Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 12
November 14 >

November 13


Category:Venezuela women botanists

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge for now, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 14 November 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:Business parks of Australia

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge for now, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 14 November 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:African-American Catholic colleges and universities

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. Discussion has been open for almost three months, relisted twice, and there is no agreement between the participants as to whether the category should be kept, renamed, or merged. (non-admin closure) silviaASH (inquire within) 16:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that we really need a separate category, but at the very least this should be renamed SMasonGarrison 02:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • keep: "historically Black colleges and universities" is a federal designation held by only one of the two schools under this category. natemup (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Move article Xavier University of Louisiana to Category:Historically black Christian universities and colleges, then delete the category, per Natemup. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
    That is not my recommendation. The Catholic designation makes these two unique, and deleting this cat would leave Claver College without a category at all, since it was for African Americans but did not meet (i.e., did not last long enough to fall under) federal criteria to be labeled "historically Black". natemup (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Ok for now the category may also be merged to Category:African-American Roman Catholic schools, but that category should probably not exist, it is not a proper subcategory of Category:Historically black Christian schools. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
      Not being a proper subcategory ≠ should not exist. natemup (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
      • As far as I know there is not a designation as African American school, this in contrast to historically Black school. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
        Not sure how to read your grammar there, but there is certainly the common designation of "African-American schools" (at all levels, from elementary upward) apart from the federal designation "historically Black", which—per the lede there—concerns colleges and universities "established before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the intention of serving African American students." natemup (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Natemup: I'd like to see sources about institutes that designate schools as African-American. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
    No idea what you're talking about. Reliable sources describe various schools (and the two in question) as African American. Only the federal government has designated colleges and universities as "historically Black", i.e. HBCUs. Some sources might also call other African-American schools (at all levels) "historically Black", but to rename this category as "Historically black Catholic colleges and universities" would imply a connection to the federal designation—which would not be accurate for all the schools under the category. natemup (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Ok, so a designation as an African American school in fact does not exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Smasongarrison: as nominator, do you have any new thoughts? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
    I really want to be convinced, but @Natemup can you provide specific sources? SMasonGarrison 23:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Historically black Christian universities and colleges. They both seem to meet the qualifications to be HBCUs, even though that term is applied retroactively to Claver. Having only two articles seems like a good reason to upmerge from "Catholic" to "Christian, but as a second choice I would support merging to the originally proposed Category:Historically black Catholic colleges and universities. -- Beland (talk) 08:59, 3 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:Georgians in Turkey

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: reverse merge. Consensus seems to be that the two categories are redundant, but "diaspora" is more controversial because of disputes over what it means and whether or not migration (and when it happened) is important to categorization. -- Beland (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC) Beland (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, no difference in scope is apparent when looking at the content of both categories. Place Clichy (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree; Georgians are indigenous to Artvin Province of Turkey, and so the population there is not part of the "diaspora". So, the Georgian population in Turkey is not the same as the Georgian diaspora in Turkey. While the former is broader, the latter concerns group of communities scattered across the country due to migrations during the 19–20th centuries. Aintabli (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    That seems to be a reasonable oppose. The nominated category is apparently similar to Category:Hungarians in Romania. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    I recognize that Georgians have a long presence in Artvin Province, but I think that is a too strict reading of the word diaspora. Diaspora is not synonymous with immigration. In many cases, such as the Greek diaspora and the Jewish diaspora, this term is casually used for communities inhabiting a place since thousands of years, but who find themselves outside of the borders of the nation-states established in the 19th and 20th century. Also, if we have to judge which group is more or less pure, or endogenous, or from elsewhere, when naming and populating categories, it brings us on a dangerous slope because often this judgement isn't easily made or involves breaking NPOV.
    That's why Fooian diaspora in Bar has become, with time, the neutral and inclusive term to describe all topics relative to people, culture and history linked with Fooian roots in the country of Bar, regardless of these judgments of purity or anteriority. Also, Georgians in Turkey is not clear whether it is for individual biographical articles, or the group collectively as a topic, which are generally kept in separate categories (see guideline WP:SEPARATE). In terms of Wikipedia categories, the main purpose is to make navigation easier for users, to allow them to be suggested content they may be looking for. IMHO, splitting this closely-related content in two categories hurts this purpose.
    If you look at the current content of Category:Georgian diaspora in Turkey, frankly I don't see much difference: Georgians from the Ottoman Empire, Patara Kartuli Anbani, Akçiğdem, Refahiye, Georgian Orthodox Church in Turkey all also concern "endogenous" Georgians. Place Clichy (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    In the case of the Jewish people, their origins are considered to be the Levant, so that distinction makes them a diaspora, although many communities lived elsewhere for millennia or centuries. On the other hand, the Georgian population in Artvin Province is contiguous to the general Georgian population in Georgia and is not linked to a migration according to what I could gather. The current state of the diaspora category is irrelevant; it can be fixed without removing one of the categories. If we have to remove one of the categories, I believe it's much preferable to redirect the diaspora category to "Georgians in Turkey" given the disagreement and ambiguity on what constitutes a diaspora. Aintabli (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    They may be "contiguous", but they came from somewhere at some point. No group in human history can claim immobility all the way to Neolithic times, that would be called protochronism. It is not the movement of people that makes diaspora, it is also sometimes the movement of borders. In the spirit of consensus, I could live with a single category named Georgians in Turkey (besides the WP:COPSEP issue), as long as it is placed itself in Category:Georgian diaspora by country. I think it would be wrong to have two parallel category structures for "real Georgians" and "migrant Georgians" in countries across the world. What is defining is that some groups and individuals have a Georgian identity, not the migrant status of their ancestors. Place Clichy (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    they came from somewhere at some point. No group in human history can claim immobility all the way to Neolithic times I don't know what this has to do with the category. Then, we should probably note every community as Kenyan/Ethiopian diaspora, which is also problematic according to this logic. Aintabli (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Guideline WP:COPSEP says (bold added): "Keep articles about people separate. Categories with a title indicating that the contents are people should normally only contain biographical articles and lists of people, and perhaps a non-biographical main article, though this can instead be linked in the category description. This is for clarity and ease of use, and to preserve the integrity of the category tree of people articles." The new category Category:Georgians in Turkey is named for people, however it only contains topic articles. This is another reason why Georgian diaspora in Foo... are clear, unambiguous names for topic categories. Place Clichy (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think the fact that people came from somewhere at some point is particularly relevant. The point is that they started to identify as Georgians only after they settled in this region. That is different from Jews who were Jews before they settled somewhere else. As for the naming, this is similar to Category:Hungarians in Romania. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
    I think that being identified as Georgian should be the main factor is the scope of categories, and who moved where and when should be secondary to that, if we are ever able to tell it with precision. Now we have a duplicate between Category:Georgians in Turkey and Category:Georgian diaspora in Turkey, and at present both categories contain topics which could apply to both "moved before" and "moved after" groups. I suggest the solution may be in allowing more flexibility between what are deemed endogenous and diaspora groups, and also keep in mind the WP:COPSEP issue of topic vs. people categories. One way to do that could be to add a description note in Category:Georgian diaspora in Turkey, and other diaspora categories. Suggestion: This category is for people and ethnic groups in [Turkey] who identify with [Georgian] culture and ancestry. It may include people and groups who lived in the area prior to the establishment of modern countries. Place Clichy (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
    Imho both categories have a reason for existence, for example Category:Emigrants from Georgia (country) to Turkey clearly is about diaspora. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
    Would you place articles Georgian Orthodox Church in Turkey and Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Istanbul in the diaspora category or the ethnic indigenous category? This second article talks about "10,000 ethnic Georgians [who] lived in Istanbul" between the 1860s and the 1950s, how are you going to sort those coming from Turkish or Ottoman lands from the others? I still think that it is not practical and ethically dubious to differentiate "indigenous" and "diaspora" categories, when the topic is: people and culture of Fooian national heritage in country Bar. Place Clichy (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
    Georgian Orthodox Church in Turkey can be put in both and Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Istanbul clearly is about diaspora. Istanbul is far away from the Georgian homelands. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that Istanbul is far from Georgian homelands. However the topic here is Category:Georgians in Turkey, which IIUC refers according to you to "indigenous" Georgians in or from the modern territory of the Republic of Turkey, especially Imerkhevians. When these same people are in Istanbul, would you stop calling them Georgians in Turkey? Or do you forbid them to go to the city? Or just to attend the church? Once again, I believe that differentiating categories for "indigenous" and diaspora groups is wrong, practically and ethically. Place Clichy (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Category:Georgians in Turkey would be the category to hold biographies on all people who identify as being ethnically Georgian who live in Turkey. This would of course be distinct from Category:Georgians in the Ottoman Empire which would hold pre-1923 people. See Category:Armenians in Iran where we include Armenians in Iran, no matter where in Iran they lived nor how long their ancestors lived in Iran.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 13 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.

Roman Catholic church buildings

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: Alt rename * Pppery * it has begun... 01:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
More information more categories ...
Close
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories of Category:Church buildings have always been inconsistent between using "Church buildings" and just "Churches", and they've moved back and forth through various CFDs and speedy moves. Most of the tree was moved to "Churches" in 2015, then two years later just the main category was moved back again to its current name on the basis that church is a disambiguation page because it can also mean a congregation or denomination. However, there is no category tree for congregations and that's unlikely to cause confusion. The ambiguity with denomination makes sense for the general categories about churches, but for categories about church buildings within a specific denomination, there is no ambiguity and so no need for artificial disambiguation. Therefore, we should just use the simpler, more natural and more common "churches" for those subcategories. Many of the subcategories of Category:Roman Catholic church buildings already use this form (e.g. Category:Roman Catholic churches by country). I don't think adding an extra word just to copy the main category even when it's unnecessary is helpful here. Articles more often use "churches", e.g. List of Catholic churches in the United Kingdom. Mclay1 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Trim and rename: I support the concision, but we should also change the wording to Latin Catholic churches or Western Catholic churches. Category:Catholic church buildings clearly states that the categories should be titled according to official classifications, e.g., "Latin Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, and Independent Catholic Church", yet somehow we ended up with "Roman Catholic church buildings", which is potentially confusing. natemup (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. I'd like to hear from someone who knows more about the topic than me what the difference is between Roman Catholic and Latin Catholic. However, I don't know that I'd place much stock in what one editor (who is now indefinitely blocked) decided to write in the category description. Mclay1 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
"Roman Catholic" is an ambiguous, unofficial term that could refer to all Catholics or to only those under the jurisdiction of the Latin Church (also known as the Western Church). The Catholic Church is officially a body of 24 particular churches under the authority of the pope, including the Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. The category being discussed here specifically refers to the Latin Church, as there is a separate one for Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings. So I think we should go ahead and make it "Latin Catholic churches" or "Western Catholic churches". natemup (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Ever since I saw this category tree, I saw no reason for the addition of the word "buildings." However, I disagree with the suggestion of changing/adding the word "Latin." While technically correct, I think it would create more confusion rather than being helpful as "Latin Catholic church" is not a commonly used term. Category names should be helpful without giving them much thought. Farragutful (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Buildings" is more inclusive than just "Churches", since it includes all ancillary church buildings, such as parish halls, rectories, and so on. "Churches" could be a sub-category for "Buildings". "Roman Catholic" is the generally used description, I've rarely (if ever) seen "Latin Catholic" used, at least in the U.S. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Beyond My Ken, it already is a subcategory of Category:Roman Catholic buildings and structures, so I'm not sure what your reason is for opposing. Mclay1 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    "Roman Catholic" is a commonly used term for "Catholic", not the official jurisdiction known as the Latin Church. The latter is what is being discussed here—but you might not know that, because the "Roman Catholic" category title is confusing! natemup (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Churches is ambiguous between church buildings and church bodies. While there is little ambiguity in the context of Catholicism (although there are 24 different churches in the Catholic communion), it has proved very unpractical to name categories after "churches" within Christianity. The ambiguity is not really with individual congregations, or parishes, where the organization and the building are not much different. However there can be many church organizations having many local churches on the same territory. Expressions such as Eastern Catholic churches in Lebanon or Orthodox churches in Canada are too ambiguous for category names if you don't know if they are for buildings or church bodies. By consistency with Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches with whom it shares an ecclesiastical polity, it is better to keep using Roman Catholic church buildings in category names. Place Clichy (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it is not good practice to use an ambiguous term when a non-ambiguous term is available. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename: "Roman Catholic" is the wrong term, anyhow. If we're aiming for all Catholic church buildings, then it should be "Catholic church buildings". If we are aiming for Latin Church buildings at the exclusion of Eastern Catholic Church buildings, then it should be "Latin Catholic church buildings". See natemup's take above for a similar position. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Note that removing or changing "Roman" is a very different sort of rename than proposed by nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, but there's no easy way to phrase that in a brief !vote form. I think the closer will see that I don't support the form proposed in the nom. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    The usual way to do that here is to vote "Alt rename". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    It is often useful to differentiate Roman (Latin) church buildings and Eastern Catholic church buildings. Very often, they worship separately and have their own churches; after all, the rite of worship is the main difference between Roman and Eastern Catholics. In many cases, there is a parent Catholic church buildings. When there isn't, it can be created without a CFD process. Place Clichy (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest Rename all as (List of/Category:) [name] church buildings in [name]. Let's look at it another way, using the example of the List of Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom, does the list contain Roman Catholic church buildings or Roman Catholic church bodies? Use of the term buildings is unambiguous and as per Place Clichy and Marcocapelle, it removes any confusion. Further, following the lead category of Category:Church buildings with all the sub-categories being styled the same makes more sense to me. Rangasyd (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons given by Beyond My Ken and Place Clichy: not all of the contents are churches (in the sense of buildings); the subcategory that brought me here included an article titled "... church and cemetery". And "church" itself is potentially ambiguous because it could refer to the organization rather than structures. I realize that a cemetery isn't actually a "building" either, at least not as we usually use the word, but at least it fits within the concept of "churches and ancillary structures", and probably doesn't confuse anyone by its inclusion here. P Aculeius (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The rationale for the prior consensus to use Church buildings is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_25#Category:Churches. I strongly oppose renaming Roman Catholic church (building)s differently from the rest of Category:Catholic church buildings. Instead I recommend renaming Category:Catholic churches by country and Category:Roman Catholic churches by country and their appropriate subcats, adding "buildings", reversing the merge direction of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_28#Category:Catholic_churches_by_country. If I remember correctly there was a later CFD which ended with no consensus, and since then the tree has remained inconsistent. As for "Latin" I am inclined to agree with Beyond My Ken, but see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_29#Category:Roman_Catholic_Church where Roman Catholic Church was renamed to Catholic Church. As for structures other than church buildings, I would not oppose the creation of parent categories called "buildings and structures". – Fayenatic London 12:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    I support renaming Category:Catholic churches by country and Category:Roman Catholic churches by country to Category:Catholic church buildings by country and Category:Roman Catholic church buildings by country for consistency, at least among Catholic categories. (Tag added pointing here.) Consistency beyond that is imho largely unreachable, especially seen previous discussions, in large part because imho the role of the local congregation vs. the larger church body is utterly different, almost incomparable, between Catholicism and congregational Protestantism. Place Clichy (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    • I support that too, and I think it applies to most Protestant denominations too, except the non-denominational churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Expanded alt rename nomination:
More information more categories ...
Close
Place Clichy (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@Mclay1, Rangasyd, P Aculeius, Fayenatic london, Natemup, Farragutful, Beyond My Ken, Pbritti, and Marcocapelle: what is your opinion towards a renaming in the other direction, in order to fix the inconsistencies raised in the original rationale, while also taking care of the ambiguity between church building and church organization? Place Clichy (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@Place Clichy, generally I think consistency is good, but as I said in the nomination, I don't think it's necessary for every sub-tree within Category:Church buildings to match that name. That name is a workaround to solve a problem that doesn't exist on lower levels. I just don't agree that there is any ambiguity in using churches. And any building that isn't technically a church can already go into Category:Roman Catholic buildings and structures. Mclay1 (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Tentative support for Place Clichy's proposal, noting that this renaming proposal goes far beyond merely opposing the renaming of some existing categories. I don't think absolute consistency is necessary across all related categories, particularly when many of them are likely to contain only physical churches, rather than annexes, rectories, monasteries, nunneries, cemeteries, etc. I think this is even more likely to be the case with non-Catholic churches, which may possess ancillary structures that are seldom notable in themselves; thus I feel out of my depth and express no opinion as to all of the other denominations mentioned by Rangasyd. P Aculeius (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Rangasyd's list of categories too. Note that this does not concern another denomination, these are all still Catholic church buildings. Ultimately (but please not now, I wouldn't like this to end up in trainwreck) Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran etc. church buildings should follow. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support categories added by Rangasyd. Like said above by Marco, these are not "other denominations" but are all Catholic. The Jesuits and other sibling categories are organized societies and orders within the Catholic Church, so this alternative nomination still remains within the general scope of what was discussed above, i.e. Catholic church buildings. Place Clichy (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we have a consensus for Place Clichy's alt proposal here, but I'd prefer to leave this for another relist cycle just to be completely sure and give everyone a final chance to comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I have posted a list of actions in the format the bot wants at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 13. In the event this is closed as alt rename I'll probably copy directly from the talk page to WP:CFDWL without any further processing. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for that. Fixed some. (Category:Roman Catholic churches in Marche had been renamed in the meantime for other reasons!) Place Clichy (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been open since the end of October, any chance it's getting close to closure time with it? Thanks, trying to light a fire here. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 24 November 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:Animated monster movies

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. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CROSSCAT. I am not proposing a merge because most of the subcategories and articles do not belong in this category anyway. Despite AHI-3000's apparent belief otherwise, a film being about a monster does not imply something is a "monster movie", which is a specific genre about an attack by a typically villainous and hostile monster. If there is anything that does belong in it and isn't already in one of its subcategories, it should be selectively merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
  • If not kept, shouldn't it at least be merged to Category:Animated films based on folklore? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure all of it falls under folklore. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
    Monsters are currently categorized as legendary creatures, legends falls under folklore which is quite broad regardless. So would support an upmerge, if deleted. I'd propose alt rename to Animated movies about monsters to avoid the real issue that alot of these are not appropriate for the monster movie genre. WinstonDewey (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    I think the question then would be if "Animated movies about monsters" still fails WP:CROSSCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
    • "Animated films about monsters" would deviate from the format of parent Category:Monster movies. For a rename they should be nominated in tandem. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
      Alt nom, agreed, perhaps what would be better is keep Category:Animated monster movies (there's enough godzilla and other entries to do so), but purge to both existing cats (largely animated children's fantasy and such) and potentially a new Category:Animated movies about monsters that is under Category:Animated films about legendary creatures and any other relevant cats. Then review Category:Animated monster movies for relevant parent cats. WinstonDewey (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: edit
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:13, 13 November 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:Prehistoric gastropods by taxon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 21#Category:Prehistoric gastropods by taxon

Natural history of the Netherlands Antilles

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 21#Natural history of the Netherlands Antilles

Category:Ultima characters

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article and a subcategory. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:04, 13 November 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:Federal elections in Malaysia

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: These categories don't contain any elections. All the subcategories of Category:Federal elections in Malaysia contain only a single subcategory for federal constituencies. There is already Category:General elections in Malaysia for elections. Mclay1 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: The creator of these categories was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Mclay1 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 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.

Categories by state or federal territory of Malaysia

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 and rename. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Within Category:Categories by state or federal territory of Malaysia, some topics are divided into separate categories for the states and the federal territories. There are only three federal territories and some of them don't have categories for all the topics. It would be much simpler to combine the states and federal territories categories as is similarly done with other countries. Mclay1 (talk) 12:55, 13 November 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:Anthropomorphic comics

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:Comics about anthropomorphic characters. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I do believe this is a WP:NARROWCAT situation, and the name is also confusing. Regardless of what happens to the subcategories, this isn't likely necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge or rename, it is also an odd description. If renamed, probably something like Category:Comics with anthropomorphism. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    A rename like that would make it certainly non-defining though. "Comics about anthropomorphic characters" or "Comics about anthropomorphic characters by character type" would make a bit more sense, but I still have my doubts it's an encyclopedic cross-categorization. (At least compared so, say, anthropomorphic animals). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Agree that Comics about anthropomorphic characters would be a better name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename per Marco. -- Just N. (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:52, 13 November 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:Nobility characters in video games

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... 01:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization created by a blocked user. (Should not need to be dual merged into "Video game characters" as the characters are generally categorized under a gender category there). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support; defining as a concept, but not as a concept in video games in particular. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kings and princes and princesses are defining characteristics for fictional characters. Place Clichy (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    It is not nominator's intention to merge Category:Fictional kings though. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
    That's understood. My thought was that a video game king, or princess etc. can be a notable character in itself. Place Clichy (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    But are they notable for being a video game king as a combined concept? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
    +1 this is about the notability, specifically, of "kings in video games" and the like. If that isn't a topic that can be expounded upon, then it shouldn't be a cross-categorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep – I don't see why this would not be a notable intersection. Many video games revolve around such characters. It seems like a useful way to diffuse the parents, and I wouldn't object to categories for other mediums. I think the category names could be simpler though: Category:Kings in video games etc. Mclay1 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    This is about the cross-categorization of kings in video games, not just being a king character or being a video game character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    I am aware of that. If there are enough of both that cross over, there's no problem making a subcategory that combines them. These are not overly specific categories covered by WP:CROSSCAT or WP:NARROWCAT. Also, Category:Fictional kings, for example, currently contains 287 articles (not including those in the subcategories). Diffusion seems worthwile. Mclay1 (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
    Making random cross-categorizations that are not notable in and of themselves is the very meaning of CROSSCAT. There's no evidence that nobility in video games specifically is standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nom and Cukie Gherkin. Violation of CROSSCAT without clear inclusion criteria. If for some reason we need to subdivide a Fictional Nobility category, it shouldn't be by whether the character is in a video game or not, which is contested, unclear, and trivial. (What about a character who originated in film or a novel, but who appears in one trivial video game? Do cameos count or do they have to be the star? etc.) SnowFire (talk) 21:39, 19 November 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:Macanese Wikipedians

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:Macau Wikipedians. – Fayenatic London 11:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This category is for Macau Wikipedians, and Macau people≠Macanese people. Yumeto (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Marco. -- Just N. (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:48, 13 November 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:2nd millennium in Lagos State

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in Lagos State
  • Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in Rivers State
  • Propose deleting Category:3rd millennium in Lagos State
  • Propose deleting Category:3rd millennium in Rivers State
  • Propose deleting Category:Millennia in Lagos State
  • Propose deleting Category:Millennia in Rivers State
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layers. Lagos State and Rivers State have only existed during two centuries, one per millennium. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:22, 13 November 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:Surfaces of constant curvature

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 23#Category:Surfaces of constant curvature

Category:People from the Duchy of Styria

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: purge. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: purge and move articles to Category:People from the Habsburg monarchy, Category:People from the Austrian Empire and Category:People from Austria-Hungary as appropriate. While the Duchy of Styria was only formally disestablished in 1918, it effectively ceased to exist as an independent state in 1619. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Purge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep the category as is. The duchy was a prominent geographical entity that existed from 1180 to 1918, and putting the people related to it in more general categories lacks specificity. --TadejM my talk 18:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • It was no longer prominent after it had been fully integrated in the Habsburg monarchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 14 November 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 arbalists (crossbowmen)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 21#Category:Fictional arbalists (crossbowmen)

Category:October 2023 crimes in Oceania

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in the category. I don't think a merge is needed, since the article exists in another category in the tree, Category:2023 murders in Australia. – numbermaniac 07:16, 13 November 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:Chilean geneticists

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 13 November 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:Austrian bioinformaticians

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, although I am not sure if mathematicians is a good merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
    Tend to agree, I'll strike out mathematicians. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 13:07, 13 November 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:Maltese psychologists

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:Psychologists. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 13 November 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:Maltese biologists

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 13 November 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