Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 8
April 10 >

April 9

Category:American people of English 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: no consensus. I've approached this as a fresh close, since the discussion has run for around a month after the last relisting, and thus am mostly discounting arguments that read as mostly procedural (Pppery). Conversion to a container category was brought up (Marcocapelle & Servite et contribuere), but not discussed extensively. Primarily, there remains significant disagreement about whether the criteria for inclusion in the category is defining (Johnpacklambert & SNUGGUMS vs. Smasongarrison & Namibia), and whether deletion of this category would create substantive issues with organisation as a whole (~2025-41679-64 & SNUGGUMS vs. Servite et contribuere & Smasongarrison & Crowsus), to the point where consensus is unlikely to develop. Thus, I will request @HouseBlaster restore the original category. (non-admin closure) Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale This is a non-defining trait. At times it is almost an assumed trait. It sometimes gets placed based on false assumptions about name origin, and other times gets placed by assuming an ancestral line a person knows nothing about is somehow defining. However beyond this since English is the dominant language in the US, and since this was the dominant ancestry throughout the 13 Colonies this is the base assumption of Anericaness. An equivalent term "Anglo" I have heard used to refer to an immigrant to the US from Austria. So this term sometimes gets conflate with "non-Hispanic white" and sometimes other terms. There are not really unifying connections here and it gets used in way too many cases where it trivial or non-defining. I think we would be better off just deleting this category. At least into the 2960s American writers would regularly write works aimed at American audiences assuming all their readers were of English descent. This is not really a defining trait for American people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose, if we delete this category, we will have to delete other similar ones like Canadian people of English descent and its subcategories, which is just too time consuming. ~2025-41679-64 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    "Time consuming" isn't a good reason, bots can be used if necessary. Indagate (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
    But I still don't agree with deleting categories with the template X people of Y descent. ~2025-41679-64 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Belonging of the majority population is not defining. Even though strictly English people may no longer be a numerical majority, they are the dominant group. Place Clichy (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oopose delete, support purge. I agree that this isn't probably defining for most members. However, I'd really need a more compelling case for why we should delete English, but not British Oor European more broadly. At present, it's still useful for navigation. I think that this deletion would need to be part of a much larger tree and we need to consider how this deletion would intersect with People of British decent etc. SMasonGarrison 05:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    I really think that this will make a mess if we massively delete these. I'd suggest starting with subcategories and working up, because this case would effect many many other categories. What counts as dominant? I don't see why purging and containizing doesn't solve the bigger question here. SMasonGarrison 17:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
    I keep thinking about what it is that bothers me about this argument that being of the majority descent is never defining. And I think I've finally come up with some examples for why I think that this category should still exist. Not everyone of English decent is white, and for them being of English descent might be a defining feature of their identity as a mixed race person. That identity in the United States in particular is very much defining as for part of the history of Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. SMasonGarrison 14:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Johnpacklambert and Place Clichy and we should likewise delete Category:American people of British descent, Category:Brazilian people of Portuguese descent etc. in a next nomination. But while we are at Category:American people of English descent now, we should also discuss deleting/merging its subcategories here. Or else we should just containerize for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    • We probably need to containerized, that is delete all articles but leave the sub-cats for now. Those are several different sub-cats each with their own issues so a case by case evaluation is in order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Category:American people of British descent has been made a container category for basically the same reasons as are present in this nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete except for maybe Founding Fathers and Founding Mothers of America (who had ancestry from the place they declared independence from), having ancestors from England doesn't tend to be a defining trait for many folks, and we're better off saving such detail for discussion within the prose even when it is an important detail for somebody. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This category is not defining and its existence is essentially unnecessary. Aneirinn (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting per request on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Strong Keep/Un Delete Also would not oppose to making it a Container Category, but would Strongly Oppose upholding deletion (But I will respect the consensus no matter the outcome, even if it is the outcome I am not hoping for). The removal of unsourced categorization can be done by users willing to do it like me, but it should be a good category for guidance. But there are plenty of people where ancestry does define them. If not kept as it's own category, it should be Containerized for categories like Category:English emigrants to the United States. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If this closes with a result other than "delete", please ping me and I can undo the deletion.

@Theironlaw85: You can make your case here. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Of all the descent categories we have this is the one that has the most clear argument of being non-defining. Several other categories that were closer to being defining than this have been kept. With English being the dominant language in the US terms like "Anglo" and "Anglo-American" are often used for people who have no ancestry from England at all, but just to designate that they are English-speakers as ooposed to speakers of another language. It is also used as a general cultural ethnic term to disstinguish primarily from "Hispanics" or "Latinos". It normally includes a lot of people who have no ancestry to England, and also Euro-Americans with family with multi-generational present in the US south who often do not know where they are actually from in ancestry, other than Europe. A lot of these people with US south links are more Scottish or Scoth-Irish than English, and with historical routes in the US north ancestry in more likely to be German, or at least partly German, but since this often involves pre-Revolutionary War or at least pre-Civil War German, there are no overtly German cultural practices or knowledge present. This is a non-defining trait. Even for children of immigrants from England to the US since there is not a distinct home language and other clear cultural markings it is not defining. Actual immigrants would stay in immigration categories and not have their categorization effected at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
    First, we are discussing 'American people of English descent' here not 'Anglo-American' as a linguistic category, so that first point is entirely irrelevant.
    Second, whether or not you anecdotally believe people do or do not identify with a trait is insufficient motivation to remove an entire category from an encyclopedia, especially when the relevant ethnic group is extremely large, and has played a massive role in the history of the United States.
    Third, you are making dubious claims - when you look at actual censuses and demographics, the US south does not have more Scots-Irish than English. In the 1980 census English far outnumbered any other ethnic group in the south. Theironlaw85 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment If we do not hold with the deletion we should at least not restore any articles. That way people could be more deliberate in placement in this category. I still argue English ancestry is not defining for any individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment "misceganation" is a racist word that literally means "bad breeding". It was invented by those who wanted to smear Abraham Lincoln as an alledged supporter of the practice and thus end the Civil War and preserve slavery. We should not be using a racist term that denigrates and attacks those who engage in such a practice. We should instead refer to such things as "laws against interracial marriage", although due to their scope in some states, race may or may not be the right term. California banned Hispanics marrying non-Hispanics, and would allow immigrants from India who were banned from marrying non-Hispanic whites to marry Hispanics. Back to the issue at hand, yes there are people who openly identify with both their African-American and European American ancestry. However it is telling how these people identify. The leader of a university in Hawaii, who is the first leader of any Hawaiian ancestry at that university, has been identified as being of "Hawaiian, Chinese, Maori, Portuguese and Northern European Ancestry". He had an ancestor who served in the Peninsula War under Wellington, then went to New Zealand and married a Maori woman (thus the Maori ancestry) and then they family moved to Hawaii where the daughter of the English and Maori woman married a Hawaiian man. Having ancestors who left England in about 1820 puts this person far closer to his English ancestors than many living Americans, a number of whom their last ancestros left England in the 1630s or so, yet he does not publicly identify as having English ancestry at all only "Northern European". People of mixed race who identify with both ancestries will in General identfy as having "white" ancestry on one side and another specific ancestry on the other (African-American, Korean, Filipino, etc.) Even Lou Diamond Phillips who I can find identifying a specific ancestry from Europe along with his Filippino ancestry was not identifying English ancestry. My source there should also not be taken at face value, since it was Phillips playing himself in a comedic film that was about Filipino-American identity, and the larger point was really that he had been more than once cast as a Mexican, which he is not at all, and never cast as a Scottish person, which he is more than he is a Mexican, at least by blood. English ancestry is not defining to Americans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
    This is anecdotal, not at all scholarly or well-motivated. You are making ad hoc arguments based on isolated examples. Most Irish-Americans have been in the country for well over a century and there is no such clamor to remove. Theironlaw85 (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I still don't believe this is defining enough to be worth keeping, and am suspicious about the motives for re-opening the CFD when Theironlaw85 just registered 7 days ago (more than a month after it got closed) and over the past week only appears to have made edits relating to people having English ancestry (including a request to open the thread back up). This makes the user come off as a WP:Single-purpose account who just wants to add such categories to pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
    How is that relevant? I registered because I was opposed to what I took to be the terrible reasoning at work here. Theironlaw85 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • OK now you've admitted to signing up for a particular purpose, and it's relevant because the fact that you weren't focused on any other Wikipedia-related matters beforehand raises eyebrows. There still hasn't been any convincing argument that having full or partial English ancestry tends to be a prominent trait for many American citizens. You're glossing over how the "Non-defining characteristics" section of WP:Overcategorization indicates that simply being able to verify a trait doesn't necessarily make it defining. A good rule of thumb it lists is "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (regardless of whether it is currently mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining". With that in mind, I doubt anyone who didn't immigrate from England to the United States (especially after the American Revolution) would get much attention for their descent unless it contributes to some sort of controversy they face for heritage. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the nomination of one intersection is fundamentally flawed. If you don't think someone's ethnic or national descent is sufficiently defining to have a category in an article then the entire structure should be nominated. But the idea that one specific origin in one specific country is unimportant and has to go (but the rest are presumably fine?) is nonsense. So now we don't have American people of English descent but we still have American people of Welsh descent and all the others. Where is the logic there? Is it that England hasn't existed as a sovereign state since the 1700s and since then all migrants are legally British, if so then why keep Welsh or Scottish either? If it’s because white Americans claim flimsy origin from European countries stretching back centuries, just delete the whole thing as unreliable. But that kind of action would require wider editorial input than the half-dozen who haunt these pages. Crowsus (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Not that WP:WAX is a convincing rationale to keep, but for the record, other descent categories have been deleted or merged in the past when not converted into containers. This thread should just focus on the merits of the specific category listed. We're not just going out of our way to single out English descent while simply deciding to let all other types exist. Other categories are better discussed within other CFD's that list them for discussion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
So we should then get rid of any category flagging any American of European descent by that logic. Theironlaw85 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @HouseBlaster: can you track which subcategories were in here? If this closes as delete then presumably something further needs to happen with the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Keepand purge those which are non-defining. English descent is very important in the United States. See Mayflower Society and Jamestowne Society as examples.--User:Namiba 14:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
      • Nobody contents that it is important. On the contrary, it is so widespread that it becomes trivially important. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
        It is certainly not trivially important to people who claim social legitimacy through their English descent, such as the blue-bloods who belong to the aforementioned societies or otherwise deemed White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In a society based on racial and linguistic division in favor of those of English descent, it is quite defining.--User:Namiba 17:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Not really; even when a person is verified to have partial or full English ancestry, it oftentimes isn't a trait they prominently are noted for. I can't think of many American citizens it would unambiguously be defining for. Even if there are any, that amount of people with such descent as a defining trait is so small compared to the ones it isn't that we're better off discussing the trait within prose of articles instead of using a category. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    That is anecdotal, you see this trait often used in biographies, print, etc. Theironlaw85 (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I can look into this tomorrow. In principle it shouldn't be too difficult to look at JJMC's bot's edits. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose BUT require that the "English/British descent" be recent (parent, grandparent, at furthest great grandparent). That's how I was using the category. These discussions have not taken recent ancestry into account. There is a distinction to be made here between centuries old ancestry and an immigrant parent/grandparent. Take what's stated in the intro of Category:English people of French descent, for example: "English people who… have significant French ancestry (at least one grandparent)". A similar requirement could be made here. Starklinson (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Recency among generations would make little to no difference as to whether having English ancestry is or isn't a defining trait for someone. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Then why have descent categories at all? Either having an immigrant parent/grandparent is notable or it's not. The U.S. and UK are separate countries and have been for centuries. The overlap is flimsier at this point than the distinction. A Brit who moves to the U.S. circa the 20th/21st century is immigrating as much as any other immigrant. To suggest otherwise is an arbitrary and archaic distinction without a difference fallacy.
    (And that's not to mention that recent ancestry often is relevant insofar as citizenship, eligibility for sports teams, childhood, influences, etc is concerned. For example, if an athlete was born and raised in the U.S. but plays for Great Britain because they qualify through a parent, how is that not defining?) Starklinson (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm not sure why such categories were made in the first place as they often are minor traits for people, but let's not delve too far into WP:WAX within this thread as other categories should have a separate one, especially if it's a broad sweeping discussion for the general concept of ethnic category listings. As for the athlete scenario you mentioned, while it might for some particular cases be a prominent trait, any significance should be established within prose before a category would be worth adding. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete The reopening of this discussion was a ridiculous circumvention of the way Wikipedia processes should work (discussions should be closed when they are closed - we shouldn't let them be reopened a month later just so some random newbie or their AI can have their say), hence we should adhere to the original deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
    Deleting a valid category altogether because it has been misapplied to some articles rather than removing it from those articles is also a ridiculous circumvention of the way Wikipedia should work, and should never have been the decision taken at this forum, and it is absolutely correct that it was re-opened and re-examined. Crowsus (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • To just say "some articles" is an understatement for being misapplied; at least 80% of the pages that used the category were for people who this is a minor and non-defining trait even if accurate for them. The dubious part of re-opening the thread was not only doing so more than a month after closing, but the request came from someone who has openly admitted to joining Wikipedia for the sake of opposing the deletion. Are those motives for re-opening not something you find suspicious? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Categories should reflect reality. The reality in the United States is that having English ancestry is not a defining trait. The other reality is that a category like this will be misused to tag people who do not have known English ancestry. This trait is not defining and having it as a category just leads to overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Commrny as applied this category needs to go. There have been far too many cases where it has been applied to people merely on name. The extreme is that the Fictional character Charlie Brown was placed in a sub-category of this category. No where in all the information on him was this discussed. This category has been misapplied to thousands of biographies where the subject had no connection or defining link to having ancestors who came from England. The fact that people use "Anglo American" to mean something much broader shows that in the US actually having English ancestry is not actually defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 2 May 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:Polish monument conservators

