Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 30
Grand View Vikings football players
- 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> 13:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge Category:Grand View Vikings football players to Category:Grand View Vikings football; Category:Grand View University alumni and Category:College football players in Iowa
- Nominator's rationale this 1 article Category is not helpful to navigation. Merging to all 3 parents will make navigation easier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Merge for Now Too narrow to aid navigation, but no objection to future recreation if multiple new articles are ever published. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 5 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:Producers from insular areas of the United States
- 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. Nominator did not provide a reason as to why the category is redundant (non-admin closure) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 23:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Merge an unneeded Category layer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Why it is an "unneeded category layer"? How is it, for example, contrary to any of the category creation rules? Mercy11 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is unneeded layer most obviously bevmcause it is not groupingpanything. It has one sub-cat for Puerto Rico. We can just place Puerto Rico directly in the American category. All this does at prent is make it harder yo get from Puerto Rico to the rest of the US. In general if a category only has 1 sub-cat and no direct articles it is an unneeded layer. If this was grouping multiple insular area cats it might be useful, but it is not so it is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for expanding. I think you are suggesting removing the middle layer (Category:Producers from insular areas of the United States) and placing its subcat (Category:Puerto Rican producers) directly under Category:American producers. Right? But that's not what the nomination proposes. It proposes taking the "producers" in Category:Puerto Rican producers (these here) and placing them directly under Category:American producers, and that would mix American and Puerto Rican producers, which is worse yet. Mercy11 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- This is unneeded layer most obviously bevmcause it is not groupingpanything. It has one sub-cat for Puerto Rico. We can just place Puerto Rico directly in the American category. All this does at prent is make it harder yo get from Puerto Rico to the rest of the US. In general if a category only has 1 sub-cat and no direct articles it is an unneeded layer. If this was grouping multiple insular area cats it might be useful, but it is not so it is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- As for the argument "if a category only has 1 sub-cat and no direct articles it is an unneeded layer," that would represent a drive to follow process but a failure to follow reality, and I explain. That argument might be a reason to improve the categorization scheme by, for example, seeking a more descriptive layer name or, perhaps, to improve categorization by replacing the insular areas layer with a different existing layer. However, that argument doesn’t in and of itself represent the necessary and sufficient reasons to, by default, execute the 2 actions the argument imply:
- (1) to altogether remove the Insular Areas layer in question and
- (2) to let the sub-cat Category:Puerto Rican producers, now located under the Insular Areas layer, become a sub-cat of its previously grandparent category Category:American producers.
- So, in the situation herein, the argument that the existence of only one sub-cat under Category:Producers from insular areas of the United States and the existence of no direct articles under said category are the only 2 necessary conditions, as well as being the 2 sufficient conditions, to remove the Category:Producers from insular areas of the United States but also to let the sub-cat Category:Puerto Rican producers exist directly under Category:American producers. And I challenge that because that logic results in an arrangement that is contrary to reality as it represents that Puerto Rican producers are a subset of American producers which is a false representation of reality because Puerto Ricans are not Americans, instead they are, well, Puerto Ricans. In way of comparison and contrast, it would be correct to categorize Floridian producers under American producers because Floridians are Americans. But there is a reason why we do have articles on Puerto Rican people and on American people but we do not on Floridian people and Tennessean people, and that’s because Floridians and Tennesseans are Americans but Puerto Ricans aren’t. As a result, placing Puerto Rican producers under American producers is wrong as it misrepresents reality. Even if there was a fast and hard rule (which there's isn't) that "if a category has only 1 sub-cat and no direct articles it is an unneeded layer," the situation with Category:Puerto Rican producers would be a textbook example of a case where we would be expected to invoke the WP:IAR pilar. Mercy11 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- As for the argument "if a category only has 1 sub-cat and no direct articles it is an unneeded layer," that would represent a drive to follow process but a failure to follow reality, and I explain. That argument might be a reason to improve the categorization scheme by, for example, seeking a more descriptive layer name or, perhaps, to improve categorization by replacing the insular areas layer with a different existing layer. However, that argument doesn’t in and of itself represent the necessary and sufficient reasons to, by default, execute the 2 actions the argument imply:
- Why it is an "unneeded category layer"? How is it, for example, contrary to any of the category creation rules? Mercy11 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The nomination fails to state why the category is redundant. As a way of comparison, if we had a merge nomination for 2 categories where both categories in question were listing sparkling, radiant, lustrous metals, such that one was named Category:Bright metals and the second, the merge-to, category was named Category:Shinny metals, then the redundancy would be obvious. However, this is not the case with this nomination; this nomination fails to state the reason why the nominator perceives redundancy. My vote is Keep at least until clarification is provided. Mercy11 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per Mercy11's arguments. Yarfpr (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge for now, the current setup is not helpful for navigation. The merge will shorten the route through the category tree without leading to overpopulated categories elsewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- How is it "not helpful for navigation"? If I read that correctly, that would be like asking directions from inner-city NYC to, say, New Jersey, and getting the response, "Oh, sorry, you can't get there from here." Please clarify how it is "not helpful for navigation", thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- The response in this case is not "Oh, sorry, you can't get there from here." but instead "You have to take a longer way because some people are opposed to a more direct route.". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. However, if we were to follow that logic then we might as well merge Category:American producers to plain Category:Producers, skipping altogether the layer Category:Producers by nationality, to provide that more direct route. Seems there must be a more transcendental reason than the counter-analogy just given. Mercy11 (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- That would lead to overpopulated categories elsewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK, but then we have come full-circle to the beginning of this conversation where shortening the route through the category tree would lead to overpopulating the Category:American producers as it would mix Puerto Rican and American producers together, no? Mercy11 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It would merely increase the number of subcategories from 9 to 10. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- OK, but then we have come full-circle to the beginning of this conversation where shortening the route through the category tree would lead to overpopulating the Category:American producers as it would mix Puerto Rican and American producers together, no? Mercy11 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- That would lead to overpopulated categories elsewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. However, if we were to follow that logic then we might as well merge Category:American producers to plain Category:Producers, skipping altogether the layer Category:Producers by nationality, to provide that more direct route. Seems there must be a more transcendental reason than the counter-analogy just given. Mercy11 (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- The response in this case is not "Oh, sorry, you can't get there from here." but instead "You have to take a longer way because some people are opposed to a more direct route.". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- How is it "not helpful for navigation"? If I read that correctly, that would be like asking directions from inner-city NYC to, say, New Jersey, and getting the response, "Oh, sorry, you can't get there from here." Please clarify how it is "not helpful for navigation", thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge There is no benefit to navigating from X in the United States to X in Kansas through an intermediate layer X in the Midwestern United States if there is not a defining difference between the Kansas category and the corresponding X in Colorado (in the Western United States as defined by the Census Bureau). Even layers of the type X in the United States by state have occasionally been merged where it is the only intermediate layer between the United States and Kansas Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_27#Category:Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States_by_state. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Kansas is a state, the insular areas are not states, which is precisely one reason why producers from the insular areas need to be grouped apart from, but under, U.S. producers. The link about "renewable energy" talks about states only, not about insular areas and states. So, it has nothing to do with this topic. Mercy11 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, unnecessary intermediate level. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Kaffet. As an fyi, that's not a new argument; it's already discussed above, under "unneeded Category layer". So, IMMHO, unless you have a new reason why it is unnecessary, the allegation is redundant. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- But you have not provided why this is so. No one is proposing merging Puerto Rican producers to American producers. They are just suggesting we get rid of this extra layer that makes it take a step through a category with just one sub-category to get between the two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is with the editor who supports the change; that's you. It's you who needs to provide and prove; that's how it works. Further, as Eloquent points out below below, the need for the insular areas layer has already been decided upon before as a Keep, not for 1 but for 13 similar categories, as shown in that precedent discussion. Mercy11 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- But you have not provided why this is so. No one is proposing merging Puerto Rican producers to American producers. They are just suggesting we get rid of this extra layer that makes it take a step through a category with just one sub-category to get between the two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Kaffet. As an fyi, that's not a new argument; it's already discussed above, under "unneeded Category layer". So, IMMHO, unless you have a new reason why it is unnecessary, the allegation is redundant. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I see a precedent was set for categories of the “FOO from Insular areas of the United States” form here and the result was to keep them. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge I'm totally fine with WP:PRUS to not directly place Puerto Rican articles in U.S. Categories. But extending that a layer up to say Puerto Rican categories can't be directly placed in American
