Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 15
November 17 >

November 16


Category:People of the Military Frontier

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All other members of parent Category:People of the Habsburg monarchy by location use "from", and that sounds far more natural. We've used the form with "of" with e.g. recognized autochthonous minorities in Croatia (hence Czechs of Croatia etc), but I don't know that the Habsburg monarchy had that sort of a distinction at the time. Joy (talk) 17:41, 16 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.


Animal breeds in Prussia

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> 06:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, only 1-3 articles in these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:40, 16 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:Swedish people by land

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 this and Category:People from Götaland (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 14:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete including its subcategory, we should not diffuse people by anachronistic country subdivisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Category:Swedish people by land and Category:People from Götaland (now tagged to this discussion) per Marcocapelle. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Marcocapelle --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 17 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.

People by mental disorder categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep with 7 opposing and only 4 supporting the nomination. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The exact definition and diagnostic criteria of mental disorders are constantly under contention. There are many, many, wildly different standards and schools of thought surrounding mental illness across time, culture, and international borders, and the criteria for specific mental diagnoses are constantly being disputed and consequently revised by the various entities that govern those standards. There are disorders that were once common diagnoses which are now considered obsolete or even prejudiced upon further debate, and there are still, even today, diagnoses in use that are debated and considered dubious, and those too may, in time, be considered obsolete. It is inappropriate for Wikipedia to state in WikiVoice, anywhere on the site, that a person "has" a particular mental disorder as if it's an uncontroversial fact, as a simple matter of adhering to the standards of neutrality and fairness to living persons that we must meet as editors.
A handful of these categories, such as People with dissociative identity disorder, were apparently renamed from "People diagnosed with [disorder]" merely because the rest of the tree already said "People with..." and editors favored consistency. I believe those name changes were inappropriate. Things being neat and tidy for the sake of our satisfaction as editors ought not to take precedent over the accuracy of how people are described. These categories should all be renamed to "People diagnosed with [disorder]", so that rather than potentially contentiously labeling all of these people as definitely having a disorder, these categories instead neutrally highlight the verifiable facts that these people have at one time or another been given that diagnosis. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Addendum: I want to clarify that I believe diagnosis, for our purposes, to mean that the persons categorized simply have been diagnosed, be that formally by a psychiatrist or other certified professional, or informally, either by themselves, or by a medically unqualified third party such as a court of law, journalists, historians, or whoever. Some editors have misunderstood my intentions to mean that the category scope should be narrowed to people verified as having been formally diagnosed by a medically qualified third party. This is not my intention and I don't see this as being practical, especially given that certified doctors a few hundred years ago probably wouldn't be considered qualified to diagnose mental illnesses today, and we can't verify that everyone in the categories has received a formal diagnosis. The question of whether or not a particular person is in scope should depend on two things, whether or not anyone, of any degree of qualification or lack thereof, in any reliable source, said "they had that disorder" (the bare minimum for a diagnosis), and whether or not that fact is defining. I think this basic criteria is reasonably neutral and encyclopedic, and already covers everyone contained in the categories who should be there. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: your heart is in the right place but I am concerned about this narrowing categories to people who are only diagnosed as @Smasongarrison has pointed out. We know historic people who clearly had PTSD but weren't diagnosed with during their lifetime it because it wasn't a thing known then but we know now they were. Similarly, I know people IRL who avoid getting official diagnosis in today's day and age because of various reasons. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
oppose per WAID IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
This concise but cryptic rationale appears to refer to "Why Am I Dead". – Fayenatic London 23:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Ah, no, it's a reference to user:WhatamIdoing who presented a rationale below. I thought "Why am I dead" was being introduced as a rationale for opposing, because some mental disorders have effects that militate against getting a diagnosis. – Fayenatic London 23:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. "Diagnosed with" implies like, a formal diagnosis, which is very confusing if is also meant to include things like self-identification or identified as having a certain disorder by historians or journalists or medical people after the fact. Like I'm really worried that it's going to cause issues with people (reasonably so) interpreting "diagnosed with" as "has a formal medical diagnosis", which is in many cases difficult to verify anyway. I don't really see what's wrong with stating in WikiVoice that a person has a certain disorder when the sources reasonably say that they do? To exaggerate, you don't see categories like "People who are identified as feminists" or "People who are considered to be of Norwegian descent". If the sources are strong enough for a person to be categorized as "person diagnosed with" then they are strong enough to, in my opinion, say that they "had/have" the disorder because that's what reliable sources are telling us? Are there specific cases I'm not thinking of where it would be a BLP violation to say a person "has" a disorder but not that they are "diagnosed with"? Everything on Wikipedia is "a reliable source tells us this", not "this is Ontologically True". Maybe in the strict sense it is true that we can only verify "sources tell us this person was diagnosed (in the broadest sense of the word) with a mental disorder" but that goes for everything else on Wikipedia too.
It also seems like if this change is applied, it should be applied to much more categories in Category:People with disabilities, not just the mental disorders one? TheZoodles (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. There are self-identified disabled people who don't have any formal diagnosis who are listed in these categories, and they should remain that way. There are also a lot of people who identify as disabled but have never stated whether or not they have a formal diagnosis. Renaming it would mean that even if a person has openly stated they are disabled, they won't be added unless they have said that they've been officially diagnosed, and that just seems that it would make things unnecessarily difficult. Labelling it as "diagnosed with" just adds unnecessary doubt to their statement, like are we also going to change "LGBTQ people" to "people who identify as LGBTQ" or "people from New York City" to "people who claim to be from New York City"? There's plenty of instances of people getting added to categories based on their own words rather than definitive proof, hell even if you change it to "diagnosed with" you're still most likely just going off the person's own words rather than actually seeing the documentation for yourself. Also, as for your addendum, that is bound to cause confusion. Self-identification (more commonly referred to as self-diagnosis) is not diagnosis. I don't say this to be dismissive of self-identification, I self-identify as autistic myself and I don't view myself as being any less autistic for it, and I don't believe that I or anyone else should have to get a diagnosis to call themselves autistic. But self-identification is not a form of diagnosis, because a diagnosis is a formal procedure that only qualified professionals can perform. And other people also believe that self-identification is not a form of diagnosis, and so that would cause a lot of confusion when a self-identified disabled person is listed as a category for people who were diagnosed with the disability they have not been formally diagnosed with. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Procedural note I've removed Category:Autistic people and its children from the nomination, as, after reading a previous discussion linked below, I actually find myself agreeing with the outcome as discussed and feel that those categories should remain as they are. However, I still think all the "People with [disorder]" categories ought to be renamed. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Question what happens with articles like Tivadar Csontváry Kosztka? He wasn't diagnosed, biographists headcanonized him with schizophrenia. And there are many historical figures in the hypochondria category.
Disregarding historical people that existed before diagnosis was more common. I'm pretty sure that in some articles, the fact someone was indeed diagnosed or not is not a big deal nor a disputed debate. That doesn't mean the disorder is not severe or that it is a generalized banalization. Fy Javan (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I think this is a good example of why these category names are currently flawed. In the case of Kosztka, I personally feel that Category:People diagnosed with schizophrenia would be an appropriate category, because although he was not medically diagnosed by a psychiatrist, he was diagnosed in a literal sense by historians, and this fact is verifiable. I could see this being an issue of debate on the talk page if this nomination is successful. However, in my own assessment, if categorizing Kosztka as "diagnosed with schizophrenia" would be inappropriate, categorizing him as "with schizophrenia" definitely already is. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Pinging people involved in past discussions on some of these categories: @Oculi, @Peterkingiron, @Dimadick, @Omnis Scientia, @WhatamIdoing, @Mclay1, @KennyOfHrub, @Zander251, @Xurizuri, @MikutoH, @TheZoodles, @RevelationDirect, @PanchoS, @Collect, @Carlossuarez46, and @John Pack Lambert. If I missed anyone, please feel free to add their pings. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Forgot @Elcalebo, @Oolong, @Raladic, @Urselius, @TempusTacet, and @JeffSpaceman. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • While I sympathize with the intent of the nomination, I also think it is an attempt to become too precise and not precise enough at the same time. Ultimately we can only know that people have a mental disorder if they say so themselves. So for optimal precision it should be "People who say they were diagnosed with ..." but for simplicity "People with ..." is good enough for me. Needless to say that only people who say they were diagnosed belong in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I think self-diagnosis can still count as diagnosis for our purposes, so long as that's verifiable. Perhaps a Category:People self-diagnosed with mental disorders could be worth considering as a subcategory if there's enough people verified as such, but that would be a separate discussion. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    It is also worth noting that not everyone in these categories is contained here because they declared themselves to have a particular disorder. There are also the Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity, Category:People declared mentally unfit for court, and Category:People detained in psychiatric hospitals subcategories, which by their nature will include people who were diagnosed by external authorities over the course of those circumstances (or perhaps, not formally diagnosed at all). Further, many people who believe they have mental disorders only believe so in the first place because they were given a diagnosis by someone, even if they do not say who that someone is, and even if that someone is themselves, their self-diagnosis is obviously still not perfect, and they may well change their mind, or a later evaluation may deem their previous diagnosis to be mistaken. I feel that "diagnosed with" is sufficient to cover all these circumstances with clarity and neutrality. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Strongly oppose. We've had similar disscusions about this when we changed People with austism to autistic people (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Identity-first language for autistic people categories). I am of the opinion that people are defined by the disability, not their ability to get a formal diagnosis. The intersection between diagnosis method and specific disorder isn't defining. SMasonGarrison 13:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, to clarify this comment ("The intersection between diagnosis method and specific disorder isn't defining"), is this an opposition to the self-diagnosed category idea in specific, or to the whole rename proposal in general?
    If it's the latter, I want to clarify that this nomination is absolutely not proposing that we make a whole bunch of new categories for the intersections of diagnosis methods and specific mental disorders, as I agree that would almost certainly be a WP:NARROWCAT. I'm saying that I think "diagnosed with" is a general enough descriptor to cover any diagnosis method, whether that be self-diagnosis or by a medical professional (or by any other party, as discussed above in response to Fy Javan), and that the defining categorization factor should be the fact of them being diagnosed, so long as that's verifiable. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I am strongly opposed to narrowing the categorization by limited it to people with a "diagnosis". EGRS covers disability of any flavor. If someone is regularly described as being austic, then we should respect that sourcing. We should not require disabled people to have additional sourcing about whether their diagnosis is "official". Do we require women to have a chromosomal test? Or English-language speakers to have the take the TOEFL? What about alumni from specific colleges? Do we need to see their diploma to categorize someone as a Harvard Alum? I am also opposed to reverting all of the identity first language categories to person-first. You really need to ping the folks involved in previous discussions.SMasonGarrison 21:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not sure I'm understood here. I think we're fundamentally in agreement, because I, too, do not think it would be proper to narrow the category scope. If anything, I'm trying to argue for it to be implicitly expanded.
    You are absolutely correct in saying that we should not require disabled people, mentally or otherwise, to in any way "prove" that they are disabled. I'm not arguing for that. What I'm trying to say here is that "diagnosed with", for the purposes of the category tree, should be understood to mean any kind of diagnosis, be that formal or informal. In essence I am arguing for the exact opposite of what you are arguing against, so I'm not sure where the conflict between our opinions is.
    As for pinging the other people in past discussions, I wasn't trying to avoid doing that. I just hadn't gotten around to finding and combing through every past discussion on all of these categories. But since I've been asked to do so, I'll do it shortly. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    Going over that discussion you linked (which I had not previously seen), I actually agree with the rationale about going with identity-first language, and I had not considered that when making this nom. I think I would support leaving the Category:Autistic people tree as it is (and were I to restart this nomination, I would not include those categories). However, I still feel that the other categories should be renamed. (Update: In light of this I've removed all of those categories from the batch.) silviaASH (inquire within) 00:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    I've pinged everyone in all the past discussions that I could find. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    I oppose this on the grounds that it will be (mis)interpreted as requiring a formal diagnosis from a professional, and sometimes even a source explicitly declaring that there was a formal diagnosis from a psychiatrist. It might be "good" in some moral, de-stigmatizing way, but it isn't going to be functional on wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose per WhatamIdoing. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. WhatamIdoing has the best argument against this, but I believe such concerns can be adequately alleviated by a good WP:CATDESC. Stating in wikivoice that people definitively have a particular disorder is deeply problematic and in many cases probably violates WP:BLP, not just WP:CATV. For example, we shouldn't state in wikivoice that someone has Asberger syndrome because there is no such diagnosis. lp0 on fire () 09:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support We shouldn't be implying in WikiVoice that people absolutely, surely, beyond a doubt HAVE these disorders, as it would seem on its face to violate WP:BLP guidelines given that such a thing may come off as insulting or spreading untruths. Given that it's an imprecise science, all we can say is that people were diagnosed with them, in contrast to an easily confirmable physical illness. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how this new system would work. Would we need documentation from a medical professional who is certified to give diagnoses for these conditions? That sounds like a big problem but it's actually a small problem compared to how we would find out about these certified diagnoses. I think I can safely say that none of our article subjects would share a medical diagnosis with a Wikipedia editor or journalist so that means we are trust the word of the subject to be honest and truthful. I don't think this can be assumed regarding personal conditions by the subject or any relatives. Once doubt enters the equation of whether or not a subject is being forthcoming with the truth, all of our biographies and autobiographies could be hollowed out by removing unverified source content. I understand the BLP concerns but at some point when you are writing articles about subjects that rely on human testimony, you have to extend some assumptions or we will need to purge many of our articles including removing birthdates, education, family history and work history, many "facts" that come from the subject. Even most of our "reliable sources" take for granted that people tell the truth about themselves and if you require professional verification for biographical details, Wikipedia would shrink in size. I understand the desire to not make errors but at some point, we have to set the bar about assuming people are stating what they know to be true at a level where we can compose a well-written article about the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
    As I said elsewhere in the discussion, the general idea is to assume that self-diagnosis counts as diagnosis, as does a layperson's diagnosis (such as in the case of historians speculating about a historical figure as I discussed in the example of Kosztka above) and that these lay diagnoses are sufficient grounds for inclusion, so long as they come from reliable sources. However it seems that, in general, this logic is not considered intuitive to other editors, and you do make a good point about needing to assume that the sources are true for the sake of our work, so I'm willing to accept these arguments as a case against my proposal. It is certainly true that, as far as the truth is concerned, we can never be perfect. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support I think it is much better to say that the people have the disability or disorder than to say that it is who they are. I think we should avoid language that imposes the condition too fully on the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with dissociative identity disorder

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 leaning towards keep (5 opposing, 3 supporting). – Fayenatic London 11:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The category itself is appropriate, given that multiple personalities is a common defining trait of a character, but the current category name is inappropriate WP:OR. A character having multiple personalities does not necessarily mean that they have dissociative identity disorder, as that is a specific disorder with mutable, changing, and oft-disputed criteria, and there are other ways in which multiple personalities can manifest (either in the real world, or invented by a writer of a particular fictional story). Many fictional characters do not have officially stated diagnoses of mental illnesses associated with them, and it is inappropriate for them all to be lumped up in a single box that associates them with a particular medical diagnosis. The previous discussion on this issue resulted in a consensus to rename the category to its current name, citing a desire for consistency in naming, but I do not believe consistency is more important than accuracy.
Alternatively, this category could be turned into a subcategory of a general Fictional characters with multiple personalities category, containing only characters who are reliably verified as having dissociative identity disorder, while all others go in the parent category.
See also this ongoing discussion on the larger "Fictional characters with mental disorders" category tree. As a procedural note, this rename was initially proposed as part of that nomination, but Marcocapelle said that this issue should be a separate discussion and so I changed the nomination and renominated the category. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Pinging @Marcocapelle, @Zxcvbnm, @Gonnym, @UnitedStatesian, and @Qwerfjkl, who participated in the prior discussion. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. There's a reason we don't call dissociative identity disorder "multiple personality disorder" anymore and that's because "multiple personalities" is not the best way to describe the phenomenon. There are many characters with multiple personalities who should not be included, because the defining characteristic here is not simply that they have multiple personalities, but that their entire identity changes, often even down to their name. To use Tyler Durden and the Narrator as an example, this is a clear instance of where this isn't just about multiple personalities. The Narrator does not just have a different personality as Tyler Durden. He thinks of Tyler Durden as a separate person from himself. When he's Tyler Durden, it's not just his personality that changes: it's also his name, fashion sense, and relationships. These aren't personality traits. They're parts of a person's wider sense of identity. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support I feel the same as I did in the last discussion on the topic. It shouldn't have been moved to "disassociative identity disorder", as multiple personalities in fiction can encompass more than a real-life psychological disorder. For example, possession by spiritual entities, magical spells, et cetera. The current name unnecessarily narrows the scope and can be subjective. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep and purge, "multiple personalities" is too subjective. We should stick to disorders that can be diagnosed. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    (1) "Disassociative identity disorder" may not even be real. It's debatable whether it's an actual medical condition or just a form of hysteria. We shouldn't be spreading pseudoscience as fact, so even in cases where characters are stated to have the disorder, saying it in WikiVoice is different. (2) It's not subjective to say that certain characters have multiple personalities. Look at Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde for example, a character with a very clear and obvious case of split personality such that each personality has a different name. The Narrator (Fight Club) is another example, with Tyler Durden being the other personality. These characters undebatably have more than one personality/alter ego. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Addendum: yes, this means I disagree with the current naming of Category:People with dissociative identity disorder. Its former name, Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, was more accurate because it doesn't directly state they have it in WikiVoice, only that a doctor somewhere said that they did. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I agree. This should be another discussion. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Made a People by mental disorder categories batch nom to discuss this issue. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per the reasoning in the previous discussion. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose per last discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 1#Category:Fictional characters with body dysmorphia. SMasonGarrison 21:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose as "multiple personalities" is subjective and difficult to define. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename I'm not convinced by the subjectivity claim here. Basically per zxcvbnm * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 29 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.

Massacres by war

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 29#Massacres by war

Fictional characters by mental disorder categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep and purge most without prejudice against smaller nominations of individual categories. The exact set of categories to be purged is unclear with multiple sets of conflicting claims for exceptions, but I'll let the implementors sort that out since they have to look at each entry and see whether it belongs anyway. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters with dissociative identity disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fictional characters with multiple personalities (Update: Removed from batch, will be nominated for renaming separately)
Nominator's rationale: This is a highly subjective category tree. The majority of fictional characters do not have official in-universe diagnoses of any particular mental disorders, and any diagnoses by critics are just opinions. As a result, the majority of these pages are categorized mostly according to editors' personal opinions or headcanons, which is not appropriate. Additionally, many of these categories are trivial narrow intersections, even in the cases where they may be considered more objective (like the speech disorders one). Given this, and also given that defining the scope of all of these mental illnesses is a thorny matter in any case, I believe these categories should all be deleted.
On exceptions to this nomination: I am considering Category:Fictional drug addicts and its children as an exception to this nomination, as drug addiction is more often an explicit defining trait of characters and much less subjective than the others, and therefore that subtree does not suffer from the same issues. I am also proposing renaming Category:Fictional characters with dissociative identity disorder, rather than deleting it, as multiple personalities is often a clearly defining trait of a fictional character and that is an appropriate category, but nonetheless the category should avoid the connotation of non-neutrally diagnosing the character(s) with a specific disorder. (Update: Removing it to hold a separate discussion on that issue.) (The amnesia category I'm leaving out also, given that that is a frequent defining trait.) silviaASH (inquire within) 03:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't know about the other categories but there's been a lot of effort on the autism in fiction-related categories to only include characters and media that have hard, reliable confirmation of autism (either in-universe or from the creators), and to not include speculation, headcanons, or armchair diagnoses (such as Sheldon Cooper or L from Death Note). Autism also tends to be a defining or major aspect of these characters. There are other issues with this specific category (lots of redirects and minor characters) that may warrant further evaluation and clean-up (especially in relation to the other autism-in-fiction pages and categories) but as far as subjectivity is concerned, that's not really a problem here in my opinion. I don't know about the other categories so I don't want to blanket oppose or agree but I do want to provide this context for this one category. TheZoodles (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Having just now seen this comment, I think I would withdraw this nomination if I could (some have supported the proposal so I now cannot). I should probably have gone over the categories one by one and then nominated them individually as appropriate. I will probably do that if this nomination closes in favor of keeping. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Many were made by a now-blocked user. These can extremely easily backslide into WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Category:Fictional characters with disabilities should be sufficient for the characters who really are defined by being disabled. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose to inclusion of Category:Fictional characters with dissociative identity disorder in this batch nomination. It should be discussed separately and the contributors to the previous discussion should be pinged. Substantively, purging is the solution, rather than renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Okay, fair enough. I've removed it from the nomination and will nominate it separately shortly. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Opposition of the inclusion of Category:Fictional pedophiles. Usually I try not to weigh in on morbid subject matter like this. But I don't think pedophilia counts as a mental illness these days. It usually describes sexually abusing children. I feel like this specific category should stay (or maybe renamed to "Category:Fictional sex abusers of children" or something like that) as there are fictional characters have have done this (which is quite messed up and something I recommend to any writer to avoid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgio Bicchiere (talk • contribs) 07:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe that category should be renamed to indicate a wider and more general scope of fictional characters described as being attracted to and/or engaging in sexual abuse of minors, without needing to be limited to the medical definition of pedophilia in specific. I would be open to hearing more opinions on that. Personally, I don't think it's a very useful category and would rather it just be deleted, especially given its obviously contentious natur. (We also already have Category:Fictional child abusers, which seems good enough to me, unless we want to diffuse it into Category:Fictional child sexual abusers or something. I think that would have to be a separate discussion.) silviaASH (inquire within) 07:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    We could make it Category:Fictional child molesters, as the term "child molestation" seems to encompass a wide range of sexual abuse of children.
    Again, not something I (or any normal person) would generally look into, but I read that definition somewhere. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    If consensus ends up being to not delete that category this discussion can be held elsewhere at a later date. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    OK, @SilviaASH, thanks for letting me know.
    Again, I don't usually discuss such horrific subject matter that often, but I just wanted to give my thoughts since this seemed to be a well accepted category. Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • For the remaining categories, possibly keep and purge, keeping only the undisputable cases. Otherwise, if that is not feasible, delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with keep and purge, but I also oppose the inclusion of Category:Fictional stutterers and Category:Fictional characters with speech disorders. Speech disorders are not mental disorders, and they are normally not something that can be misdiagnosed or "diagnosed by the audience" - you can misdiagnose a character with autism or schizophrenia, but whether they stutter/lisp or not is a pretty objective thing, so it should be easy to support inclusion with WP:RS. --HPfan4 (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with that, and I don't think they should have been parented by the mental disorders category, but it's a moot point in my opinion since those in particular are WP:TRIVIALCATs and I still think they should be deleted. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    At least for some of the characters, such as Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig, and Bill Denbrough, the speech impediment is a defining characteristic, so it's not trivial by any means. --HPfan4 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    I mean it could be called defining to some extent, I guess, but I don't think it's a significant enough trait to categorize by. It's sort of like putting Kermit the Frog in Category:Fictional characters with green skin. Sure, that might be a defining characteristic, but is that really a worthwhile category? I don't think so. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    One can find WP:RS on their speech impediments, and their speech disorders are widely referenced in popular culture in regards to people having them in real life (to the point that TV Tropes has pages called "Elmuh Fudd Syndwome" and "Porky Pig Pronounciation"). Would you find the same for Kermit having green skin? I doubt it (also, it cannot be defining because frogs normally have green skin). --HPfan4 (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    Well, anyway, I still don't really agree that it needs to be categorized, but I guess I can agree that it was someone's mistake to parent that category with mental disorders, and it was my mistake to include it in the nomination. I'd consider taking it out of the batch, but I think it's too late at this point. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because in many cases the point of the character was to explore the social treatment of people with such characteristics, or indicate survival strategies to people who would sympathise with them. Purging of inappropriately categorised members can always go ahead and does not need approval at CFD, although it may be helpful to link to a CFD indicating a consensus that a purge is needed, to avoid any suspicion of malice. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
It's confusing to have this lengthy discussion on the same day as similar the "People by mental disorder categories" discussion. Can these be split up so they are on different days? Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 27 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:Manx salon-holders

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> 06:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category. merge for now. SMasonGarrison 03:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge for now, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge – The only person in the category is described as Scottish anyway. Mclay1 (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 10:25, 18 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:Pharmacists from the Ottoman Empire

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 25#Category:Pharmacists from the Ottoman Empire

Category:Danes who served in foreign militaries

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. I'll implement this by upmerging the target cat to Category:Danish expatriates by occupation etc, which will then follow patterns for other countries. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Propose merging Category:Danes who served in foreign militaries to Category:Danish expatriate military personnel
Nominator's rationale: overlapping category. the category creator needs to review how categories are named SMasonGarrison 03:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Danish who served in foreign militaries does not belong here at all. Purge, so that only the military attaches subcategory is left over, and then merge to its parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Isn't serving in foreign militaries precisely the purpose of this category? Category:Expatriate military personnel and its parent Category:Expatriate military units and formations are full of the many cases where sometimes entire units fought under another flag than there own, which is a notable characteristic in military history. Maybe these categories could be redefined or renamed to make it clear they are for the like of the Czechoslovak Legion. Military attachés are a completely different topic, which should be purged. Place Clichy (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    Yes it is the expatriate category I have an issue with. My earlier reply is unclear in that respect. It should read as follows: Danish who served in foreign militaries do not belong in the target at all. Purge the target, so that only the military attaches subcategory is left over, and then merge Category:Danish expatriate military personnel to its parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    It seems it was purged. At the time I am looking, Category:Danish expatriate military personnel only has in it children Category:Danes who served in foreign militaries and Category:Military attachés for Denmark, no article. I agree that the new Category:Danes who served in foreign militaries has a slightly more understandable name in this regard. Both categories were recently created by the same user. Maybe parents Category:Expatriate military personnel and Category:Expatriate military units and formations could be clarified too. Place Clichy (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • keep The category issimilar to Category:Americans who served in foreign militaries and I think it is useful to distinguish betwen people who foreign militaries and those who merely served abroad (or settled there for other reasons). Alternatively the American category should also be moved. Ramblersen2 (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    If you look at parent Category:Expatriate military personnel, you will see that it is not for people who served abroad, but people who served for other countries, often as whole units. Of course being sent abroad is a common purpose for military personnel, to the point of being unnoticeable. Military is not a domestic security occupation. Place Clichy (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
    Fair enough. But if the Danish category should be merged as proposed, shouldn't the same be done to Category:Americans who served in foreign militaries, which is placed in Category:American expatriates by occupation (and preexisted the Danish category). I really don't see the difference. Alternatively the Danish category should be kept but not placed in the parent category Danish expatriate military personel (and neither should the American one be placed in Category:American expatriates by occupation).Ramblersen2 (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
    The way discussion is going, Category:Danes who served in foreign militaries would be kept, and the expatriate category considered redundant. Not all categories in Category:Expatriate military personnel and Category:Expatriate military units and formations have similar-looking names, and that's fine, because individual situations (of people serving under a foreign flag) were often very different. Place Clichy (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
    @Ramblersen2 Other stuff exists is not a compelling argument. If this category is to be kept, it should be renamed to Danish people who ... similarly Americans who served in foreign militaries should be renamed to American people who served in foreign militaries SMasonGarrison 23:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge after purging Military attachés for Denmark per discussion above. In practice, the category must be manually added all legitimate parents (Category:Expatriate military personnel, Category:Danish expatriates by occupation, it is already in Category:Danish military personnel), as it is a down-merge. Place Clichy (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge Being a Dane in a military outside Denmark is defining. Being a Danish military person who is in the Danish military but stationed outside Denmark is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 4 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:American people of Sicilian descent

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: Manual merge * Pppery * it has begun... 02:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_12#Category:American_people_of_Lucanian_descent SMasonGarrison 02:55, 16 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:Villages that are part of Razzakov

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 25#Category:Villages that are part of Razzakov

Category:Villages in defunct countries

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> 06:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Not helpful for navigation. Only page is already in Former villages SMasonGarrison 01:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. While a village and not a city, the article is also fine in Category:Achaemenid cities. Maybe that should be renamed to Category:Populated places in the Achaemenid Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 16 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:7th-century alchemists

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> 06:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 01:49, 16 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 buildings and structures originating in literature

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: Manual merge * Pppery * it has begun... 02:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Unclear what is defining about a building originating in literature; fails WP:NONDEF. Unsure if any of them actually need to be merged, as most of them are probably in some other subcategory in the tree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • As far as I recall, I created this sublist because we subdivide out other things (characters, for example) by their medium of origination. If it can be defining for characters, why not for other literary elements? BD2412 T 01:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I think that's a bit of an WP:OSE argument, as the other categories may also be wrong. There are plenty of unnecessary categories being made all the time that are later merged or deleted. So I'd have to maintain the assertion that when talking about this category in particular, it doesn't seem to be defining. Still, to use a comparison, something like Category:Video game objects that is similar, has a main article, Item (game terminology). No main article exists for "Buildings in literature" but I'd be willing to withdraw if it's provably a notable topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    No main article is needed to justify usefully subdividing a large category (except for WP:EGRS). – Fayenatic London 22:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • If merged, manual merge per rationale. It would have been better to nominate this and its sibling Category:Fictional buildings and structures originating in comic books together; relist? – Fayenatic London 22:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
    • @Fayenatic london: I would actually contend that there is substantially greater literature about architecture in the comic book medium. BD2412 T 20:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that does make sense, as comics are a visual as well as verbal medium. Also, that one is part of a bigger hierarchy for elements in comics, whereas this nominated category and Literary characters are the only ones for literature within Category:Fictional elements by medium. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge Clicking through the articles, this seems trivial since you have both very realistic locations like 221B Baker Street and very fantasy based ones like Hogwarts. In this case, being from literature doesn't seem to provide any more of a common thread than being fictional in general. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:58, 26 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 kyūjutsuka

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> 06:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a trivial WP:CROSSCAT. Several characters contained here are not samurai and it does not seem that any are described in their articles as practicing specifically kyūjutsu. Consequently, how this category appears to be being used is as a category for characters of Japanese nationality who use a bow and arrow, and this does not seem like a necessary diffusion of Category:Fictional archers. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:33, 16 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