Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 3
June 5 >

June 4

Category:Search for extraterrestrial intelligence in film and television

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 20#Category:Search for extraterrestrial intelligence in film and television

Category:SpektreWorks aircraft

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) 13:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Recently created 1-article category. SpektreWorks doesn't even have an article. Gjs238 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL refers to articles, not to tools such as categories and navboxes. Tools should be useful imo. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Gjs238 (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Gjs238, unsure if this was an accident but you don't need to !vote as the nominator. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:02, 25 June 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:Nigerian anti-apartheid activists

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) 01:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 19:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Just delete, articles in both categories do not describe the subjects as anti-apartheid activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete based on Marcocapelle's statement. We need to avoid categorizing just by an opinion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 5 June 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:Liechtenstein human rights activists

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) 01:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 19:10, 4 June 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:Horses in film and television

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) 01:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: We don't bundle "film and television" in categories like this. The category also isn't a candidate for splitting because it is already split between Category:Films about horses and Category:Television series about horses, which are its subcats, and are also already subcats of Category:Horses in popular culture, so there is no purpose in upmerging to that category. Confusingly the category itself contains individual horses that appeared in film and television. The correct categorization for that is Category:Horse actors, which the relevant articles are already categorized into. Otherwise there's a tv special article A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred that is already in Category:Television series about horses. That leaves a film/tv franchise article, Spirit (franchise), and an article for an advertisement that included horses, Surfer (advertisement). Οἶδα (talk) 18:59, 4 June 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:Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame

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. There appears to be rough consensus that WP:OCAWARD applies to this category, and therefore it should not exist. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD. User:Namiba 18:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as not an award, but even if it was, it is "a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients", as it is likely one of the highest honors a Packers player will receive. Note every single member is notable, as they have an article on Wikipedia. Thus it does not meet the criteria listed by the proposer. Being inducted into a hall of fame is one of the highest honors that can be bestowed on a player. Something like only 5% of the team's players have been inducted into the Hall of Fame, they are recognized at a formal induction ceremony that occurs annually, and are placed within the Hall of Fame. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete There are very limited circumstances under which we allow award categories. I do not believe this is one of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Johnpacklambert, are you joking? There's over 50 categories in Category:Sports hall of fame inductees. Maybe this category should get renamed to Category:Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame inductees but otherwise there is a clear and obvious precedent for these categories. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
      • I think we should delete all those categories. Just because lots of categories exist does not mean they are justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
        • WP:OCAWARD, as the name notes, covers awards. Induction into a sports hall of fame is not an award on par with the Bart Starr Award, i.e. it isn't some minor recognition. Induction into a sports hall of fame is a prestigious honor that defines a person's career. Can you cite some policy or guidance that supports your opinion? Otherwise these very clearly meet WP:CATEGORY and aren't applicable to WP:OVERCAT. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
        • Also, your comment of There are very limited circumstances under which we allow award categories is completely false and appears to be a creation made up to justify your opinion. See Category:Award winners by subject and all of its sub-categories. Maybe you weren't aware of all of these categories, in which case now you know. Other stuff exists surely doesn't justify anything, but longstanding precedents across multiple genres spanning years and thousands of editors surely do; its called consensus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
There's no lack of of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here. It's an ongoing challenge that list articles for awards are converted into categories without reviewing the different standard for the namespace; see WP:CLN. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Consensus is represented by the guidelines on creating categories. The relevant part of OC:Award is this paragraph "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a #DEFINING characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients. And a recipient of an award should be added to a category of award recipients only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic of the recipient." We have decided that basically all NFL players are notable for being NFL players. In writing on NFL players what will be covered is what they did as players, not in most cases which hall of fames they were later placed in. I would second the view below that we should be very leery of creating award categories where a private organization rewards its own employees. Here the football team is recognizing people who worked for the football team. The measure of the guidelines of Wikipedia is the actual guidelines of Wikipedia, not what exists in Wikipedia. Wikipedia was built as a wild west with no rules, later rules were established but because of the way our procedures for conforming the contents of Wikipedia to the rules exists, We are not even remotely close to meeting those rules. One place where we are very far from actually abiding by the rules is in the case of awards categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
You can oversimplify every single thing about the NFL. The Pro Football Hall of Fame is just a conglomerate company giving an award to employees of its subsidiary companies. Also, why is everyone disregarding the existence of Category:Award winners by subject? If WP:OCAWARD is truly meant to remove any category related to awards, almost nothing in this category is justifiable. Johnpacklambert, will you please respond directly to that point? Are you going to be nominating everything in that category for deletion after this one? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Being a Green Bay employee is absolutely defining; winning what's effectively an in-house award is not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is still a kind of award and the people in the category were well-known before they got the award, not because of the award, which is why we have the WP:OCAWARD guideline in the first place. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Marcocapelle, so just to confirm, everything in Category:Award winners by subject should go as well? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
      • No, there are also awards that people receive which makes these people well-known (notable), while else they would not have been. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
        @Gonzo fan2007 most awards, though, are recognition of a work that one is already well-known for. Awards are also called "recognition". That is not a misnomer, and it is hard to be recognized if your work has not already left an impression.
        Do prestigious awards sometimes elevate a recipient's reknown/stature? Certainly. But even in such circumstances, a person would already have had some already-elevated level of renown to begin with. SecretName101 (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
    KEEP , induction into this indicates a player was a key fixture of the team and made major contributions to it. At the very least, this helps someone who might otherwise be looking through Category:Green Bay Packers players to discern many of the players who are regarded as franchise legends apart from the many who played only a few unmemorable games with the team. SecretName101 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 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:German anti-apartheid activists

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 17:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep at least the German category, which now has 3 articles. A bit of effort into populating these would be helpful.--User:Namiba 18:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    You're welcome to populating them. Please some good faith, I spent considerable time cleaning up the massive number of categories also created by the same user. SMasonGarrison 19:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge these are too narrow. Generally we need at least 4 articles at the absolute minimum to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. All siblings may be nominated too, except obviously South African, and perhaps except American and British. There are less than 100 non-South Africans in the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 5 June 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:Hasidic feminists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 13#Category:Hasidic feminists

Category:Pornographic actresses who died by suicide

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: dual merge to Category:Female suicides and Category:Actors and actresses who died by suicide. (non-admin closure) Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. If not merged, it should be renamed to Pornographic film actresses who died by suicide to follow category naming conventions. SMasonGarrison 16:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Dual merge also to Category:Female suicides, as a narrow intersection (regardless of the number of articles in the category). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Dual merge per above. This is intersection with occupation is trivial. Per WP:PETSCAN, there are "enough" articles for Category:Sportspeople who died due to shipwreck at sea. Should we do that too? How about Politicians who died by suicide by drowning in the United States? There are "enough" articles for that one too. Yeah....no. These categories do not require diffusion. Οἶδα (talk) 19:21, 4 June 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:Academics who died by suicide

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 G4. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to have another Suicides by occupation category? I'm not seeing this as defining... SMasonGarrison 16:17, 4 June 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.

Domestic association football leagues by season

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) 16:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Missing the word "in" after the stated season, it's proper naming convention. FastCube (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC).
Support speedy renaming :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 16:11, 4 June 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.

Emirati films by year

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 for this particular proposal, mostly on procedural grounds. (non-admin closure) Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge and delete certain categories, which only have one subcat and/or very few pages, as they make navigation rather tedious... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Not opposed to upmerging, but I did want to mention that the challenge with categories like this is that editors routinely think that this kind of thing is a scheme that automatically has to exist. The couple of film-related categories are where this intersects with my usual field of editing expertise, obviously — but people very routinely seem to think that if any country has a "YYYY country films" category, then that means every country automatically gets its own sibling as soon as there's even one film to file in it. That's not actually the case — a "YYYY country films" scheme is only supposed to exist if the country has a large number of films to warrant one (US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, India, etc.), and not if we only have a couple dozen or less articles about that country's films.
And obviously the same principle applies to sports, crime, politics and other areas where things get subbed by individual year: if any year-specific scheme exists for some countries, then people just assume that every country is automatically entitled to join it even if the amount of content available to categorize that way just doesn't warrant it at all. So this becomes an endless cycle of having categories like this spun off for just one or two things, and then reupmerged by CFD, and then spun back off again the next time somebody thinks they can create another similar category for just one or two things again.
So, again, not opposed to upmerging, but is there some other way that we can try to prevent this kind of thing from just becoming an endless create-delete-recreate loop in the future? Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Correct. This keeps happening: I create a decade category, fill it appropriately, then sooner or later another user comes along and assumes that I merely neglected diffuse it by year and does so themself.....despite every subcat containing 1, 2, maybe 3 articles. Or maybe one contains 6 articles and the rest 1-2. That in unhelpful for navigation. Though I predicted this would happen. Which is why I wondered if we should redirect these date categories to the categories they are being upmerged to. So when a user adds 2017 Venezuelan films (created yesterday), it automatically converts to 2020s Venezuelan films. But I felt CfD would never endorse this. The number of such redirects this would leave would be enormous. So I just moved on. Οἶδα (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
We should expand C2F to include any category that contains only one page, unless it is clearly part of a scheme that allows that for complete diffusion. I have tried proposing things like that before, but the problem is that the CfD talk page doesn't get a lot of engagement, and some editors oppose purely on the grounds that there might not be consensus for that, which doesn't make sense because the conversation is to determine consensus. Mclay1 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Another problem is these type of categories being created indiscriminately from Special:WantedCategories. Mclay1 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
True, but sometimes they're autogenerated by the use of preformatted templates that impose and transclude a preformatted category schema — for example, the use of {{YYYY nationality films category header}} on Category:2025 Emirati films autogenerated a Category:Emirati films by year redlink. So when that showed up at WantedCategories, it had to be created: it was effectively unremovable, since it was being autogenerated and transcluded by a template, but couldn't be just left sitting as a redlink for seven days while CFD hashed out whether it should exist or not either. So sometimes creating the category, even if it represents an unwarranted scheme that's probably going to get deleted anyway, is the only possible response to its emergence as a non-empty redlink. Bearcat (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
effectively unremovable
I could always edit the header template to default to "[Country] films" in the absence of a "by year" container cat. But the question then becomes whether or not a single year+country category improves navigation. The consensus here has been to upmerge such cats to maintain consistency with adjacent periods (years, decades). And with a single year category like 2025 Emirati films, there are no adjacent cats. The concern would still exist even if that category contained 10 articles. So it would dubious to start such a categorization if there aren't other years/decades/centuries whose existence was also warranted. Οἶδα (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, completely different categories should not be grouped together like this, the risk of keepable ones being deleted or umperged with the others because they don't get noticed is too big. The title is "Emirati films by year" but it contains things like "2019 in Belgian cricket" and "2009 disestablishmets in Djobouti". Close the nom and re-nominate in separate batches of closely related categories only. Fram (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
As an example, I just added a subcat with 4 extra articles to Category:2025 in Polish motorsport, and parallel categories can easily be made (we e.g. have 2024 Speedway Grand Prix of Poland, 2024 Rally Poland, 2024 Polish speedway season). So it seems likely that at least some of these can be populated and shouldn't be deleted or upmerged. Another one: Category:2006 in Egyptian cinema, could be expanded with e.g. The Yacoubian Building (film), A Difficult Mission and Halim (film).
So, once again, please close this trainwreck nomination, try to populate categories, and only then nominate smaller groups of clearly related categories which can't be expanded. Fram (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Individual film titles are not an expansion opportunity for "cinema" categories. Films go in films categories, not in "cinema" categories — so if a country doesn't have enough films to warrant the creation and population of a complete "YYYY films" tree as a subcategory of the cinema tree, then the films cannot be directly added to "YYYY cinema" categories as a deletion preventer either, because individual films never belong directly in a "YYYY cinema" category at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
That makes no sense at all. If films can be a subcategory of an "in cinema" category, then they can also be placed directly in the "in cinema" cat. The header for these cats, all of them, literally says "This category is for film in [country] in the year [year]." But according to you, a list of films may be in that category, a subcat of films may be in the cat, but actual films are not allowed in that cat? Please... Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think that makes sense. By the same token, we may not have enough articles for 2003 Afghan novels (which was deleted), but we do have enough for 21st-century Afghan literature. And novels like Kite Runner are categorized there. I don't see how "cinema" would be a uniquely different parent categorization in that regard. That said, there are very few examples where it actually plays out that there are not enough "[Year/Decade/Century] [country] films" but enough articles for a "[Year/Decade/Century] in [country] cinema" category. Οἶδα (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
"Very few" = none at all, actually Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
For "years", that is almost certainly true. It could be possible for "decades" or "centuries", but still unlikely. But in theory it's entirely possible to upmerge films to these "cinema" categories. The issue is that these "cinema" categories typically contain so few articles in the first place. Οἶδα (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge as nomonated. We really should create more standard minimums for category size and stop assuming we have to fill out sequences when it leads to too narrow categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Generally support, for now, this is mostly not helpful for navigation. Obviously that does not apply to categories that can easily be populated. I also agree with Fram that categories from completely different category trees should not be nominated together. Note that Category:2025 in motorsport by country is not a good merge target, that should become Category:2025 in motorsport. Year categories are not good merge targets for disestablishments categories. When there would be separate nominations per tree, I might spot more of these things. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Generally support per above. The lack of an all-inclusive nomination name or the fact that some cats can be populated more doesn't mean these categories are inappropriately grouped. Narrow categories are unhelpful for navigation. I get that it can be difficult to get explicit agreement on certain categories that have been populated post-nomination but the alternative is to needlessly clog up CfD. These narrow date categories all suffer the same problem, so there really isn't a reason against grouping them. And they are constantly being created, which is obviously due to the ease with which navigational template header templates enables users to do so. But that begs the question Bearcat posed above: can this actually be dealt with (read: discouraged) short of repeated CfDs such as this one? Οἶδα (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    "The lack of an all-inclusive nomination name or the fact that some cats can be populated more doesn't mean these categories are inappropriately grouped." Er, that's exactly why they are inappropriately grouped. If this one doesn't get closed by the nom or rejected by the closer, I'll take it up at DRV, as this is making a travesty of the process. A deletion nomination should never group nominations based on such flimsy resemblances as "they only have one article" when the contents of the categories are vastly different. Anyway, I just expanded Category:2008 in Bermudian cricket to 6 articles, so that's yet another one that shouldn't have been included. How many other categories will be deleted here because people rather nominate them and bash the creators than actually try to populate them? The mentality at CfD is really way too often abysmal, and like I said before, we really need to create policy that a version of WP:BEFORE applies to CfD as well, and that people shouldn't nominate categories for being underpopulated without at least trying to populate them first. But no, apparently some people would rather "discourage" and "prevent" the creation of such categories, because of course SOFIXIT doesn't aoply to this remote corner of the encyclopedia, and the people supporting this nom are somehow inconvenineced by the existence of Category:2006 in Egyptian cinema when it has only one article, and rather have it deleted than populated because, well, no idea, or none I can post here at least. Fram (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
    I can agree, and already did, that bundling these makes it harder to gain explicit consensus that certain categories should be excepted as a result of being populated post-nomination. Said in another way, usually commenters here don't really return to revise their vote once other users announce that they've since filled a selection of the categories. I also don't disagree that users should be checking to see if narrow categories can be expanded, and doing just that before nominating them at CfD. But I'm not going to assume they haven't. To say they are inappropriately grouped is for you to assume that. And I'm not loving the overheated rhetoric here.
    "bash the creators"
    "the mentality at CfD is really way too often abysmal"
    "because of course SOFIXIT doesn't aoply to this remote corner of the encyclopedia"
    "somehow inconvenineced by the existence of"
    "no idea, or none I can post here at least"
    And the threatening tone in your edit summary:
    "Close this now or get it overturned"
    "that's basically the choice you have"
    "clean up your act, all of you"
    "This way of working really stinks."
    A lot of implied grievances. A lot of assumptions of malice. I don't see why the discussion has to move in that direction. I stand by what I said. And I still largely agree with you. But just as users should "actually try to populate them", those who create the categories should equally attempt to populate them. I would think you would agree with that. Because the amount of rapid category creations I see by users who pay no mind to actually filling them is enormous. And they are often just diffusing every member of a parent cat for the sake of completely doing so. But I don't assume anything malicious on either side of that spectrum. We shouldn't assume a category like 2006 in Egyptian cinema is nominated due to the nominator's supposed feelings of inconvenience with having to find articles to populate and hence justify its existence. But also, I too have my fair share of disgruntlement with the way things are often handled here at CfD and how discussions often play out (or don't play out). So I'm not going to fault you for the frustration or desire for more productive and focused discussions. Also, per a PetScan search, you could diffuse 2000s Egyptian films to 2006 Egyptian films, which would contain 7 articles. But that doesn't warrant the existence of a parent 2006 in Egyptian cinema cat. Also, its only article (Bibliotheca Alexandrina's 100 Greatest Egyptian Films) doesn't even belong in the category because it is a work of literature about cinema, not a film or event of Egyptian cinema in the year 2006. Οἶδα (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Further comment: when there are all sorts of smaller or larger comments about different sorts of categories, like now happens, that also makes the life of a closer much harder. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I agree that some of these are too narrow to properly be populated but quite a few of these don't have that problem. The nomination is too broad and includes too many categories with very different circumstances. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose. I was going to support some of these, but as I started going through them, it became more confusing what should be kept, what should be merged and what should be deleted. Start again with a simpler nomination. Either group the categories belonging to the same topic or group the categories belonging to the same country. But I generally support upmerging single-page categories. Mclay1 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • +1 for procedural oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:13, 6 June 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:Red River Showdown

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) 14:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: A small category which does not aide navigation. This information and more is already categorized elsewhere. User:Namiba 13:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, the stadium article should be purged and it is not helpful to keep the category for one article next to the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 4 June 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:Smelters (occupation)

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) 12:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale In most cases where the term for people doing an occupation is in some way ambiguous we have (people) in parentheses after the name. Thus Category:Publishers (people) and Category:Mechanics (people). Smelter is both the facility where smelting is done and the person who does the smelting so we need some disambiguation. I almost created the target here because it is the expected form of the category name. I think we should Rename to the standard form. Especially since the current form makes one think this will contain articles about aspects or sub-groupins in the occupation of smelting, maybe articles that cover tin Smelters, lead Smelters, iron Smelters, copper Smelters, silver Smelters ect. Instead we have biographies of people who were Smelters so I think the target name would cause less surprise to users.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Mclay1 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename, the category contains biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 4 June 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:Draft articles about the Americas

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) 12:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge unnecessary category layer. The two subcategories cover the entire topic. Mclay1 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 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.

15th century in Portugal

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) 12:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, per WP:OCYEAR, mainly one- or two-articles categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge These are too narrow categories to aid navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:00, 4 June 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:Image Epoch 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: rename (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 12:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The company name is imageepoch, not Image Epoch Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    The nomination is to rename not delete. Mclay1 (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
    • It was meant to be in the section below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename. This could have been speedied. Mclay1 (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • rename per above --Lenticel (talk) 12:35, 7 June 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:Organised events in Transvaal

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) 12:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer with only one subcategory, which is already categorised elsewhere in Category:Transvaal. Mclay1 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 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:Organized events in the Philippines by region

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) Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose merging Category:Organized events in the Philippines by region (0) to Category:Organized events in the Philippines
  • Propose deleting Category:Organized events in the Philippines by province (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Organized events in Cebu (0)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/delete unnecessary category layers. Category:Elections in the Philippines by region can purged because it's already in another subcategory of the target. Mclay1 (talk) 03:46, 4 June 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:Knight Commanders of the Exalted Order of Malacca

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now, underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 01:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both These are both cases of categorizing by awards that are not such that they will almost always be mentioned when speaking of the person so they do not fit our guidelines by categorizing by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Agree on that, but then the sibling category should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Award seems defining enough, and it can be populated from the list in Exalted Order of Malacca. I went through a random selection of the articles and it was mentioned in all of them. Comments to delete this sort of thing run afoul of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Also, the target category appears to be misnamed. Mclay1 (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge/Open to Broader Conversation The merger makes sense for navigation. Open to a broader nomination but that would need to tag the parent category and the other subcat and provide some analysis of the overall award. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:51, 6 June 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:Recipients of the Order of Manas, 3rd class

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete both. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose merging Category:Recipients of the Order of Manas, 3rd class to Category:Recipients of the Order of Manas
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 01:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both These do not meet our limited circumstances under which we categorize by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both per Johnpacklambert (or else merge per nom). I will tag the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and populate the target from the list in Order of Manas. These type of comments to delete run afoul of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Per the article, this is the highest order of Kyrgyzstan. I doubt people would be saying the same thing about a similar award from a country like America. Mclay1 (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete both for Now The list of recipients in the article skews heavily toward presidents of Kyrgyzstan who gave this award to themselves (or to each other), other high ranking officials, and throwaway diplomatic souvenirs to foreign heads of state. It's certainly possible that there are a bunch more deserving Kyrgyz citizens who also won the award and systemic bias means they're not yet reflected. But, in the mean time, it doesn't aid navigation to add Presidents Vladimir Putin and Sooronbay Jeenbekov to these categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:28, 6 June 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:Non-renewable resource companies established in 1750

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) 02:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated and isolated category. There is only one page in the entire Non-renewable resource companies established in the 18th century tree SMasonGarrison 00:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Just delete, the article is about (the exploitation of) certain coal mines, but nothing is said about the establishment of a company. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete the article is about coal mines in an area but does not mention a company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 12:36, 7 June 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