Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 12
January 14 >

January 13

Category:Albanian professional wrestlers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 13#Category:Albanian professional wrestlers

Category:Former Russian Orthodox Christians

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 13#Category:Former Russian Orthodox Christians

Template:Nigeria-book-stub

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 20#Template:Nigeria-book-stub

Category:Buffalo Bulls baseball seasons

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:Buffalo Bulls baseball. (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This category contains 8 redirects and one article and thus does not aid navigation. Purge redirects and merge the one article. User:Namiba 22:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge a category for only one actual article is too narrow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • merge per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 18 January 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:Illegal occupations

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:Criminal occupations. (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Suggested at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12#Illegal occupation, and I agree. The word "Illegal" is not nearly as precise as "Criminal", and the majority of the subjects that are currently in this category seem to fall into the latter classification rather than the former. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Support. Per nomination and my comments at the linked RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Probably also the more common term.★Trekker (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • support per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 18 January 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:Edible fish

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 20#Category:Edible fish

Category:Burials at Gardens of Memory Cemetery (Minden, Louisiana)

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) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting Category:Burials at Gardens of Memory Cemetery (Minden, Louisiana) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category contains 1 article and the cemetery is red-linked. It does not help navigation. User:Namiba 15:57, 13 January 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:Departments of the Louvre

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) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: 1-article category contained in only 1 parent, does not assist navigation (article already in parent category) Gjs238 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete since the one article here is already in the Louvre category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 18 January 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:Good articles in need of review

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 4#Category:Good articles in need of review

Category:Children of peers and peeresses

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). GoldRomean (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The description and parent categories make it clear that this category is specific to the honour system of the British monarchy and its predecessors, not other countries that have or have had peers such as France, Spain or Japan. Place Clichy (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes. I created this category way back in 2012. Good call.
 — Hex • talk 13:35, 13 January 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:Explorers of the colonial Southwestern 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: merge to Category:Explorers of New Spain. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Category:Explorers of the colonial Southwest of the United States to Category:Explorers of North America
  • Nominator's rationale This has all the issues of the category nominated below, and then added issues that make it worse. Some of these people were exploring in areas clearly outside the actual domain of New Spain, so they would not go in that category. This is a category by place explored without regard to where these people were ever nationals of, so we have to pay attention to the political reality of where they were traveling. The reality is the areas they were exploring were the Comancheria and other loose geography Native American polities. The other problem is that the sub-cats for the various US states include people who did exploring after 1821, so post-colonial, and in several cases the people were exploring after the annexation to and incorporation of the areas into the United States. So this is not really a good container cat for the sub-cats, and it is named in ways that just ignore the reality of exploring period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, as nom pointed out these explorers weren't necessarily from the colonial period, and I don't think inserting a regional category layer is helpful for navigation. However, as long as Category:Explorers of the United States exists it is the proper merge target for the nominated category. We can of course have a discussion about Category:Explorers of the United States too, but probably at another occasion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
    • By definition though I would say these are not explorers of the United States. Explorers of the United States are people who explored areas that were claimed by the United States at that time. For example Lewis and Clark. We should not be categorizing people as explorers of the United States who were exploring in New Spain, or explorering the Thirteen Colonies, or exploring anywhere else that the United States did not in any way, shape means or form claim, or exploring before the United States was. The people in this category either were exploring areas that the United States had not yet formally claimed, or in many cases were exploring long before the United States existed as all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which way to merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still could use some more discussion on which way to merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 12:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Better merge to North America than leave it at status quo. It is quite likely though that some other editor who is not aware of this discussion will move it to United States after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Which is why I think we should scrap the explorers of the United States category. That is a seperate nomination from yesterday.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename/Merge to Category:Explorers of New Spain, per New Spain. per my comments here Alternate rename option: Category:Explorers of Spanish North America, per Spanish colonization of the Americas. - jc37 20:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename/Merge to Category:Explorers of New Spain per jc37. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Catrgory:Explorers of New Spain (change from original nomination) but exclude people who were not actually exploring in New Spain. We may have a French guy or 2 who explored what is now Texas before Spanish Authority existed in the region.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I am also fine with renaming to Category:Explorers of New Spain. Presumably many other articles can be added in that case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 20 January 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:Bahamian film actresses

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominators rationale Each of these categories has only 1 article. I believe 1 article categories are too narrow to be justifies. So I think upmerging will assist in navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge for now, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, each of these categories now has 3 or more articles. Please first try to populate categories before considering merging or deletion. Fram (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge as too small categories to be useful,even with 3 articles. Maybe one could suggest to first try to populate categories before considering creating them. It is useful to have categories for occupations, even for small countries. However diffusing such categories by specialty is only very necessary when there is too much content to be easily navigable, e.g. too much too show on a single page, for which the default is 200 articles. Place Clichy (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Considering how many actresses (and actors) do both TV and film, or Film and Stage, or Stage and TV, or even all three, this might be a good suggestion. Maybe not 200, but in some of these cases we are not even to 20.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
      • All the actresses categories involved here have under 10 or fewer articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge I question the breakdown in general and these categories are too narrow to aid navigation, even in their expanded form. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Categories now have 2, 4, 3, and 3 articles, respectively.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • (answering relisting comment) Even with 4 articles, my previous rationale is still valid that it is not useful to split the actresses category by specialty here. Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
    Why would it be useful for 130 or so countries in Category:Film actresses by nationality but not for e.g. Gambian ones? It is much easier bavigable (to use your rationale) if these are divided by country than if all actresses from smaller countries are just dumped together in Category:Film actresses, as you propose. Fram (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
    When Category:Gambian actresses is overcrowded, then it can be diffused by specialty. Most of the time, an actor or an actress can act in different mediums, and appear in film, stage, television etc. as these are the same skills after all. Making the distinction is only ever useful for diffusion, but then ends up in creating duplicates of its own. Clearly, Category:Gambian actresses is more defining here than Category:Film actresses. Place Clichy (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment No one is saying it is useful in all other countries where it is done. It is just clearly not useful for these countries with the actual size of the categories we have here. In the case of category:Gambian actresses we have only 4 total actresses right now split over 3 categories, with all 4 being in the film actress category, 1 randomly also in the base actress category, and an empty intermediate category. Having 3 categories to contain 4 articles is excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
    "No one is saying it is useful in all other countries where it is done. " Is there a "not" missing in that sentence? Otherwise you are wrong, I am saying that it is useful. And it would be much more logical to propose to get rid of Category:Gambian actresses by medium than to get rid of Category:Gambian film actresses. By the way, the Gambian category is now up to 5 articles. Fram (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Well I do not think we need this excessive number of small categories. A 5 article category does not need to be divided at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as cats are now populated. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 14 January 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:People murdered in 1573

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 to rename. Upmerging can be discussed separately. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale Murder is a very hard to determine if it applies term. There are a whole slew of incidents that are borderline maybe murder maybe not. Killing is straight forward, did someone kill this person or did they die of some sort of cause not caused by others. In murder is being killed in a duel murder? The line between murder and being killed in battle is often fuzzy. Is a murder on a frontier a low level incident in an undeclared war, or is it actually a murder. What about if someone is killed in self-defense, which is legally not murder? What about manslaughter killings? What about certain forms of mob violence that are declared to be extra judicial executions. What about people executed by rebels who have formed some sort of government, where those rebels are later accused of murder for that act? Are we going to class people who killed their slave owner as murderers? Do we want to even start trying to parse what killings in a rebellion are legitimate war related killings and which are murders? I think it is just much easier if we categorize all killings as killings and avoid having to determine the legal status of the killing before we place it in the category. Also pre-1860 almost none of these categories have more than 5 articles, so the by year break out is in many ways too narrow. In the 1790s where I have developed the People killed in tree, the average per year is over 20, in some cases over 30. The 1790s may be higher then some other decades. There may still be some of these categories that are too narrow even as People killed in x year, but I think we should revisit that after the name change and after people go and populate to the best of their ability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • This should be closed the same way as this earlier discussion which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Oppose, simply being killed is not defining. Killed by what? "Kill; to deprive of life : cause the death of, e.g. a disease that has killed thousands" This would also include people who were killed by animals, killed by falling rocks, killed by disease, by anything. Killing does not require human involvement. If it is described by the sources as murder tag it as murder. If not, do not. We do not create a nonsense intersection of anyone who has died based on a force, whether it be animal, man, or natural causes. Princess Diana was killed in a car crash. She would go in this category too, as would be anyone who was killed by lung cancer, killed in a dog attack. Not defining. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
      • No, this category is meant to be limited to people killed directly by other people. Not people who died due to issues not caused directly by other people. I explained a whole slew of cases that are very borderline and it seems there has been no dealing with all the examples I brought up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
        @Johnpacklambert How are people supposed to know it is "meant" to be one way if the category name is unrelated to its content? If the name is irrelevant to its content, why move it at all? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment If we do not rename this we would need to merge every category through at least 1850 up to the by decade level because none of these categories are big enough to justify dispersing by year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    According to what? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    And also, this wouldn't even fix that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
    • People murdered in the 1820s has sub-cats with 1, 3, 1, 2 and 1 articles. Category:People killed in 1800 has 12 articles. My general impression is that the sum total of articles on people killed in war, killed by execution, killed in duels, and killed in other ways by people that do not quite rise to the legal definition of those murdered, which has lots of cases where it is ambiguous, such as many killings in the 1790s that some sources consider essentially executions and others consider murder by a mob, most of the by year categories rise to about 10 or so articles. In the 1790s we see categories with a lot more such articles. Category:1820 deaths actually has 596 articles, while Category:1800 deaths only has 478 so the about 10 estimate might even be too low. As I said there are lots of killings that if they are murder or not is not really sable while being neutral.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
      Yes, they don't legally rise to the definition of murder, because murder is a different thing? Why would we remove the distinction between murder and all deaths, or even all homicides, this is not defining. We do not want ambiguous cases because categories with no clear relationship are not defining. We decide for inclusion based on how we decide everything: what reliable sources describe it as. If they do call it murder, put it in the category, if not, do not.
      Murder is what defining here. We have separate categories from deaths in year for a reason. If they are not sayable do not include them! 10 per year is 100% enough for a category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per PARAKANYAA and WP:C2C. I agree with Marcocapelle that this should be closed the same way as the earlier discussion. FromCzech (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment A very high number of these categories have only 1, 2 or 3 articles. If we do not Rename them to killed we probably should upmerge pre-1850 to the decade level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
    Fine by me I am just opposed to the renaming. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:09, 13 February 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 cinema in Bangladesh

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 Category:History of mass media in Bangladesh to Category:Cultural history of Bangladesh. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge redundant category layer with only one subcategory. It was previously nominated for deletion as part of a broader CfD around its subcategory, which was kept, making this one not empty, but it's still not needed. It's the only subcategory of Category:History of mass media in Bangladesh, which can then be deleted as empty. Mclay1 (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Alt merge Category:History of mass media in Bangladesh to Category:Cultural history of Bangladesh, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment – More subcategories have been added to Category:History of cinema in Bangladesh after I nominated it so it no longer has only one subcategory. I still don't think it's a necessary category, but it wouldn't be an issue if it's kept. If it is kept, I agree with the alt merge of Category:History of mass media in Bangladesh per Marcocapelle. But if it's deleted, that merge wouldn't be right. Mclay1 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:36, 13 January 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:Iranic 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: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 17:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Individual people aren't typically listed by such broad ethnolinguistic groups. Arctic Circle System (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we have Category:Celtic people, Category:Slavic people, etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Language family is good for sorting ethnic groups but not individual people. Celtic or Slavic are also sometimes regarded as an ethnic identity on their own in some contexts, despite their variety, so I wouldn't compare the cases. Place Clichy (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete We do not want to directly categorize people by language family. As mentioned sometimes Celtic and Slavic are used as ethnic designators, Iranic is not. I think we might want to review the Celtic and Slavic categories and make sure everything there makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Iranid isn't an usual self-declared identity or a common ethnicity self-descriptor, but they still are considered to describe a people. This has more historiographical context. So perhaps rename and purge to Category Early Iranic people following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 8#Category:Germanic people. And based on concerns of Johnpacklambert, make it a container otherwise. Abesca (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to Abesca's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
The content here is not about an early unified Iranid people, if this has ever been a single ethnic identity. It is about grouping together people by the language family of the language associated with their ethnicity. That is not a defining characteristic for people, although it is defining for the language and, to some extent, for the group. Delete still. Place Clichy (talk) 16:47, 13 January 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:Politicians of Taiwan

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 Category:Politicians of Taiwan to Category:Taiwanese politicians. Clear consensus to merge; rough consensus that this is the correct way to go about that merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: There isn't a clear differentiation between these two categories. Category:Politicians of Taiwan is supposedly for modern Taiwan (ROC), while Category:Taiwanese politicians is for people of any era, but the latter contains mostly people from modern Taiwan. We don't do this for any other nationalities/countries. Mclay1 (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Probably likewise Category:Politicians of the Republic of China on Taiwan from Kaohsiung can be merged to Category:Politicians from Kaohsiung and the same for Taipei. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    Merge per nom, but can we convert it into a redirect to prevent it from being recreated? SMasonGarrison 05:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge or merge both to Category:Politicians from Taiwan. The key here is that these people operated in the Republic of China/Taiwan from 1949 or so onward. I might be off on the exact starting year. Some of these people fled the mainland and basically kept the same government office as they fled. I think in this case describing them as "Taiwanese" is not always a good choice, so I think it would just be better if we called it Category:Politicians from Taiwan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I'd be okay with reverse merge too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to worry about that, since we don't for any other countries that may have similar stories. They may not have all been born Taiwanese, but if they're operating in Taiwanese politics, it doesn't seem inaccurate to describe them as Taiwanese. But if we do reverse merge, it should be Category:Politicians from Taiwan to match the format of all other countries and territories, which follow "FOOian politicians" or "Politicians from FOO". Mclay1 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on title of merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment for a country like Taiwan, which has only exited since World War II, I really think we should not divide politicians by century even. It is too short a time to justify a by century division.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 13 January 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:Barbadian slaves

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 20#Category:Barbadian slaves


Category:UBC Thunderbirds ice hockey 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: rename (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Separating categories between players for the men's and women's team, women's team category already exists at Category:UBC Thunderbirds ice hockey players. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy rename to reflect the contents of the category.--User:Namiba 15:58, 13 January 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:Pages with unclassified custom editnotice

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). GoldRomean (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Manually populated maintenance category that fails WP:OCMISC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless someone comes forward and indicates they use this category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 16 January 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:Pages with Nazi common name editnotice

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). GoldRomean (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Editnotice categories that contain the smae two pages, Nazism and Nazi Party. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete If no one is coming forward to explain how this is helpful, best to remove it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 16 January 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.

Explorers of Washington (state)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Explorers of the Pacific Northwest. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename Category:Explorers of Washington (state) to Category:Explorers of Washington Territory while upmerging to Category:Explorers of North America all who pre-date the formation of Washington Territory.
  • Nominator's rationale This category has 3 people who exploered Washington Territory, and everyone else explored before that. We should not categorize people as by narrow bordered exploered when they were exploring broad areas, and we should not categorize them by bordered they did not even know of because they would not exist for years if not decades afterward. So I think this would be the best move.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom, dual merge to Category:Explorers of North America and Category:People from pre-statehood Washington (state), the latter similarly to above. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:47, 13 January 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.

Explorers of Montana

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. Lots of ideas, but a rename to Category:Explorers of the territory of Louisiana is the only proposal which was supported by multiple editors. However, one editor opposed that proposal, and another supported keeping the category as-is. Therefore, I can't see consensus for any particular option. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Category:Explorers of Montana to Category:Explorers of the United States or Category:Explorers of North America depending on whether the exploration was done before of after the annexation by the United States of this area in the early 19th-century. Montana itself is very close to a box because its boundaries were arbitrarily drawn in 1864 without regard to population or geographical features in the area by people far away. Most of the exploring was done before Montana even was made a territory in 1864 so this is not a very useful category, and I think it would be best to upmerge to these parents, making sure we do not call people operating in the area long before the United States made any sort of claim to the area as exploring the United States. If people want to cut off at some point after the Lousiana Purchase claim and want to use some other later date when US control became more real on the ground that might work, but including pre-Lousiana purchase explorers in this area in the Explorers of the United States category just plain does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting nomination. I assume that it is a trial nomination, because there are multiple sibling categories. Explorers often explore areas that are not part of a state. The nomination implies that many explorers should only be categorized by continent. I am not against the proposal, because it is historically accurate, but I would still propose a milder alternative of a dual merge to Category:Explorers of North America and Category:People from pre-statehood Montana. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment Each state has different issues. Montana has less clear identify before it was a territory than some states did. I want to think about these on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Explorers of Louisiana (New France), per Louisiana (New France). Explorers tend to not be limited by a single state. Alternative rename to Category:Explorers of the territory of Louisiana. Apparently it was also called this when variously held by France, Spain, France (again), and the U.S. - jc37 21:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The alt rename to Category:Explorers of the territory of Louisiana seems to be a reasonable compromise. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
    French Louisiana's de facto limits rarely went any further North West than a little beyond St. Louis. Also the region gets split in half in 1763 with the eastern half getting new names under British de jure rule. In 1817 the term comes to refer to just the modern state, but some of these explorers are later than that. If we really want to use a geographical area less than North America I think the only term would be something like Catrgory:Explorers of the Missisippi River drainage basin. We do have Amazon and Libyan Deseret explorer categories. That would allow us to fully ignore both de facto and de jure control issues and would in some ways match up with the Pacific Norrhwest category. It would also link it to a feature that would be clearly discernable to the explorers themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
    I think it makes more sense to focus on the Louisiana (Purchase) territory as a region, as we're talking about exploration within the confines of pretty clearly denoted boundaries of history.
    If an explorer doesn't meet those confines/criteria, then don't include them.
    When it comes to North American exploration, the key western regions seem to be the Louisiana territory/New France, the Pacific Northwest/Cascades region, and Spanish colonisation/New Spain. (We could probably add the Alaska/Yukon gold rush exploration to that.)
    This seems better, and more intuitive, for navigation for our readers. - jc37 02:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  • pre-1763 Louisiana includes several areas east of the Missisippi. If the Mossisippi basin is not a workable area to cover I think it much better to just merge to explorers of North America than to try to cobble an intermediate category here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. A precise and defining way to describe explorers of present-day Montana, and one routinely used by reliable sources. A solution looking for a problem. Place Clichy (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
    • No this is an ahistorical anachronistic imposing of modern boundaries drawn without regard for culture of geography on a place on events that happened before the place even existed. It is ahistorical and anachronistic and wrongly categorizes people as exploring a place that did not exist in many cases until after the people involved were dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 1 March 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