onesparent categories goes beyond the local consensus, would create harm with bunch of underpopulatedarticlescategories, and doesn't benefit what readers see at the article level. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem logical to support that Puerto Rico-related articles not be categorized directly under United States-related articles, but then to be in favor that Puerto Ricans-related articles be categorized directly under Americans-related articles. "Directly under" means "without the Insular Areas layer". So, that logic doesn't add up. Mercy11 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- My wording was really unclear, which is probably why it didn't make sense. We may still disagree, but I cleaned it up to be clearer at least. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- "[Creating] harm with bunch of underpopulated categories" has nothing to do with this discussion because this discussion isn't about "a bunch of underpopulated categories". (In fact, it isn't even about a bunch of categories, underpopulated or not.) The discussion is about one single category, namely, Category:Producers from insular areas of the United States. Mercy11 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Which is essentially only having 1 sub-cat because the Virgin Islands producers category is empty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have a policy that "any category with only 1 sub-cat, must be eliminated and its 1 sub-cat merged into the parent category." The policy doesn't exist because it wouldn't be consistent with the reality of expanding a digital encyclopedia. For example, there was a time when an analogous category, Category:Educators from insular areas of the United States, also contained only 1 sub-cat: Category:Puerto Rican educators. However, as more articles were added about the other Insular areas, that is, about Guamanian educators, NMI educators, Samoan educators and USVI educators, then there was the Insular Areas parent category to accept those other insular area articles. We need to remember that, unlike the U.S. and other large countries, which enjoy the benefit of hundreds of editors writing articles, those small islands only have a handful of editors doing that, so the process to populate their categories will, obviously, take longer. Mercy11 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Which is essentially only having 1 sub-cat because the Virgin Islands producers category is empty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- "[Creating] harm with bunch of underpopulated categories" has nothing to do with this discussion because this discussion isn't about "a bunch of underpopulated categories". (In fact, it isn't even about a bunch of categories, underpopulated or not.) The discussion is about one single category, namely, Category:Producers from insular areas of the United States. Mercy11 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- My wording was really unclear, which is probably why it didn't make sense. We may still disagree, but I cleaned it up to be clearer at least. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem logical to support that Puerto Rico-related articles not be categorized directly under United States-related articles, but then to be in favor that Puerto Ricans-related articles be categorized directly under Americans-related articles. "Directly under" means "without the Insular Areas layer". So, that logic doesn't add up. Mercy11 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Categories are meant to help navigation between articles. Having seas of categories just to hold lower categories makes navigation between articles harder not easier. We should create a policy against categories that consist only of 1 sub-category and nothing else. Such categories make it harder to navigate between articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 10 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.
Faulkner Eagles football players
- 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, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge Category:Faulkner Eagles football players to Category:Faulkner Eagles football; Category:Faulkner Eagles athletes and Category:College football players in Alabama
- Nominator's rationale This is a 1 article Category. Upmerging to all 3 parent categories will make navigation to other articles easier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep as a parallel category in a well-established class of categories. When category deletion degrades parallelism, it makes navigation more difficult, not easier. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- When we decided to end the small cat rules and replace them with the narrow cat rules we ended allowance for categories just to complete large schemes. There are lots of college sports players directly in the X college athletes cats and X college sport in the US or X college sport in y state categories, there is no reason we need to fully diffuse these out to every sport for every team unless there are enough articles who played for that institution in that sport to justify a seperate category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Having a bunch of small subcategories hinders navigation versus just going to Category:College football players in Alabama. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per above --Lenticel (talk) 11:46, 6 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.
Drury Panthers women's swimmers
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#Drury Panthers women's swimmers
Drury Panthers football
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#Drury Panthers football
Dordt Defenders football
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#Dordt Defenders football
Category:Medomsley Juniors F.C. players
- 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> 13:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There is a notice on this category that since there is no article Medomsley Juniors F.C., this category shouldn't exist. I thought folks at CFD would know what to do with it. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, if a club is not notable enough for an article then playing of it is arguably non-defining. GiantSnowman 20:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:PRChina-tv-stub
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Template:China-tv-stub. (non-admin closure) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-tv-stub to Template:China-tv-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-powerstation-stub to Template:China-powerstation-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-geo-stub to Template:China-geo-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-struct-stub to Template:China-struct-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-hospital-stub to Template:China-hospital-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-prison-stub to Template:China-prison-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-law-stub to Template:China-law-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-newspaper-stub to Template:China-newspaper-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-women-footy-bio-stub to Template:China-women-footy-bio-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-RC-diocese-stub to Template:China-RC-diocese-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-school-stub to Template:China-school-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-museum-stub to Template:China-museum-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-mayor-stub to Template:China-mayor-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-season-footyclub-stub to Template:China-season-footyclub-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-basketball-bio-stub to Template:China-basketball-bio-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-figure-skating-bio-stub to Template:China-figure-skating-bio-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-cycling-bio-stub to Template:China-cycling-bio-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-tennis-bio-stub to Template:China-tennis-bio-stub
- Propose renaming Template:PRChina-stub to Template:China-stub
- Nominator's rationale: All these categories appear to be for identical purposes. All of the entries are for the PRC not any other form of China. Per WP:Commonname, we don't use formal names of countries. Categories like these with the formal names are overcat and are unnecessary subcats. One category can suffice.
Plus, a separate Category:Taiwan stubs exists that does not intersect with this PRC cat and entries in China stubs category and its sub cats are all related to China as there is nothing to disambiguate. We don't have a Republic of China category for stubs for the period of 1912-1949 or ROC in Taiwan from 1949 onward. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Probably the current pages need to be kept as redirects, I don't expect that the CfD bot can process stub category references in articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 17:22, 10 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.
One-article chemical 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: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Triazoloquinoxalines to Category:Quinoxalines and Category:Triazoles
- Nominator's rationale: It only has one article, so it doesn't help navigation, and the creator of the category seems to be fine with it being upmerged. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- merge per Wp:NARROWCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:41, 5 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.
Both of these are upmerges of one-member 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: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Pyrazolopyrazines to Category:Pyrazines
- Nominator's rationale: It only has one article, specifically Ropsacitinib, which is already in Category:Pyrazoles and should not be put in Category:Heterocyclic compounds with 2 rings because it has two additional rings for a total of four rings, so Category:Pyrazines is the only parent category that it should be upmerged to. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think these should be combined into one header with malformed formatting, since they have separate and different rationales. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:33, 1 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.
Relations of colonizer and former colony
- 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) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of colonizer and former colony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of Australia and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of Belgium and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of France and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of Germany and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of Italy and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of Japan and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of the Netherlands and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of Portugal and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of Spain and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of Turkey and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of the United Kingdom and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of the United States and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of former colony by colonizer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of India and its former colonizers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Relations of the United States and its former colonizers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: There are 2 issues with these categories:
- It is debatable and far from obvious that former colonial status is a defining factor for bilateral relations.
- They seem to lead to endless discussions on whether each country was more or less a colony of another.
- Maybe we should have all of them, or none at all. Previous discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4. Place Clichy (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Relations of Turkey and its former colonies (a recreated category that fails WP:CAT#V, WP:CAT#N and WP:CAT#D). M.Bitton (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Articles on these relations can discuss how colonization effects thongs. This is the type of thing with lots of nuances that can be discussed in bi-lateral relatioms articles. The amount of India that was under French control or Portugues control for example was very small. This is not defining really in those cases. This is a subject not well covered by cstegories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Relations of the United Kingdom and its former colonies because there are residual impacts of this. For example, a quick look at Commonwealth realm (specifically the section Republican referendums) indicates that there are still former colonies debating whether or not to keep the British monarchy as also their own, so there definitely are at least some residual effects. Americans at the time calling the War of 1812 "the "Second War for Independence"[1] is another example of lasting impacts. I think that we should decide these on a case-by-case basis, so I won't comment on any of the others, but I think that at least Category:Relations of the United Kingdom and its former colonies should be kept. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 21:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- In the case of the UK, Category:United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Nations precisely serves the purpose you describe, and is less prone to personal POV. Place Clichy (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Not all former UK colonies are part of the Commonwealth.--User:Namiba 14:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- In the case of the UK, Category:United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Nations precisely serves the purpose you describe, and is less prone to personal POV. Place Clichy (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Compared to Category:Former colonies, there is no clear navigational benefit to intermediate-level categories between the "Bilateral relations of $COUNTRY1" and "$COUNTRY1–$COUNTRY2 relations". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep all, especially Category:Relations of France and its former colonies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Neo-colonialism is an ongoing process that impacts bilateral relations between colonized and colonizer long after the colony receives independence. France is the most startling example of this, as it controlled the currency of many of its former colonies for decades.--User:Namiba 14:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Neo-colonialism at times also covers relations between countries were there was never an actual colonial regime. If we want to make a category about neo-colonialism we can make a category about neo-colonialism. This category covers a lot of thi gs that in no way can fall under that concept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 17:24, 10 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:People involved in business
- 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:People in business-related occupations. (non-admin closure) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People involved in business to Category:People in business
- Nominator's rationale: Similar to others within People by occupation, e.g. People in sports. An alternative would be "People in business occupations", but I don't think the extra word is necessary here. – Fayenatic London 20:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)categories.
- Question what is the difference between People in Business and Businesspeople? What is an example of a person or profession that would belong in the former and not in the later? Right now I think we should just merge this category to its child Category Category:Businesspeople and move the other child Categories there and adjust parenting of the category as needed. This is what I support unless people can come up with clear examples of things that go in the proposed target but do not go in businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- A look at Category:People involved in business shows that several child categories are Category:Business commentators, Category:Business educators, Category:Business and financial journalists, and Business theorists, which do not count as businesspeople, and there are some other child categories where an argument could be made either way. Also, Category:Small Business Administration personnel (and any analogous categories for other countries) probably should be a subcategory, so I might add it as one. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: Several child categories are Category:Business commentators, Category:Business educators, Category:Business and financial journalists, and Business theorists, which would not be described as "people in business" but do count as "people involved in business". Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support alternative Category:People in business occupations or maybe even Category:People in business-related occupations. This would be clearer than the current name and also clearer than Category:People in business. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:People in business-related occupations. That is the only proposed name which covers people not actually involved in business. That is the only way we have a name that is clearly more broad than budinesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:People in business-related occupations. -- Just N. (talk) 17:26, 10 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:Self Portrait: Renaissance to Contemporary
- 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> 13:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Self Portrait: Renaissance to Contemporary to Category:Wikipedia images of self-portraits
- Nominator's rationale: expand scope of category and populate. The current scope is very narrow. After renaming, the four files currently in Category:Self-portraits can be moved to here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Leaning delete. This is what would be called a source category on Wikimedia Commons; it's for images from the catalogue of an exhibition titled Self Portrait: Renaissance to Contemporary. I suppose the English Wikipedia does do source categories, because that's what the subcategories of Category:Google Arts & Culture works are, but I don't really see the usefulness of this category – it only has two images, both of which are Category:Self-portraits. I also don't see the point of having an additional Category:Wikipedia images of self-portraits separate from Category:Self-portraits. Ham II (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Deletion is also a good option. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 1 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:Anthropomorphic animals
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 12#Category:Anthropomorphic animals
Category:Paintings of people
- 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. Nominator was confused about the meaning of "containerize" (non-admin closure) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: containerize, people are depicted on many and very different paintings, so it is not a defining characteristic that articles have in common. Articles directly in the categories can be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: what does "containerize" mean in this context? The term is not used elsewhere in this page. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comtainerize means to make something a container Category. Container categories do not hold articles. The classic example is Category:Writers by nationality. We either but someone in American writers, Togolese writers, New Zealqnd writers, Writers from Georgia (country), etc. Or we place them in Category:Writers if their nationality lacks enough writers to justify a by nationality category. We do not place writers in writers by nationality. Another example is Category:Deaths in Sweden. We have decided the place of death by itself is not defining. So just because you know someone died in Sweden does not mean you place them in that category. You only place them in deaths in Sweden if we have a category intersecting specific method/cause of death with Sweden, so we have gor example Category:Suicides in Sweden. When we containerize a category we use it only to group categories and not directly to group articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 1 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:Portraits by subject
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 7#Category:Portraits by subject
Category:Lists of portraits
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 7#Category:Lists of portraits
Category:Paintings of people in the deuterocanonical books
- 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> 13:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Paintings of people in the deuterocanonical books to Category:Paintings based on the deuterocanonical books
- Nominator's rationale: Category:Paintings of Book of Genesis people, Category:Paintings of Book of Exodus people and Category:Paintings of Book of Daniel people have all recently either been upmerged or renamed to Category:Paintings based on the Book of Genesis, Category:Paintings based on the Book of Exodus and Category:Paintings based on the Book of Daniel, respectively, citing WP:NARROWCAT. See the discussions at User talk:Ymblanter § "Paintings of Book of Daniel people"/"Paintings based on the Book of Daniel" and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 5 § Paintings of Book of Foo people. Ham II (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Rename, it is too obvious that there are people on these paintings, no need to include that in the name of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 30 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:People's Republic of China stubs
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:China stubs. (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:People's Republic of China stubs to Category:China stubs
- Nominator's rationale: Both these categories appear to be for identical purposes. All of the entries are for the PRC not any other form of China. Per WP:Commonname, we don't use formal names of countries. Categories like these with the formal names are overcat and are unnecessary subcats. One category can suffice.
Plus, a separate Category:Taiwan stubs exists that does not intersect with this PRC cat and entries in China stubs category and its sub cats are all related to China as there is nothing to disambiguate. We don't have a Republic of China category for stubs for the period of 1912-1949 or ROC in Taiwan from 1949 onward. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:31, 5 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.
Brevard Tornados football players
- 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, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge Category:Brevard Tornados football players to Category:Brevard Tornados football, Category:Brevard Tornados athletes and Category:College football players in North Carolina
- Nominator's rationale This 1 article Category does not aid navigation. Merging it to all parents will make for easier navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep as a parallel category in a well-established class of categories. When category deletion degrades parallelism, it makes navigation more difficult, not easier. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- When we deprecated the small category guideline we decided so in part because it was almost always possible to argue that something was part of a "well established tree". This category does not meet the guidelines set forth about narrow categories. Upmerging will aid in navigating to other like articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Having a bunch of underpopulated subcategories makes it harder to navigate versus just going to Category:College football players in North Carolina. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:42, 5 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:Performers of Christian music templates
- 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> 13:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Performers of Christian music templates to Category:Performers of Christian music navigational boxes
- Nominator's rationale: All of them except for Template:Maestri di cappella at Saint Mark's Basilica are a navigational box for a single musician. ~2025-37420-62 (talk) 02:00, 30 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:Shahdagh people
- 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> 13:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Shahdagh people to Category:Shahdagh peoples
- Nominator's rationale: Used for multiple ethnic groups. Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, and also per the main article's name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 30 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.
- Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty (2008) vol 1 p 270.