Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 11
April 13 >

April 12


Category:Films about the working class

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Not sure this is a defining category. Most films that are not about rich people could broadly be interpreted to be about the working class, since, like, most people under capitalism are working for an employer and are therefore part of the working class, but generally except in cases where a film is specifically about that, like say, Sorry to Bother You, it won't really be defining, nor will sources remark on it much. Also open to a rename/purge/merge, if anyone has any ideas on if or how that should be done. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete really too broad to be defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is generally not a defining characteristic, even for Sorry to Bother You it is questionable. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Redrose64, you tagged me in the edit summary, wanted to point that I always use the "reply" button on the rationale. Is that an issue? Because nobody's mentioned it before. I will keep it in mind for the future. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    WP:THREAD says Add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it. This is a long-established convention: it goes back to before I joined Wikipedia in 2009. Some websites prefer that you post replies at the top, but Wikipedia is not one of them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    I got a bit confused since I've never been pulled up on it before in the many times I've added my vote here in the same manner but I'll keep it in mind for the future! Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Publications

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 22#Category:Publications

Category:Public domain films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Deleted two times: May 2009 and June 2016. Previous discussions per Speedy WP:G4. The category is unworkable. A film that is PD in one country will not be PD in another country. Determining PD status in a single country is often complex - the film may be PD but the music score is not (films are multi-layered works of art not a single entity); or it was PD at a certain time but no longer due to changes in international agreements; or etc.. There is also a defining problem as all films will be PD eventually. All films pre-1922 are PD but that doesn't need a category. GreenC 20:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete since all films eventually become this in theory it is not useful. Was a film lost before it became public domain ever really public domain? Besides the above this is a legal issue that comes about long after the film was made. Now if we have articles on films released to the public domain and never copyright that might be worth having. I am not sure there are such films, but if they exist it might be a defining characteristic of those films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    Sita Sings the Blues is one that is CC (though the audio is copyrighted by others). Seems we have a category for that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. Given this category's history as detailed in the nomination statement, its recreation should be discouraged. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    Agree with WP:SALTING. This will certainly be recreated. Οἶδα (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete/Listify - public domain criteria and definitions varies by country. As a generalised legal term, these need clarity and context. - jc37 03:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Since this is all films created before 1930 or a bit late, I do not think actually creating a full list is worth it. We maybe could create a list "films that reached public domain status in a faster than usual time frame" and put films like It's a Wonderful Life on the list. If we could find sources that support considering such a group as a list, which I am not sure we could do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
      • Although on further review It's A Wonderful Life evident had the film company reclaim the rights to the film, and thus work to destroy unauthorized copies in distrobution, although only from retail companies not in individual possession. Which actually points out another issue. Evidently there aere ways that things can be removed from public domain, even if they are in it for a time. Generally we have a rule that if a category ever applied it always applied. However it would be misleading for us to categorize something as public domain that is not currently. Which is a good reason to not have such a category. Categorizing by complicated technical legal status is not a wise idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    • We have a well maintained and curated List of films in the public domain in the United States with sourcing for It's A Wonderful Life, and many other films. The talk page is full of discussions and active with editors with an interest. Please salt the category the consensus is very strong, this is the third time. There has been a lot of abuse in this area with editors claiming PD status based on dodgy sourcing (Ebay DVD listings) or no sources at all. They want to add it to a category then claim it's free to use because Wikipedia says so. -- GreenC 21:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose listifying, as I oppose in the several other CfD noms you suggested this in. It's impossible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    Impossible? List of films in the public domain in the United States.
    This was noted directly above... - jc37 12:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
        • The scope of CfD is to make determination about categories. If an article actually exists editors are free to make a nomination related to that article in the appropriate place. It is not within the scope of CfD to mandate anything directly about an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
        Yeah, how would you expect us to do that for all countries in one article? Sources do not exist for that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pakistani instrumentalists

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. This also affects Category:Hindustani instrumentalists. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to existing category, which is part of an established tree. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep As the creator of this category, my rationale was that both Category:Hindustani instrumentalists and Category:Indian musicians have been in use for a long time on Wikipedia. Instrumentalists need to be recognized separately as a sub-category to be more specific. Plenty of pianists, flautists, percussion instrument players like tabla and dholak, drummers, shehnai players and plenty of sitar and sarod players also exist that need to recognized separately to be more specific...Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ngrewal1, "instrumentalist" is just another term for "musician" as far as I can tell. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, these terms are more or less synonymous. Category:Hindustani instrumentalists may be upmerged for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge as well as the other category. We do not have Category:Istrumentalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose merging Category:Hindustani instrumentalists to Category:Hindustani musicians, adding this to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Marcocapelle: I see that you have tagged it, and I really don't think that it's usual to piggyback another category nomination in this manner, it should probably have been a fresh CfD on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 14. The main difference between the two cats is that Category:Hindustani instrumentalists (0) has existed for over twenty years and has a large number of members and sub-categories; it appears to be well-established. Category:Pakistani instrumentalists (0) was only created a few days ago, has no sub-categories, and a comparatively small number of members, also at the time that I nominated it, its only parent category was itself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    • @Redrose64: it does happen more often that (an)other categorie(s) are added in the course of a discussion, especially when WP:OTHERSTUFF comes up as an argument to keep the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    Also merge the second set of categories per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge all we do not need instrumentalists categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Afghanistan–West Germany relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Newly-created category containing only a single article, Afghanistan at the 1972 Summer Olympics, unrelated to bilateral relations. Not useful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:21st-century Laotian LGBTQ 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: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 18:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Afghanistan war bilateral relations 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: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Newly-created categories containing only a single article, War in Afghanistan (2001-2021). Not about bilateral relations and useless for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
AusLondonder, I'm not arguing that these categories should be kept. I just think it is disruptive to empty nominated categories before a CFD discussion has been closed. What is the harm in waiting a few days if the CFD closer decides for a Delete or Merge outcome? That has been my consistent position. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
I wasn't specifically trying to empty them, I was just removing all the bilateral relations categories on the basis of the other CfD discussion where multiple editors supported removing all of the categories. The majority of the categories I removed weren't emptied as a result. I'm happy to add these ones back if you think that is appropriate. AusLondonder (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

More ambassador 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: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: More non-defining, single-article categories for non-resident ambassadors. Not helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should not categorize non-resident ambassadorship. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete non-resident ambassadorships are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and the above. Οἶδα (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Japan–Tibet relations

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:Foreign relations of Japan and Category:Foreign relations of Tibet. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article. Not helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Backgammon organizations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 22#Category:Backgammon organizations

Category:Renju organizations

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:Renju and Category:Board games organizations. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Newly-created category containing only a single article. Not useful for navigation. Very unlikely to have room for expansion. AusLondonder (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Untitled nobility from Austria-Hungary

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 15:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Just delete?, the article does not mention it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Batu

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 01:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Is this not a duplicate of Category:Batu, East Java Robby (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of the Basque Country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 01:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping in scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Merge the Basque Country (greater region) is specifically related to the Basque people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ISIL attacks on terrorists designated by 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: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting Category:ISIL attacks on terrorists designated by the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT by a longshot. Even if there are multiples instances of this, I don't think its worth keeping as a category unless there are outside reliable sources covering this. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 02:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: There are several sources that do comment on this as a theme. There is no page directly dedicated to it, but most categories don't have a page. The main examples, are al-Qaeda, the Islamic State–Taliban conflict, the Axis of Resistance, and the IRGC. I chose U.S. as an example because I was told that groups can only be described as "terrorist" in categories as an official designation? All of the examples that I am aware of are included in the U.S. list and have been on that list longest. Possibly the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) have been recently removed from U.S. designation? But I've not seen much coverage of the conflict between ISIL and PKK on Wikipedia. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, a too narrow topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    Delete per Marco Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    Supper per nom. OP should re-read WP:OVERCAT carefully SMasonGarrison 16:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Jumble of unrelated groups with different versions of Islamic extremism. There might be other organizations that ISIL have attacked and are on some other country's terrorist list, but not the US one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Casebooks

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 01:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Other than the main article, there's only one other page in this category - and I've nominated that page for deletion. (See yesterday's discussion, where I nominated Choper, Coffee, and Gilson for deletion). If that page is deleted, this category should be deleted too. Swordfish121,641 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if Choper, Coffee, Gilson is kept then it can easily be linked to as an example in the body text. We do not need a category for this. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I have added 5 more articles from the parent Category:Law books. If not kept, the category would now need to be merged back to that parent. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per expansion by Fayenatic london. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Radio stations in Laughlin, Nevada

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 22#Category:Radio stations in Laughlin, Nevada

Category:Films set in Bisbee, Arizona

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/delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose Deleting Category:Bisbee, Arizona in fiction
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT approaching WP:C1, empty categories
The 2 Bisbee categories only have 1 article, Violent Saturday, which is not set in Bisbee. Rather, it was filmed there but set in the fictional town of "Bradenville". Likewise, the only article in the Florence category, Murphy's Romance, was filmed there but set in the fictional town of "Eunice". (I just added that detail to the article based on an existing source.) Even if these films did belong though, these narrow categories don't aid reader navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Merge and delete Misidentification of shooting location as setting. Both articles are already in the correct Category:Films shot in Arizona. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Merge and delete per LaundryPizza03. Οἶδα (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI