Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 28
March 30 >

March 29


Category:Ben-Hur 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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: To match other categories about films based on specific works. Trivialist (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Treasure Island films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: To match other categories about films based on specific works Trivialist (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Female Superiorists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:OPINIONCAT. We don't have a category for male supremacists despite male supremacy being a valid topic in itself. Neither should we label people as "female superiorists". (Minor point: nobody seems to use the word "superiorist" anyway.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
The laundry list of hot-button gender and sexuality topics on the category page itself (feminist movements and ideologies, feminist theory, feminist philosophy, feminist ethics, discrimination, misandry, supremacism, matriarchy, men's rights, feminists) suggests there's some not-so-subtle POV-pushing going on here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
I mean, I figured there's already categories such as for 'white supermacists', which is considered far worse, so I don't see the difference here.
suggests there's some not-so-subtle POV-pushing going on here. Please see MOS:ACCUSE.
Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
But not for "male supremacists", which is more relevant to the topic. Category:White supremacists can have its own discussion; see WP:OTHERCONTENT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf What about in cases where the person is clearly known for this, such as Valerie Solanas? Also isn't mentioning the lack of male supremacists category as a reason to nominate this also a violation of WP:OTHERCONTENT? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Minor point: it should become Category:Female superiorists, not with capital s, per article Female superiority. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete this is an opinion Category. We generally avoid such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: questions to consider: 1) is this category defining? 2) WP:CATDEF and WP:OPINIONCAT are both guidelines; if they are at odds with each other, which one takes precedence (in the context of this specific category)? and 3) if kept, rename? In general, I think more input and further discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are many ways, often overlapping, to nuance the wider topic of feminism. This is one of them, as is e.g. Separatist feminism. Each of the theorists and activists placed in these categories will never be exactly and only defined by the label of one of them by make their own nuance. That's the spirit of WP:OPINIONCAT and why stashing individual biographic articles in such a category is not helpful. Place Clichy (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Slovak ethnomusicologists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 6#Category:Slovak ethnomusicologists

Category:Iranian generals by dynasty

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (do not merge). New nominations to rename/other actions can be made if desired. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Category:Iranian generals by dynasty to Category:Generals by former country and Category:Generals of Iran
  • Nominator's rationale First off these people are connected with the various Empires that have been the authority over Iran by virtue of holding office as general under that empire. So this is under Category:Generals of Iran not under Iranian generals which consists of people who were nationals of Iran who served in the armies of other countries as generals. Several of these things are called "Empires" and when not it is normally called "Foo Iran". However I do not think we really need this layer and I think we can move the sub-categories directly to the parent cstegoroes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is well-populated with 10 subcats, and a useful part of other hierarchies Category:Dynasties in Persia and Iran and Category:Generals by period. No objection to renaming e.g. Iranian generals by period. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
    • The name would need to be generals of Iran by period, maybe. I am not sure that is the best name. What the catrgory is doing is linking the people who served as generals to the specific Empire or government they served under. I really do not see why we need a sorting level and can not put the various by empire/regime categories directly under generals of Iran. In the case of Germany where the military has been renamed and reorganized multiple times we have generals of and then name the military organization name but we do not feel a need for an intermediary layer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment with current proposals the only categories left under Category:Generals of Iran will be this one and the other one for generals if the Islamic Republic of Iran. Once that is the case I think we should just merge this up since I do nor think we will need the intermediate layer if for no other reason than I do not think there is a short way to correctly express what we are sorting by. Some things are called Empire, some use the word dynasty, but that has conflicting meanings and the Islamic Republic of Iran is neither. I guess we could call it Category:Generals of Iran by empire or republic. That might be a good name. We could also have Category:Generals of France by regime, empire of republic. I guess also Category:Generals of China by Empire or republic. There may be some other cases that would work similar. In the case of France I am not sure we want to actually sort by all possible iterations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The parent category should probably have been kept at Iranian generals. These are not former countries, these are different dynasties in the same country. Place Clichy (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The history of the territory of what is currently Iran is complex. In antiquity there were large empires based in Iran but covering much more territory. In the Middle Ages it was mostly ruled by Arabs, Turks and Mongols, but not exclusively. One might argue that Iran as we now understand it emerged in 1501. Only after 1501 we have articles like Safavid Iran and Afsharid Iran. So arguably some of these dynasties are of former countries (before 1501) and some are of Iran (after 1501). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • New proposal Rename to Category:Iranian generals by period to match its now existing parent Category:Generals by period which seems to have been created since this nomination was first made. I believe this name is a better choice for what we are trying to cover here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vase sports trophies

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 was not enough support for listification for me to feel comfortable calling it the outcome (though this discussion of course does not preclude any user from making a list anyway should they want to do so in the future). (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining and trivial. A random collection of sporting trophies defined only by their vase shape. Bcp67 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete and listify. There could be a room for sports trophies that belong in Category:Individual vases, and maybe those in other shapes such as shields, platters, cups or bowls, but it should probably be a list and not a category. These trophies have a shape that can be compared to a vase but I don't think they themselves belong in Category:Individual vases because 1°) it is highly subjective what is either a vase, bowl or cup shape and 2°) they were/are never used as a vase. Place Clichy (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
    A bloke down the pub says he has the FA Vase on his mantlepiece with a nice bunch of petunias. But I can't find a reliable source as a citation. So delete and potentially listify per above. Mclay1 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: listify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scholars and writers on authoritarianism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Scholars of authoritarianism. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose splitting Category:Scholars and writers on authoritarianism to Category:Academics on authoritarianism and Category:Writers on authoritarianism
Nominator's rationale: The name here conflates meaningfully distinct things, which we have different categories for. This category has them go in subcategories for both which is incorrect as not everyone here is an academic. Also, splitting would properly align with Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area and Category:Scholars and academics by subject - as far as I can see this is trying to be both at once. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is too much overlap between the two for it to be justified to split the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
    How is this any different than the whole category tree? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Academics on authoritarianism and purge, they are all academics with one exception Anne Applebaum who primarily wrote about communism and is already in Category:Historians of communism. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
    Also fine by me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Scholars of authoritarianism. Scholars is broader than academics, which essentially refers to university teachers and researchers. No need to limit the scope of the category, even if the current contents are all academics. Mclay1 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • We use "scholars" mostly for periods when academics were absent or rare. That is not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Not really. We have categories like Category:Classical scholars and several others that include lots of people who were academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
      • There are some exceptions, biblical scholars is another one. That is why I said "mostly". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
        • We use scholars for a whole lot of topics in the humanities. For a lot of subjects we have words like economists, historians, geograohers etc. that allow us to avoid the issue. I still think scholar is a better term overall. I also despise my grandchildren's elementary school for insisting on calling its pupils "scholars". It is a misuse of the term that bothers me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if rename, to scholars or academics?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ankeng Light Rail Transit

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 (technically dual merge, but contents have already been added to the proposed merge targets or their subcats). (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: delete, to begin with, the category should be renamed per WP:C2D, but when that happens WP:C2F applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
It has a sub-subcategory Category:Ankeng light rail stations now.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete for Now Appreciate the attempt to populate but this now seems like WP:OCEPON. If/when multiple direct articles come over from Chinese Wikipedia, no objection to recreation at that point. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: additional input and/or a stronger consensus to delete/merge/keep/rename would be helpful :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wooden houses

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. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING
Houses have been built with a wide variety of building materials over time and across cultures but wood seems too ubiquitous to be defining. Heritage registers list building materials but I'm not sure other reliable sources refer to theses houses in this way. Admittedly my editing experience lacks a global perspective being mostly with American houses, but the category contents are also mostly American. (I have concerns with some other parts of the Category:Buildings and structures by construction material tree but let's start here.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • In western Europe it is very rare and would probably be defining, possibly with the exception of Switzerland. But in the category there is one Swiss house and no other western European houses so that does not really count. I do not know about other parts of the world. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
    In Australia, many houses are made of wood, and many brick houses have wooden frames or floors – do they count? I would say the category would only be useful as a container for more specific categories, such as about periods or styles, or for countries where it is notable in some way. If it's kept, it massively needs populating. Mclay1 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
    I'm open to containerization. Also appreciate the more global perspectives here! RevelationDirect (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete/reparent per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as a necessary part of Category:Wooden buildings and structures. If there's a case for dismantling Category:Buildings and structures by construction material, start with a RFC rather than picking off one grandchild category within it. Purge a little, e.g. Chebaki (Khakassia) makes no mention of wood ot timber, so in that case it appears not to be defining. – Fayenatic London 14:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • That is a very fair point. Agree with keeping for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Saudi Arabia–Soviet Union relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article about a youth football match between Nigeria and the Soviet Union that was played in Saudi Arabia in 1989. Unable to see the connection regarding Saudi—Soviet bilateral relations. Not helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a defining international relation. Russia–Saudi Arabia relations and List of ambassadors of Russia to Saudi Arabia state that "The Soviet Union was the first country to recognize and establish full diplomatic relations with Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1926", although it can be debated whether these individual articles, which cover the period of the Soviet Union, should themselves be in this category. It is certainly defining for Karim Khakimov. Foreign involvement in the Soviet–Afghan War also extensively elaborates on Saudi involvement in a war that was defining for the Soviet Union, a topic also covered by Operation Cyclone or Charlie Wilson's War (film) among others. Place Clichy (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  • At least purge the first two articles Miracle of Dammam and Afghan Arabs. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Marcocapelle: why Afghan Arabs? This article is explicitly about Saudis who went to fight a war against the Soviet Union, one of 4 countries cited in this article with Algeria, Bosnia and Egypt. I'd say that is pretty "political". Re: Miracle of Dammam, I get although I disagree that you think international sports are not international relations. Place Clichy (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Place Clichy: it isn't clear whether the Afghan Arabs specifically came from Saudi Arabia. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    That article elaborates specifically about 4 origin countries for the volunteers who came to fight the Soviet Union in the 1980s: Saudi Arabia (e.g. bin Laden), Algeria, Bosnia and Egypt. Note that this is the topic of this article, not an endogenous ethnic group as the name could suggest. Place Clichy (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Well if they came from four different countries then it is not clearly about bilateral relations. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
      I'm not trying to be disrespectful but I think there's an issue here with what kind of content Place Clichy believes should be placed in bilateral relations categories. AusLondonder (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete we do not have a main article. I do not think we should create bilateral relations categories without a main article. Let people first create a main article and then if there are multiple other aemrtivles that indisputably fit in the category we can create the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:September 2026 sports events in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. They may be renominated if they remain underpopulated by October, but consensus is that this is unlikely. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated category. (At the category creator, please don't make underpopulated categories like this) SMasonGarrison 04:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
how are you meant to start a category unless you have increase it from zero? Are you seriously trying to argue that a category of this nature needs 4+ articles to be created when the equivalent in the previous year ended up with 50+? Crowsus (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
please assume good faith. the category can be created when there is more than one page for it. otherwise it is not helpful for navigation because the few items are so many clicks away from each other. SMasonGarrison 23:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
there probably is more than one eligible page, have you checked all those for August 2025 to see if there is an article for this year yet? Crowsus (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge for now, it is too soon to create these categories. The North American parents may be upmerged for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep It makes no sense to delete it now, recreate it in three months, and hope that someone diffuses the category properly. The "it's too soon" argument would apply to the parent Category:September 2026 sports events in North America anyway. Pichpich (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    Strong keep for both, it's this year, there is no reason for deletion just because it hasn't occurred yet. August 2025 had 55 entries, September 2025 had 36, no reason to think it won't be similar numbers for 2026. April, May, June and July have also not happened yet but categories have not been nominated. Nomination and support for upmerging are baffling. Crowsus (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Already two articles in each, and will likely only go up from there Maybe it is soon, but it would make even less sense to delete and re-create it in a fortnight. Place Clichy (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Surnames of Maghrebi Jewish origin

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Sephardi surnames. In the unreasonably large number of months this discussion has been open nobody has actually objected to a merge. * Pppery * in solidarity 18:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with existing Category:Ashkenazi surnames. Unsure if it would need to be Category:Maghrebi Jewish surnames, as while I know Mizrahi is solely a Jewish term, Maghrebi might be used for non-Jews from the Maghreb too. Qualiesin (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

These could also all have "Jewish" added after the ethnic descriptor (e.g. Category:Ashkenazi Jewish surnames), but that may be redundant in some cases.

  • Rename to Category:Maghrebi Jewish surnames for brevity. We probably need to keep "Jewish" in the name here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if rename, to what name?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Noting that the cat had not been tagged; now done. GoldRomean (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak rename to Category:Maghrebi Jewish surnames, as Maghrebi also describes non-Jewish people from the Maghreb. However, this seems to largely duplicate Category:Arab-Jewish surnames (12) and Category:Surnames of Sephardic origin (0) (and maybe Category:Mizrahi surnames (18), although all North African Jews I know would describe themselves as Sephardi rather than Mizrahi).
Alt merge to Category:Surnames of Sephardic origin would make sense. Place Clichy (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
I have moved Category:Surnames of Maghrebi Jewish origin under Category:Surnames of Sephardic origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it should be kept, though. In fact, I propose to merge there. Maghrebi is a geographic designation whereas Sephardi is a cultural one, and a better descriptor for last names. Place Clichy (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Agree, it doesn't necessarily mean it should be kept. If kept though, articles that are currently in both categories can be purged from Category:Surnames of Sephardic origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: rename or merge? noting that the proposed merge target is now at Category:Sephardi surnames per this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Sephardi surnames (repeat opinion). There is so much overlap between the two notions that keeping separate categories seems counter-productive. For instance, I see that Toledano, a frequent last name among Sephardi Jews from the Maghreb but with an etymology clearly linking to Spain and not the Maghreb or the Arabic language, is found in Category:Surnames of Maghrebi Jewish origin and Category:Surnames of Moroccan origin, since 2020. This indicates that the notions are identical in the spirit of users who created and populate these categories. Place Clichy (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Typographers and type designers by nationality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to targets and the categories listed by Mclay1. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Each of these categories is underpopulated. SMasonGarrison 20:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 3#Category:Typographers and type designers SMasonGarrison 21:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
You just told me not to do this. That's still open. Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
comment: check if the Moroccans belong in Category:Typographers of Arabic script
Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Good idea. From looking at it, Mohamed Chabâa doesn't seem to be defined by Arabic script. SMasonGarrison 23:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Updated! Thanks for catching that.SMasonGarrison 23:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: dual merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Islamist attack plots and attacks on Christmas markets

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Attack plots and attacks on Christmas markets as outlined by Marcocapelle. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Using the same reasoning, I upmerged Category:Islamist attack plots and attacks on Christmas markets to the same categories.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose merging Category:Islamist attack plots and attacks on Christmas markets to Category:Attack plots and attacks on Christmas markets
Nominator's rationale: Barely enough pages for a category, and it is a bizarrely specific combination with no corresponding parent category. There is at least one other page (2024 Magdeburg car attack) that could be added to a slightly broader category. Late Night Coffee (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • If renamed then also manually add 4 articles to Category:Marketplace attacks (the last article is already in Category:Marketplace attacks in France). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    That doesn't seem necessary since the proposed name isn't removing markets. Mclay1 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    several of the other parent categories needed minor changes, so I made it and changed this to a merge. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @LateNightCoffee I have noticed that you don't tend to notify the category creators. Please do that. SMasonGarrison 16:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    Use a script or Twinkle to make the nominations and it will do it for you automatically. Mclay1 (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Mclay1, Is there a template I can use? Or a thing I can copy and modify? I'd prefer not to use twinkle because I usually find the messages unhelpful when they're sent to me, and I don't think I have the skill for a script? Unless there's a script that is pre-written and easy to run? Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    @LateNightCoffee: For a single nomination, Twinkle is definitely the best tool to automate the CfD process, and it will send a standard message to the creator of the nominated category with a link to the discussion. For a nomination of multiple categories at once, use User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD; it will also send messages to the creators of all the categories (I'm pretty sure it's the same one Twinkle sends). Mclay1 (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    The creator of this one was blocked. Most of the others were created by me and moved by you using speedy rename. I ran out of time to contest speedy so belatedly raised them here. Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Weak oppose, we can probably better upmerge the target Category:Attack plots and attacks on Christmas markets which has only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is this better? Late Night Coffee (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle, Up merge to what? Late Night Coffee (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  • It is better because it is almost empty. "Upmerging" means merging it to its parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
I think that the alternative target is fine with me SMasonGarrison 22:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: additional participation and further thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion would be helpful :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bilateral relations of the Federal Republic of Central 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: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Multiple layers of categories to contain just one bilateral relations article and an article about a treaty. Would be better categorised within the larger foreign relations category. AusLondonder (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: additional thoughts on Place Clichy's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose multi-merge to countries that did nor exist at the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    But it belongs to the history of these countries. I have yet to see a convincing argument against placing content related to the history of a topic A in Category:Topic A by default when there isn't a Category:History of topic A. Place Clichy (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    The treaty became moot on the dissolution of Federal Republic of Central America. It's irrelevant to bilateral relations of these modern states. AusLondonder (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge as nominated. Totally as strong as possible oppose multi merge. Relations of the US and the Central American Republic are not relations with the successor states and should not be categorized as states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vietnamese slaves

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 6#Category:Vietnamese slaves

Category:Czech expatriate sportspeople in Iran

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus whether to merge or delete. There is consensus that this category should not exist/WP:NOTCURRENT—I think the best option here is to merge to Category:Czech expatriates in Iran as a bartender's close, and that category can be separately nominated, if desired. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article so unhelpful for navigation. Only biography in the category, Robert Caha is already covered by several expatriate categories including Category:Expatriate men's footballers in Iran. AusLondonder (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Czech expatriates in Iran. No reason not to upmerge to this valid parent category. Place Clichy (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    Except that this is an empty category? Categories are for navigation not listing every feature of the subject. AusLondonder (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment We should not merge this to another category to have that just be a 1 article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    There is no policy anywhere that forbids categories on the account that they have just one article. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and more content can be added later, or in some cases is unlikely to be added soon as in Category:Polish popes. The relevant guidelines are WP:NARROWCAT, WP:G1 (which is for categories with O article or sub-category) and WP:C2F which is for categories with one eponymous article. Place Clichy (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Czech expatriates in Iran since that is a valid parent category which has not also been nominated, and is not covered by other current categories on the article. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kapurthala-geo-stub

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 per LaundryPizza03. * Pppery * in solidarity 02:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per Kapurthala district and Kapurthala, respectively. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 04:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
This will need more deliberation, since there is an overlap of naming conventions from Category:Punjab, India, geography stubs and Category:Kapurthala district geography stubs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Argentine musical theatre creative directors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Argentine musical theatre directors and Category:Creative directors. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:25, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: highly overlapping categories SMasonGarrison 02:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: thoughts on dual merge or alt merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
I think that dual merge is probably easier to implement within this cfd SMasonGarrison 23:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of Andhra Pradesh (1947–2014)

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 , but no consensus as to what the target should be. Merging both to Category:History of Andhra Pradesh (1947–present) as a bartender, and a separate discussion regarding further upmerging can be opened, if desired. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: rename and merge, while Andhra Pradesh lost a substantial part of its territory in 2014, its essence remained the same. The article History of Andhra Pradesh has not been split either. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge both to Category:History of Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1953. Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1953. So it would seem we could have one category Category:History of Andhra Pradesh that would cover that. Anything pre-1953 belongs in other categories. The splitting off of Telgana does not require a new Category. We do not have Category:History of Massachusetts (1820-present) because Maine was split off or Category:History of Virginia (1863-present) because West Virginia was split off. Therr are other things like the Deccan Sultanates and some empires under the target, but I see no reason to split this by any years when Andhra Pradesh has only existed since 1953.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
    • From 1953-1956 Andhra State as it was known essentially had its current boundaries. 1947 is not a good year to split anything really. 1947-1953 it was part of Madras State. Prior to that the area had been part of the Madras Presidency. British control was established there fully by 1800, with the earliest British trading posts in 1711. A large part was taken from French domination in the 7 Years War, with more area ceded to the British by the Mughal Empire in 1765 and a small addition in 1778. The area had earlier been part of the Deccan Subah of the Mughal Empire. That had in turn only began in 1687. Before that the area was part of the Sultanate of Golconda. So pre-1953 things go under; Category:Madras Presidency, Category:Sultanate of Golconda etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
      • @Johnpacklambert: hold on, if we do what you suggest we are going to mix up post-1947 history with pre-1947 history, I don't think that that is desirable. Better discuss a rename of the target to Category:History of Andhra Pradesh (1953–present) in a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
        • I still think we should have no pre-1953 items directly in the Andhra Pradesh category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
          • Yeah but that is going to be a very complicated discussion and the alt merge proposal only would make it more complicated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Expatriates in San Marino

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) 22:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Two categories containing only a single article about an individual who "joined San Marino Academy in Serie A. She was named to one matchday squad but did not make an appearance." No evidence she ever lived in San Marino. Article already has a large number of expatriate-related categories. AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 00:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Pointless and unnecessary category. Several other similar categories to this have already been deleted. CutlassCiera 15:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless a valid rationale is made for its retention. I suppose it can potentially be useful to track any promotional userpages that need deleting, but I think that any benefit in that regard is outweighed by giving the userpages visibility through this category. And besides, if there's any egregious promotional content that needs to be urgently removed it can just get taken down via speedy deletion or MfD. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Small ~2026-20888-75 (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Courtesy link to a recent similar discussion. I've notified Wikipedia talk:Username policy and User talk:TheSandDoctor (since this will affect Task 7 of TheSandBot). GoldRomean (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I would just add that the category isn't really giving "visibility" in that sense. It's a hidden maintenance category, of which there are many in existence, and editors will most likely never encounter this one (or any other) unless they enable a setting in preferences and actively look for at least one as a starting point. Most non-editors have absolutely no idea whatsoever that there is anything to Wikipedia beyond the article namespace or the front the page. I remember being rather shocked when I learned that there was more to this site myself. I do, however, believe that there should be a stronger consensus before action should be undertaken here. (If this one is to be deleted, then it'll need some monitoring for templates that add it etc. and be whack-a-mole for a bit, not that that itself is a reason for or against action. Just noting for closing admin.) --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete SilviaASH is reasonable here. In the previous nomination I pointed out that we don't want to spread hate speech thru listing offensive usernames, and it's similar here except for spam. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:31, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Essay collections by Barbara Kingsolver

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) 22:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: "Books" is a single-member category for non-fiction books (as opposed to Category:Novels by Barbara Kingsolver, which is well-populated). Both articles in "Essay collections" are also categorized individually as non-fiction books, so I think it'd be better to merge them and rename the category to Category:Non-fiction books by Barbara Kingsolver. ScalarFactor (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Single-article non-resident ambassadors

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) 22:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All of these categories contain only a single article on a non-resident ambassador which is non-defining and unhelpful for navigation.

11 of these categories are solely for Abena Busia resulting in major over-categorisation of that article. AusLondonder (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Single-article categories are not useful for navigation. ScalarFactor (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should not categorize non-resident ambassadorship. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete non-residential ambassadors appointments are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Draft articles about agriculture, food and drink

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * in solidarity 02:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. The target is sufficient. Update Template:Draft article if this is approved. – Fayenatic London 16:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Alt rename to Category:Draft articles about agriculture. We don't otherwise have a topic category for that. It can be separate to the existing Category:Draft articles about food and drink. I think it's better to have existing topics ready for users to add drafts to rather than them creating their own and getting the names wrong. Mclay1 (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist. There is a general sentiment so far that something should be done, but additional comments/a stronger consensus on whether to rename or merge (if either) would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Considering the huge amount of drafts directly in Category:Drafts there is apparently not much need to diffuse this in great detail. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York state elections

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) 22:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant Gjs238 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment These are federal elections that occur in the state of New York. So they are not actually redundant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose These are two different categories: Category:New York (state) elections is for all elections that take place in New York state (and hence includes federal and local elections as subcategories). Category:New York state elections is for state-level elections, i.e. state assembly and the governor. Number 57 15:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    Question I can't find any other US state categories with the (state) disambiguator. How are the 49 other US states handling this? Gjs238 (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
(answer question after relisting) there are Category:Washington (state) elections and Category:Georgia (U.S. state) elections. Place Clichy (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no clear consensus yet whether to merge/rename/do anything at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Doctor Who stories set on Mars

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: A category with only three articles already listed at the "Mars in television" article as is. This split is unnecessary, especially given the frankly small number of episodes featuring Mars in such a long-running show. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 08:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think, in this specific case, that this helps reader navigation. - jc37 14:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom (or even delete) this unnecessary split. -- Just N. (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UNIT serials

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. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Stories featuring UNIT. The serials category is what is more widely used, but also includes UNIT stories that are not serials. There's very little differentiation between the two categories, and the overarching "UNIT stories" category will be more helpful for overall for finding television episodes featuring UNIT. These two are better off discussed together. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 07:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Seems a decent way to diffuse the parent. - jc37 14:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I think this is worth keeping per user:Jc37, but the contents should be almost entirely swapped. The parent Category:Doctor Who stories set on Earth should also be split likewise between stories and serials, as this will make more sense of the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 20:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    That seems overly confusing. Most readers aren't going to know the difference between a "serial" and an "episode" at a glance unless they're deeply familiar with the subject, and anyone looking for further stories under the category is going to find a random split in coverage that means any appearance after 2005 isn't counted with the others from before then for some reason. If someone wants to find all UNIT stories, this categorization method isn't going to be helpful. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional parents or guardians

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) 22:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Way too broad of a category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom SMasonGarrison 15:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Republic of the Congo–São Tomé and Príncipe relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The issue that the Republic of the Congo didn't exist yet when the event happened is the overriding concern. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting Category:Republic of the Congo–São Tomé and Príncipe relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article, History of the Jews in the Republic of the Congo, which states that a Jewish community was established in what is now Congo and Gabon in the 1700s after their expulsion from São Tomé and Príncipe. Unrelated to bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)nomination.
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article History of the Jews in the Republic of the Congo is explicit that the local Jewish community which is the subject of this article was established by Jews from São Tomé who had been expelled and settled there. If we consider that descent, migration and diaspora are "unrelated to bilateral relations" then I think a single discussion on this precise topic should determine that, not like that. Place Clichy (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    The group in question came to the Kingdom of Loango not to the Republic of Congo, and that was an action to expel them from their former location done by Portugal (assuming it was actually an active expulsion, which I am not sure we have enough sources to relate). This is a fact in the deep history, not something the article itself is actually covering. So I am not convinced the artitcle goes in Category:Kingdom of Loango, but it clearly does not relate to the relations of the Republic of the Congo (formed in 1960) with the country of Sao Tome and Principe, which was formed in the 1970s. We should not place in bilateral relations categories for 2 countries an article that is about events that happened about 200 years before either country existed. This applies even more when it is a minor background event that is mentioned in the article but not actually a defining subject of the article itself. If we had Expulsion of the Jews in Sao Tome and their settlement in the Kingdom of Loango as an article I would still oppose it being placed in the relations categories for countries that were not formed for about another two centiries after that happened, but I even more oppose placement of an article that has that as a background event that is mentioned. I am not even sure we have enough reliable sources on the matter to create the article I mentioned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    Basically, you are explaining that History of the Jews in the Republic of the Congo is not relevant to the Republic of the Congo. Place Clichy (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    To be honest I didn't actually expect you to defend this category given it is so inexplicable and useless. AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    • No I am saying that article is not relevant to Sao Tome and Principe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • You can't have bilateral relations between two countries if those countries did not exist yet. History of the Jews in the Republic of the Congo is relevant to the colonial history of Congo but not to the bilateral relations of the Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Colombia–Tunisia relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article about a terrorist attack in Tunisia in 2015 in which two Colombian citizens were killed. Useless for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Dominican Republic–El Salvador relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Twice recreated category. It has been added to two articles - Dominican Civil War which has been added this week to six bilateral relations categories, and Inter-American Peace Force which has also been added to bilateral relations categories. El Salvador is not mentioned in the body of the civil war article and is mentioned once in the peace force article which notes that El Salvador sent three military officials. I don't believe these articles are defining for bilateral relations between these two nations. AusLondonder (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Saint Lucia–Sri Lanka sports relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: After consensus at CfD was to delete the Category:Saint Lucia–Sri Lanka relations which contained only a single article 2012 World Twenty20 final between Sri Lanka and the West Indies cricket team, this category was subsequently created by the same creator to contain this same single article. AusLondonder (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, while sports diplomacy is a thing, mere participation in sports events does not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete not defining to the articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unlike the arguments usually given about participation in multinational sports events, the article in this category is about a direct head-to-head single confrontation, a final of one of the formats of cricket world cup. World cup finals that are notable enough for a Wikipedia article routinely figure in bilateral categories and have always been added there since these categories exist, with reason. The bilateral sports categories are a concession towards those who consider that this content is better presented separately that standard bilateral categories together with diplomacy, politics and war. Place Clichy (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    • I do not think we should categorize individual competitions as part of sports relations between the involved countries. We have enough other ways to categorize individual games. I do not think we should put them in sports relations categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
      • @Place Clichy: This was a World Twenty20 final between Sri Lanka and the West Indies cricket team. Adding it to bilateral relations of all the participating countries in the West Indies cricket team is ridiculous. The article is already appropriately categorised in cricket-related categories . Aside from that, as you said yourself single-article categories are of no navigational use. AusLondonder (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peninsulas of Tunisia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Landforms of Tunisia and Category:Peninsulas of Africa. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only contains a single entry, and it appears only a single possible entry exists. Commons:Category:Peninsulas of Tunisia suggests the existence of two others, Eddzira and Ras R'mal, but neither turn up any search results on English Wikipedia, thus seeming unlikely to receive their own articles any time soon. If they ever do, this can certainly be recreated, but for now, it should be upmerged to Category:Landforms of Tunisia and Category:Peninsulas of Africa. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge (instead of delete) per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    In case it's not clear, I am saying to merge, as I wrote in the last sentence of my proposal. Unfortunately, Twinkle doesn't currently allow for multiple merge targets in a CfM proposal, so I had to mark it as such. Hopefully that is changed soon. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge. I created the category back in 2013. Clueless why I did so, except that I probably thought more articles would populate the cat. Thirteen years later, totally agree with the merge recommendation. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Passion of Jesus in art by theme

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This is clearly meant to be a container subcategory of Category:Passion of Jesus in art by episode in the Gospel narrative, similar to its sibling Category:Passion of Jesus in art by medium, but the current phrasing is too imprecise to make this clear. We always try to avoid "theme" for narrative subjects; see here. "Episodes" is the least ambiguous phrasing for individual events in the Passion narrative. Ham II (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support "Subject" is the correct technical term, but perhaps would confuse some here. "Death" and "love" are themes in art, the Mocking of Christ is an event, a subject or an episode, whichever is preferred. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Italian companies established in 1663

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) 22:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated and single-article category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge This is the only category for Italian companies established in the 1600s. Single-article categories are unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to 1663 establishments in Italy and companies established in 1663. This is the only by country sub-category of the later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Novels by Gail Godwin

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) 22:19, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: One member novels-by-author category, not useful for navigation. ScalarFactor (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as category creator. I fully expected this cat to be better populated ten years later. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be no prospect for expansion and single-article categories aren't helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete we have a list of the novels by Godwin in her article. This appears to be the only one with an article. That is enough linking of the novel to the writer at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Male actors in English cinema

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) 00:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting Category:Male actors in English cinema
  • Propose deleting Category:Male actors in English television
  • Propose deleting Category:International film actors by language
  • Propose deleting Category:International television actors by language
  • Propose deleting Category:Actresses in Arabic cinema
  • Propose deleting Category:Actresses in Arabic television
  • Propose deleting Category:Male actors in Arabic cinema
  • Propose deleting Category:Male actors in Arabic television
  • Propose deleting Category:International singers by language
  • Propose deleting Category:Actors in English cinema
  • Propose deleting Category:International film producers by language
  • Propose deleting Category:English-language film producers
  • Propose deleting Category:International screenwriters by language
Nominator's rationale: Several categories created by a user editing with the sock accounts of IshaBaig8510, IshaBaig8517, IshaBaig8519, IshaBaig85198 and IshaBaigIrfan890. Actors by which language of television or film they work in is not a defining grouping. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Category:Actresses in English television and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 28#Category:Actors in English television. They also created redundant categories arbitrarily separating non-Indian subjects as "international". Other relevant categories they've since emptied and are now up for speedy deletion at Category:Child actors in English cinema, Category:Child actresses in English cinema, Category:Child actresses in English television, Category:Child actors in English television, Category:Actresses in English cinema. Οἶδα (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    Support per nom SMasonGarrison 15:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete people to easily switch between various types of cinema or television as actors and actresses for these categories to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Category:International singers by language is already empty. Liz Read! Talk! 17:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I had just removed that category from its only subcategory, Category:English-language playback singers, because it doesn't even (theoretically) belong there. I've restored it for the sake of this CfD, assuming that is appropriate. Οἶδα (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • If it doesn't even (theoretically) belong there it is okay to remove and mention that here in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:AccessData

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) 22:19, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated epon category about a company and their software product. the two pages are already interlinked SMasonGarrison 03:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Singing talent shows franchises

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Proper grammar Dresq23 (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy Rename per WP:C2A, typographic and spelling fixes. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename, but as Marcocapelle said this could have been a speedy renaming. Οἶδα (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cultural depictions of John T. Scopes

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) 22:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose Deleting Category:Cultural depictions of John T. Scopes
  • Propose Deleting Category:Cultural depictions of Clarence Darrow
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT
"The only reason John T. Scopes is notable stems from the 1925 Scopes trial trial over illegally teaching evolution and everything in his category is already in the parent category, Category:Scopes Trial. Clarence Darrow was a prominent attorney in many famous cases but, again, the contents overlap. (The only unduplicated article is The Angel of Darkness but he appears to have a non-defining cameo in that novel.) It doesn't make sense to subcategorize fiction about the monkey trial by each real-life person involved when they both would star in almost any retelling. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The John T. Scopes depictions category is an overlap of the Scopes trial category. The Darrow depictions category is an overlap of the Scopes and Leopold & Loeb topics. The only article that stands out is Clarence Darrow (film). There's also the Compulsion novel and film articles but they're already in Category:Cultural depictions of Leopold and Loeb and its film subcat. Conceivably we could keep Category:Cultural depictions of Clarence Darrow and make it (primarily) a container cat for two depictions categories about both trials, but I don't see the use in that. I would just put Darrow as the parent category of both cases and let readers find their way to the categories about the depictions of those cases. But that is probably just my opinion. Beacause these articles are chiefly depictions of both cases, not squarely of Darrow, which is presumably what these categories should be used for instead of categorizing real-life stories by every real-life person involved. Though, looking through many of the articles categorized into depictions categories, that does not appear to be the case. Either way, it certainly doesn't make sense to have Category:Cultural depictions of Clarence Darrow as a subcat of Category:Scopes Trial. Οἶδα (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Funeral scandals

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 6#Category:Funeral scandals

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI