Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 30
July 2 >

July 1

Category:Science and technology in Abkhazia

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) 00:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 23:51, 1 July 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:1640s establishments in Puerto Rico

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 10#Category:1640s establishments in Puerto Rico

Category:Wikipedias in two scripts

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 13#Category:Wikipedias in two scripts

Category:1st-century establishments in Puerto Rico

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 * in solidarity 23:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Recently created 1-article category spawning a series of parent categories. Gjs238 (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. SMasonGarrison 23:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Support Deleting takes away from interested readers the ability to search pertinent articles that fit the specified criteria of interest. Mercy11 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
The Category:Populated places established in the 1st century makes more sense for these cases, and an editor has already introduced that at Tibes Indigenous Ceremonial Center, the affected page. That said, I am changing my Oppose to a Support. Mercy11 (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Categories are not for searching though.... they're there to help you navigate between articles. SMasonGarrison 22:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
WP:IAR. Categories are for what readers find them useful for. So, call it navigate or call it searching, it's all inconsequential for practical purposes of using the encyclopedia -- you can't force users to use WP tools such as Categories in innovative ways. Mercy11 (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In some cases, a category may contain only one article. This is an example of that. Yarfpr (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete , this is not helpful for navigation to related articles. The article is already in Category:Archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Puerto Rico and Category:Populated places established in the 1st century each with multiple entries providIng more hits for anyone interested in related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Category:1st-century establishments in Puerto Rico keeps being emptied and then refilled. Can editors of both sides stop this until the discussion is closed? Categories under discussion should not be emptied once they are tagged as being part of a CFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete conceptually populating this category does not make sense. We do not really have the sourcing to justify putting any article in such a category. Having this many categories to support an article, especially where even putting that article in the tree is disputed makes even less sense. Categorization needs to be fully agreed upon. If there is question that the thing belongs in the category, we should not put it in the category, but in other categories that are clearly applicable to the thing. Categories are meant to aid navigation, not exist to fill out a whole set.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
John Pack Lambert, I think you identify an issue that we ran into with "descent" categories and "bilateral national relations" categories, some editors years ago went on a tear creating dozens (hundreds?) of categories to fill out a whole set of branches for a category tree instead of just creating ones that were needed and useful. I think it also happens with annual sports/league categories and election categories at times, too. I think one problem we have with categories is that we don't have a central talk page or noticeboard where questions can be brought so that editors can form and review old consensuses. Nobody uses Category talk pages and the only place to raise a question is in a CFD nomination which can be overwhelming or intimidating to editors who've never put one together. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
I would go so far as to say in almost all types of categories we have gone too far in diffusion. Some of the issues were solved by creating the narrow category guideline, and ending talk about potential for growth as one of the possible justifications of a category. The category tree where we have diffused the most excessively is the tree for ambassadors. Descent categories are probably the ones where we have most ignored the guideline that categories should be defining, but we have actually ignored definingness for a lot of things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Well, it's not widely known among regular editors but I think we have an unwritten guideline now that "descent" just goes back to grandparents and parents and not some past "ancestors". It used to be that any person who was rumored to, for example, have Native American ancestry, would be placed in a Category:People of Native American descent subcategory with no questions raised about references or citations to support that claim. I think we are more strict about these things than, say, ten years ago. But if any CFD regulars have an idea where these questions could be raised and discussed, I'd like to know about it. It's clearly a tangent to this discussion about Puerto Rican categories. Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
"We"? "unwritten"? I remind everyone that, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, "Consensus among a limited group of editors...cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." So, actions, decisions, "consensus", etc., whether on the meaning of "descent", "ancestors" or something else, need to be based on WP 5 pillars and their supporting policies -- whether regarding Puerto Rican categories, Native American, white, black, or some other ethnic origin categories. If I agree with any portion is the previous comment is it is tangent to this discussion, and my contribution with these lines is meant to help avoid perpetuation of the narrative above, as the silence of non-response oftentimes leads to the erroneous adoption of such "policies" based solely on optics. Mercy11 (talk) 13:13, 4 July 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:Wikipedia 25 mascot

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) 00:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 23:26, 1 July 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:Templates not for article prose

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 * in solidarity 23:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The category has a clear explanation, "This category is for templates that should not be transcluded directly in articles. They are intended to be used by other templates, which may be used in articles. For example, an article should not use on August {{ordinal|16}}, 2004, but rather on August 16th, 2004, because this makes the article markup harder to read and edit with no substantial benefit." The rationale makes sense, but could apply to a great many utility templates. Only one template has ever been added to it as far as I can see (this happens to be {{Cardinal}} rather than {{Ordinal}}), and the category is therefore not useful for navigation. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Common concept and never used in practice. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. This maintenance category can facilitate maintenance of the encyclopedia. Bots can easily scan article text to ensure that such templates are not used in article text in accordance with various policies and local consensus. Daask (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
@Daask: Question Are you currently using it for that purpose, or are there bots that currently use it? - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as a category defined in the negative, unless there is evidence of actual or planned usage by bots. It may be technically easier to look in existing, positively defined categories for maintenance templates that are for a namespace other than article space. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
    I.e., WP:OCMISC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:12, 9 July 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:20th century in the Habsburg monarchy

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) 00:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Besides the term Habsburg monarchy is outdated after the year 1804. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 1 July 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:Religious types

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) 13:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, both this category and its parent category have content about religious belief, there is too little difference between the two categories. If not merged, then at least rename to Category:Religious beliefs. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per 1. Category religious types includes practices while religious beliefs and doctrines does not, as its for any religious type. 2. Category religious types includes only generic types, thus, articles specific to a branch/sect/religion would be excluded. As there are categories for islam, christian, jain, etc specific things, there's also utility in a category for the generic articles GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Gaston, categories encompassing different degrees of separation from concrete ideation. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:02, 2 July 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:New York City in fiction

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 * Pppery * in solidarity 23:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Contents are overwhelmingly works by setting or fictional character subcategories. I hope I got all the prepositions correct for this one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename and re-parent per nom. "Works" is more precise. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    I don't see why re-parenting is necessary; there are two parents to the whole-NYC one, and it is likely that higher setting-based categories will be renamed similarly in future nominations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename and re-parent per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename and re-parent per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 02:51, 4 July 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:Parks in fiction

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 * Pppery * in solidarity 23:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Cleanup of "X in fiction" for settings. All direct non-redirect contents except Baby Park and possibly Grizzly Peak Airfield are about works rather than fictional elements. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename and re-parent per nom. "Works" is more precise. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename and re-parent per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename and re-parent per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 02:50, 4 July 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:Amusement park 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: rename (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Name is confusingly similar to Category:Films set in amusement parks. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:02, 1 July 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:MAGA Communism

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) 00:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted as it lacks an eponymous article and fails to meet Wikipedia’s threshold for inclusion. "MAGA Communism" is an ill-defined, fringe neologism not supported by mainstream reliable sources. Maintaining this category violates WP:NPOV by applying a subjective, non-consensus label to articles, and it contravenes WP:CATSPECIFIC by creating a navigational bucket for a topic that is not a well-established, verifiable encyclopedic subject —Biosketch (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If "MAGA communism" gets an article with a coherent definition, then the category can be re-examined. LincolnMagnus (talk) 20:01, 6 July 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:Super-long words

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The category is a trivial characteristic and arbitrary with its character limit. It is also linguistically wrong, as it assumes words are to have no spaces in them. (trivial example: de:Massenspektrometer, en:mass spectrometer - the two apparent "words" function as one, it is a quirk of English to put spaces into them) Karsenat (she/her) (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of "super-long" being a term with an accepted definition off wikipedia; suspect invented by creator of this category grapesurgeon (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Grapesurgeon: Merged duplicate CfD nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete In general articles are not about words at all. So categorizing things by what they are called goes against guidelines. Categorizing the word by length is even worse. Also it is unclear that the defined length is anything other than arbitrary. Is this a case where two people nominated the category back to back, or am I missing the difference between this and the discussion above?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. For reference, the stated cut-off in the category description is ≥25 letters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. We already have the Wikipedia articles Longest words and Longest word in English. I removed the category from Two hundred fifty-sixth note, also known in British English as a demisemihemidemisemiquaver, because that article is about the concept rather than the word. Graham87 (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete ... this is already handled, in way, on Wiktionary via Wiktionary:Category:English words by number of syllables, which is reflected by categories for other languages as well. One alternative to deletion might be a soft-redirect to the Wiktionary Category. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
    • I'd say that's too tangential in this case. Graham87 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 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:Biology in America

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers, there's no need to create a parent categorys for super continents like this. If not deleted, Biology in America should be renamed to Biology in the Americas. SMasonGarrison 17:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom with suggestion ... suggest that we go all the way toward "Biology by Country" like many other category sets, and remove the 'biology by continent' and 'biology in africa' and related to go toward the by-country level of granularity. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 1 July 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:Listed buildings in Cooling

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) 00:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging is not needed, the subcategory remains in the tree of the parent categories anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 1 July 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:Dong District, Incheon

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) 21:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 1#Category:Seo District, Incheon; this district was made defunct on July 1, 2026. Merged into the new district Jemulpo District. Should delete this category, create new categories for Jemulpo District, and then reclassify pages accordingly. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • We may just as well rename Category:Dong District, Incheon to Category:Jemulpo District and reclassify articles as needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Please don't empty categories until a CFD discussion is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete It was done, and they were correct to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
User:LaundryPizza03, well then, why leave this discussilon open? If you are going to take action, close the discussion and then edit, don't do things halfway. That is what my comment is about. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 9 July 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:Jung District, Incheon

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) 21:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 1#Category:Seo District, Incheon; this district was made defunct on July 1, 2026. Split into Jemulpo District and Yeongjong District. Should delete this category, create new categories for those districts, and reclassify pages accordingly. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • We may just as well rename Category:Jung District, Incheon to Category:Yeongjong District and reclassify articles as needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Please don't empty categories until a CFD discussion is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete It was done, and they were correct to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
User talk:LaundryPizza03 so then close this discussion and we can do things properly not like one is a newbie editor. Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 9 July 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:Megacities in fiction

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose renaming Category:Megacities in fiction to Category:Fiction about megacities
Nominator's rationale: Make more defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Are they about megacities at all? If not, then delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete just because something is set in a mega city does not mean it is about mega cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Very large cities in fiction may be described as megacities, but otherwise there is no way of verifying membership unless it's a contemporary real-life megacity (e.g. Category:New York City in fiction). Nothing here distinguishes the contents from any works set in a large but ≤10M city like Houston, except that most of the contents are sci-fi works set in a fictional city or a future version of a present-day major city. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. As LaundryPizza03 said, there is no way of verifying membership unless it's a contemporary real-life megacity. Fictional cities would be impossible to define and account for, despite the categorization leaving the door open to them. Οἶδα (talk) 02:57, 4 July 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:Medway Gate

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) 18:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose merging Category:Medway Gate to Category:Places in Medway
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated epon category with only one page and a redirect. Upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 14:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 1 July 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:Grade I listed buildings in Cooling

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). toby (t)(rw) 17:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 14:16, 1 July 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:Civil parishes in Medway

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) 18:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 14:11, 1 July 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:Buildings on the Hoo Peninsula

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) 18:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category, upmerge for now. If not merged it should be renamed to Buildings and structures on the Hoo Peninsula SMasonGarrison 14:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 1 July 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:Freemasons from Kent

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) 18:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category, in an isolated tree SMasonGarrison 13:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Freemasons are not defined by their location.-- User:Namibia 15:16, 5 July 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:Fictional cryonically preserved characters in comics

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 12:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Renominating just these categories, since they are an arbitrary intersection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge I think this is a case where we do not need to overly diffuse by source material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Not big enough to require diffusion by medium. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:06, 1 July 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:Amputee characters in comic books

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 9#Category:Amputee characters in comic books

Category:Fictional superhumans

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 28#Category:Fictional superhumans

Category:Fictional talking objects

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) 18:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. It's rare a fictional object character is anthropomorphic and cannot talk somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Suppprt per nom. I think we should leave this as a redirect to prevent it from being recreated.SMasonGarrison 14:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. It's still possible to have an anthropomorphic character not be able to talk. SenshiSun (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Possible, sure, but it overlaps so greatly that there is no evidence that a separate category for it is NEEDED. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 3 July 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:Personifications of nature

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 15#Category:Personifications of nature

Category:Fictional characters with solar abilities

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 12:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Many are not defined by their solar powers/abilities. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete Ill-defined category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete ill-defined category. Do all plant characters go here because having sunlight is key to them functioning?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 2 July 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:Fictional hedgehogs

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. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Almost no article about actual hedgehog characters. Sonic the Hedgehog (character) can be merged to Category:Fictional mammals and Category:Anthropomorphic mammals. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete as nominated. We need to stop categorizing works as characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 2 July 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.

Pinewood Atlanta Studios

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 9#Pinewood Atlanta Studios

Category:Fictional musteloids

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. ✗plicit 13:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT and unnecessary category layer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
If the intent here is to avoid the scientific language of musteloids then that's fine, but the Category:Fictional mustelids should have been nominated for upmerging as well. But Fictional red pandas has 6 entries, I imagine if we were using that standard for categories we would be getting rid of far more across the site. I'll also note that all entries are past 2000 so while this is small, it wouldn't surprise me to see it grow moving forward. WinstonDewey (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge "Fictional red pands" has only 1 actual article. We should have multiple articles to have a category. Having a category full of redirects is not really worth it. We need to stop trying to be taxinomically accurate with fictional characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
    While three are redirects to lists, two of the redirects are per Wikipedia:INCOMPATIBLE and are appropriate for categorization. And while I agree with removing scientific language that is opaque to the average reader, being taxonomically accurate is necessary otherwise what is even the point of these animal categories. WinstonDewey (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
    • We should not surprise readers. I challenge you to cite one of the works that mentions these characters that uses the term "musteloid". If it is not appearing in the works, it is not known to readers, and using it to sort these characters will just confuse people. 3 articles is not enough to justify a category either, so any way you cut it Fictional red pandas is too narrow a category to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
      I literally said "If the intent here is to avoid the scientific language of musteloids then that's fine," in my response above. Please find me where three entries is not enough for a category, my understanding is that it is the bare minimum. WinstonDewey (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
      The standard minimum size for a category is 5. * Pppery * in solidarity 18:41, 27 July 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:Fictional hyenas

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Nothing here that isn't just a redirect or irrelevant to the purposes of the category. WP:NARROWCAT that has no further purpose due to more stringent criteria on fictional characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete Is "more stringent criteria" referring to stronger modern interpretations of WP:GNG? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I am saying that this may have once been a needed category, but is clearly no longer relevant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete we need to stop putting works in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 2 July 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:Harbin Heritage Sites

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 8#Category:Harbin Heritage Sites

Years in Harbin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 8#Years in Harbin

Category:Cheb Mami

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for two subcategories that are already interlinked and contain the same two articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:18, 1 July 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.

People by uyezd

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing people born by a former third-level administrative subdivisions that are not mentioned anywhere in the article of the subject, or even in the article of the town/village they were born in (quite clearly non-defining). This also presents issues with verifiability as town's former subdivision cannot be easily checked (particularly given that borders of administrative divisions changed during the years). Propose up-merging to the second-level admin division. First batch was nominated & merged at here. This is second batch (run out of time to tag the rest). Renata•3 03:57, 1 July 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:Agathodaimon (band) albums

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Articles on the albums were recently redirected to the band's page. Having the same target with little info on the albums themselves doesn't make this category useful. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, category contains only redirects, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 1 July 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:Seo District, Incheon

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: split as nominated. See Marcocapelle's comment for instructions on how to accomplish this. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating because I'm not sure how this is typically handled. On July 1, 2026 Korea time, this district was made defunct. Its former area was split into Seohae District and Geomdan District. Should we 1. delete this category 2. create new categories for the split off districts and 3. recategorize all the pages from this category into the new one?
Also note that Category:Jung District, Incheon and Category:Dong District, Incheon are also defunct now too and will need similar treatment. I'll watch how this discussion goes and handle those similarly. grapesurgeon (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • The right procedure is to propose a split here at CfD (so well done!) and after closure of the discussion the implementation happens in these three steps, first step 2 and 3, then step 1. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Split per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
  • User:gray eyes, please revert all of your edits that emptied these categories. Please wait for a closer to close this discussion before taking action. If you don't do this on your own, I'll revert all of your edits from today. Are you doing this on other CFD discussions? Please do not empty categories that are the subject of open CFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 3 July 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