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 17#Category:Polish monument conservators

Category:Bangladeshi musicologists

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:Bangladeshi music people and Category:Bangladeshi scholars. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated category. The lone person is already in 20th-century musicologists. SMasonGarrison 22:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    • But music people are not a sub-set of scholars. We should upsurge this Category to scholars even if we also merge it to music people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
      • They are independent for sure. What I meant to say is that there is more reason to containerize scholars than to containerize music people. By all means merge to both. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 11 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:Ecuador–South Korea 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) 16:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Newly-created category containing only unnecessarily-categorised sub-categories and the article Haeju, a city in North Korea, added recently to two bilateral relations regarding South Korea and Ecuador and Russia. AusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete having a sister city status with a city in a given country is not defining enough to the cities involved to make them fit in the bilateral relations categories. Sister city is not really defining, it is a fluffy tourist thing with little substance. My city (Detroit, Michigan) has 8 sister cities. I did not even know we had one, and I work as a sub-contractor with a city department. In general this is not defining. Beyond this the relationship is not between countries but between cities. Kitwe, Northern Rhodesia and Detroit became sister cities based on both cities having some form of an automotice industry. Kitwe, Zambia as it is now know is in the following categories: Category:Kitwe; Category:Mining communities in Africa; Category:Populated places in Copperbelt Province; Category:1936 establishments in the British Empire; Category:Kafue River. Other than being ambivalent on it being in the river category I think this is a good set. I do not think it should be added to either United States - Zambia or Romania - Zambia relations categories based on sister city status. Sterling Heights, Michigan where I grew up also has 8 sister cities. Warren, Michigan where I was born seems not to have any sister cities, but this might just reflect an incomplete article. I do not think sister city links are defining nor do I believe we should categorize by them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, and I purged the article because it is the plain wrong Korea. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The category seems to be based on a clear error, placing a North Korean city in a South Korea relations category. Even putting that aside, a sister city link isn't enough to justify a standalone bilateral category. IN GWANG EUN (talk) 06:25, 17 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:Honduran expatriate sportspeople

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) 16:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Two categories containing only a single article, Mario Martínez (footballer, born 1989), who is in 11 expatriate-related categories. Already appropriately categorised with multiple other categories including Category:Expatriate men's footballers in Egypt. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 9 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 non-defining, single-article 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) 16:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: More non-defining categories containing only a single article for non-resident ambassadors. Not useful for navigation. These categories also result in over-categorisation of individual articles - Margaret Jobson is in more than 10 non-resident categories, most of which only contain her article. AusLondonder (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should not categorize non-resident ambassadorship. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete non-resident ambassadorships are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 9 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:Animated Treasure Island 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: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: To align with other entries in Category:Animated films based on British novels. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename this is based on a work, not a genre. The genre would maybe be something like "treasure hunt films", but I am not sure it is a genre that fully exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 22:55, 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:Russian cosmonauts of Ukrainian 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: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge since we cannot write a well sourced article that is more than just a list with the subject Russian cosmonauts of Ukrainian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree that this is a bit of a trivial intersection. Categorizing them under both parent categories is more than enough for navigation. IN GWANG EUN (talk) 06:26, 17 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:Czech expatriates in Iran

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) 16:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale This is a narrow category with only 1 article. In general 1 article categories hinder navigation. Merging to the parent categories will aid in navigating to other articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Single-article categories do not help with navigation and categories are for navigation not listing all attributes of a subject. AusLondonder (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 22:55, 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:1Z

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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: 1 article. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 9 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:Dhakeshwari Temple

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) 16:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only one article and a file is there. Mehedi Abedin 07:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 9 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:Ethiopia–Mozambique 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) 16:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article, Mozambique people smuggling disaster, on an incident in which irregular migrants were founded dead on a shipping container while travelling to South Africa. Some were Ethiopian citizens. Not useful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete the one article does not belong in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete This category is not suitable for that single page. Koshuri (あ!) 16:21, 11 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:Honduras–South Korea 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) 16:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article on a South Korean citizen detained in Honduras, recently added to five separate bilateral relations categories. Not helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually I think that this is the only of the five bilateral categories that is reasonable for the article. But then with only one article in the category it is still not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    I agree to delete because the category currently contains only one article, so it does not really help with navigation. It would be better to recreate it in the future when more related articles are available. VN.NguyenDucDuy (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete 1 article is not enough for a category. I think the other 4 bilateral relations categories clearly should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. A single article definitely doesn't justify a category of its own. It’s better to just wait until there’s more content before creating something like this. IN GWANG EUN (talk) 06:22, 17 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:Touhou Project character redirects to lists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 17#Category:Touhou Project character redirects to lists

Category:Fictional henchmen in video games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. Not meaningfully useful for navigation. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support There is no evidence that video game henchmen, specifically, are notable, so it is absolutely a trivial intersection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:37, 9 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

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks