it - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose all, as it is best for stub templates and categories to be as specific as possible. Element10101 AIW WPI TOLT ~ C 21:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 51 members as of relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, I think 51 articles is enough for a separate category. In addition, the parent category has 899 pages, which is overloaded - Petscan says there's no overlap between the two, so merging this in would bring the parent category to a whopping 950 pages - too many. – numbermaniac 07:38, 2 July 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:People from Kiyosu

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category with just three entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Three entries is not bad. The Japanese language article for the town has a list of over 18 people with Japanese Wikipedia pages from that place, about handful of them have articles in English Wikipedia. There is potential for growth, WP:SMALLCAT & WP:NARROWCAT do not apply here. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Little chance that lots of articles will be translated soon. -- Just N. (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus. Nom was blocked as a sock, so their !vote should be discarded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:43, 2 July 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:Former TelevisaUnivision subsidiaries

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:TelevisaUnivision subsidiaries ... being former or current is a temporal issue. It doesn't change the fact that they are/were subsidiaries, and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. The subsidiaries categories should be atemporal, with the articles explaining the circumstances of being subsidiaries -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all - per above, and my comments in the previous discussion. - jc37 21:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    Your prior comment indicates that the entire Category:Corporate subsidiaries category tree should also be deleted and listified? -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 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:Former General Motors subsidiaries

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:General Motors subsidiaries ... being former or current is a temporal issue. It doesn't change the fact that they are/were subsidiaries, and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. The subsidiaries categories should be atemporal, with the articles explaining the circumstances of being subsidiaries -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 2 July 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:Former Paramount Global subsidiaries

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Paramount Global subsidiaries ... being former or current is a temporal issue. It doesn't change the fact that they are/were subsidiaries, and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. The subsidiaries categories should be atemporal, with the articles explaining the circumstances of being subsidiaries -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 2 July 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:Former CBS Corporation subsidiaries

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:CBS Corporation subsidiaries ... being former or current is a temporal issue. It doesn't change the fact that they are/were subsidiaries, and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. The subsidiaries categories should be atemporal, with the articles explaining the circumstances of being subsidiaries -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 2 July 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:Former Rio Tinto (corporation) subsidiaries

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Rio Tinto (corporation) subsidiaries ... being former or current is a temporal issue. It doesn't change the fact that they are/were subsidiaries, and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. The subsidiaries categories should be atemporal, with the articles explaining the circumstances of being subsidiaries -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 2 July 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:Former AT&T subsidiaries

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:AT&T subsidiaries ... being former or current is a temporal issue. It doesn't change the fact that they are/were subsidiaries, and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. The subsidiaries categories should be atemporal, with the articles explaining the circumstances of being subsidiaries. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all - per above, and my comments in the previous discussion. - jc37 21:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    Your prior comment indicates that Category:AT&T subsidiaries should also be deleted and listified? -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 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:Former PepsiCo subsidiaries

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:PepsiCo subsidiaries ... being former or current is a temporal issue. It doesn't change the fact that they are/were subsidiaries, and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. The subsidiaries categories should be atemporal, with the articles explaining the circumstances of being subsidiaries. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all - per above, and my comments in the previous discussion. - jc37 21:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    Your prior comment indicates that Category:PepsiCo subsidiaries should also be deleted and listified? -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 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: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 16:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: C2B WP:CATNATION. Nicholas0 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose the three people categories. Since this CFD in 2014, Category:Macau people does not use Macanese in any occupational sub-cats but rather "Macau", following the demonym "Macau" stated in the main article Macau. Category:Macanese people is for a specific ethnic group. "Macanese" is otherwise currently used only for Category:Macanese films, Category:Macanese cuisine, Category:Macanese football logos and their subcats, so if those are correct then it would also be appropriate for film awards. But see also Category:Macau architecture, Category:Macau literature, Category:Macau music. (Others use "of/in Macau".) – Fayenatic London 08:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
    It seems like there is significant inconsistency here. I wanted to create a category for Macau film directors and stumbled upon all of the "Macanese" categories. I noticed inconsistencies, so I proposed these changes. If the CFD in 2014 resulted in only objects and organizations being called "Macanese", then I would argue that Category:Macau architecture, Category:Macau literature, and Category:Macau music should be changed to Category:Macanese architecture, Category:Macanese literature, and Category:Macanese music for consistency. I don't have a personal preference either way ("Macau" or "Macanese"), but consistency would be nice so that I know how to name the category for directors when I create it. Nicholas0 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
    I think films and football logos should use "Macau". Cuisine is more debatable because of the lead article Macanese cuisine, which is partly about cuisine of the Macanese ethnic group, and partly about wider cuisine of Macau. – Fayenatic London 20:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Unclear, not decidable. significant inconsistency has to be solved first. -- Just N. (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
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:Defunct towns in Russia

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This category is a mixture of two completely different entities. One is something that is not a inhabited settlement anymore, sometimes actually ruins. The other is something that used to be a city, but has now been downgraded to a village or hamlet. For the former, we already have a meta Category:Ghost towns by country. The second category can be linked to ru:Категория:Населённые пункты России, утратившие статус города - it has a lot of content, as this is quite a common case in the USSR and Russia. Solidest (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment, when a town has completely disappeared it is not a ghost town either. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, places like Samosdelka or Tiversk aren't "defunct towns" either – they were never even towns. So the category needs to be cleaned up as well. Solidest (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not reading Marcocapelle's comment as an objection; if you do object, please speak up :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Correct, I am not against splitting. A split needs to be done manually anyway, problems like I mentioned can be handled at the spot. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 2 July 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:14th-century Spanish Jews

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 14#Category:14th-century Spanish Jews

Category:Former cities in Russia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 16#Category:Former cities in Russia

Category:Pansexual people by occupation

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. Nomination was also incomplete as the subcats were not tagged & listed. – Fayenatic London 19:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This category and all its subcategories would seem to violate WP:OCEGRS as I am not sure pansexuality is defining as it relates to occupations. I would suggest an upmerge if necessary to the parent category or its subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  • There is also Category:Bisexual people by occupation, Category:Lesbians by occupation etc., so this requires a broader discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    I just don't want a WP:TRAINWRECK if there's something I'm missing about one of them, so preferably it can be judged separately.. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Hmm. I can see how someone would write about lesbian writers differently from (male) gay writers, so I can see why those categories exist, but I'm not sure that pansexuality is more specifically defining than LGBTQ status in these occupations. So I think considering this category and its subcategories without all of the subcategories of sexuality by occupation makes sense. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment, the subcategories have not been listed yet and their category pages have not been tagged yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    I believe it would need to notify WT:LGBTQ+. Just like there's no occupation subcategories for Category:Asexual people, I can see how Pansexual people only diffused by gender could be enough, they wouldn't be so much populated I guess. However, please nominate the rest, because currently that's what nomination requests. Web-julio (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I was pinged. I can’t make heads or tails of the nom’s rationale why LGBTQ people by occupation is OK per WP:OCEGRS but pansexual is not 🤷🏾‍♂️ --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
    Pansexual is a distinct and valid category. I’m not sure what problem we’re trying to solve. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
    Same here. The nom's rationale is faulty, throwing this whole discussion into question. Historyday01 (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
    Keep since we have the other categories. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
    I agree. I vote to keep it. Historyday01 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion, but thank you for the ping. Bearian (talk) 12:11, 10 July 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:Linux distributions offering KDE desktop environment

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 August 2#Category:Linux distributions offering KDE desktop environment

Category:Lovers

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. Much of the discussion is moving towards the merits of the subcategories contained within this one, indicating that there's probably a more systemic reworking of the tree that has to be done. Not really seeing a strong consensus about what to do about this specific category, so I'm going to close this discussion for now. bibliomaniac15 18:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: An ambiguous term. User:Namiba 18:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment My understanding is that "lovers" refers to unmarried partners.★Trekker (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose per *Trekker. These are mostly lovers of royalty, in contrast to spouses. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps Category:Extramarital relationships would be a better target then? I don't see a need for a separate category, especially one with an ambiguous name.--User:Namiba 14:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • At least rename somehow. Current title is too vague. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment IMHO Paul_012 is right. My proposal: Merge to Category:Mistresses. What about an appropriate category for male examples? Any ideas to fill this gap? -- Just N. (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Rename to Category:Extramarital lovers of heads of state (or some such) and purge as appropriate. As it is, this is awfully vague (as currently named, this is presumably an all-inclusive category), so I wouldn't oppose listification/deletion. - jc37 22:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • There are also lovers of mythological characters, and songs about former lovers. "Extramarital" will work, though is probably a bit of overkill, "of royalty" certainly does not work. Honestly I do not have a problem with "Lovers" as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
    "Lovers" is all inclusive of anyone who loves. We have context of [sexual] lovers only from looking at the category members.
    I think this should be split at best. And the myth and legend ones give no context. We presume that "lovers" are extra-marital relationships, but that presumes they all cultures defined marital relationships in the same way, or even had them at all. This begs explanation at best (hence lists), but I think Category:Extramarital lovers of heads of state is a possible target for some of these cats/subcats. It at least gives us more specificity.
    That said, I don't oppose WP:TNT/Deleting all the "lovers" cats, as vague in definition and inclusion criteria. - jc37 21:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    It is a container category, so it is not a problem that context comes only from looking at the category members. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but even for a container, that's an awfully vague term, especially when other, more precise terms are possible.
    To fit in the existing trees better, I'd be fine with merging to Category:Extramarital relationships of heads of state, and purge/re-cat as appropriate. - jc37 02:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    I'd be against that, because then we unnecessarily lose legendary and mythological lovers (and not sure how this would relate to Category:Mistresses which does not limit itself to heads of state either.) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe I'm using an incorrect term? I'm looking at Category:Mistresses, and all the subcats, at least, seem to be about heads of state.
    And I think splitting out the myth/legend ones from the rest is a feature not a bug. Do we categorise pages of the Greek gods (for example) in other subcats of Category:People by role? - jc37 04:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
    Better check the articles that are directly in Category:Mistresses because they are exactly the ones that do not belong in a heads of state subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, so when I did, I found mainly 3 types: a.) those having extramarital affairs with people "related" with state (heads of state, lords, ministers, and the like) - see also Favourite; b.) courtesans; and c.) people who had extramarital affairs. The three types probably should not be categorised together. All we're doing is categorising together people who had sex, who were notable enough to have sex. And in some cases, not necessarily that they had sex with other notable people (though some did).
    Which brings me back to thinking that this is a (potentially) all-inclusive category. The only ones who wouldn't be added here are those people who have not had sex.
    I'm not opposed to a split (and/or upmerge) of some kind, with better/more accurate naming.
    For one thing, there's no article for Male lovers. And Mistress (lover) suggests that this includes anyone who is engaging in Adultery. We probably should have a more netral term for both so that Category:Male lovers (and subcats) can be merged with Category:Mistresses. And the inclusion criteria should make it clear that these are for people who had an extramarital relationship with a public figure. - jc37 20:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
    • I do not have an issue with further dividing the 37 articles about mistresses in new subcategories, but that can be done regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Category:Lovers is a sibling to Category:Spouses within Category:Romantic and sexual partners. No objection to adding "extramarital" for clarity, although I think the meaning is sufficiently well understood without that and can be stated on the category pages. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
    Category:Spouses seems to be (mostly) a tree of container cats to hold those who had multiple wives or husbands (and also includes the complication of consorts, like Category:Consorts of Vajiralongkorn). Category:Lovers doesn't appear to be limited in that way. - jc37 20:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
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:Flash games ported to consoles

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) 01:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This would seem to violate WP:NONDEF. If it's on a console, it can also be listed in the relevant console category. But the fact that it was ported to consoles is rarely something massively important. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I find this category quite useful. And not at all NONDEF. The nomination is IMHO aimed at wiping out valuable tracks into video game history for normal (non-scientists) people. -- Just N. (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
    Assuming WP:BADFAITH is considered a huge breach of Wikipedia etiquette, please reconsider your statements before cynically making them without evidence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:12, 2 July 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:Forest kindergartens

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:Kindergarten. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This category only has two pages in that are already linked SMasonGarrison 23:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Kindergarten. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is such a huge number of Forest kindergartens. The only bottleneck is that not a lot of them get relevant articles. So much untapped potential. The Wikipedia in this case is far from representing reality. -- Just N. (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
    having "untapped potential" isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Just N.'s comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Better (re)create the category after these articles are written. (The bottleneck may also be that most of them aren't notable. A category does not solve that.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge for Now with no objection to recreation later if/when a few new articles are published. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge as proposed by Marcocapelle. If more articles are written that are eligible for this category, it can be re-created then. – numbermaniac 07:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Marcocapelle. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, both articles are already in appropriate subcats of all parents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:39, 13 July 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

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks