Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 29
March 31 >

March 30

Category:Chicano and Mexican monuments and memorials

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging is not needed, the subcategory already has all relevant parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
I will expand the category for entries outside of California. Ive meant to but hadnt got around, but this is a good impetus to get on it. Please provide me the opportunity to build it out. best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Already expanded, creating the Texas entry. Will continue. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
@Cristiano Tomás Rather than go state by state, it would really help if you could add relevant monuments from any state. Subcategories are only useful if you can add a reasonable number of monuments. (Like are there any others in Nevada?) SMasonGarrison 01:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination but concur with Smasongarrison, please only create subcategories when they will be sizeable enough and otherwise add articles directly to the main category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 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:Twist knots

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 * Pppery * in solidarity 02:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: As per naming convention used in parents Category:Knots and links and Category:Prime knots and links Gjs238 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Knots and links are not Knot (mathematics) and Link (knot theory) and should have never been in the base name category. Additionally, I'd like some reasoning why we have an "A and B" category instead of a Category:Knots (mathematics) and Category:Links (knot theory). Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename for consistency, without prejudice to a fresh split discussion for the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Twist knots (mathematics) to better match contents. Rename the parent to Category:Knots (mathematics) to match the article. At first glance I thought this was a category for a set of ways to tie a rope.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose – a twist knot is specifically a knot, not a link. The parent category is named "Prime knots and links" because there is such a thing as a prime link. There is no such thing as a twist link. We should not prioritize consistency over accurately describing the subject matter. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are no proper links in this family, and the main article Twist knot is unambiguous. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Twist knots per Jlwoodwa. Pichpich (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Pichpich, could you clarify what you'd like merged? GoldRomean (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry if this wasn't clear. The lone article in Category:Twist knots and links (i.e. 7 2 knot) should be placed in Category:Twist knots and Category:Twist knots and links should be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sennecaster (Chat) 20:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: giving this another week. Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 18:21, 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:Byzantine slaves

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 with redirect. * Pppery * in solidarity 02:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale we generally sort Slaves by the country where they were slaves using the gonjunction in. I think this is the best way in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename, the current title is ambiguous: there are also two articles in the category about people from Byzantine Egypt enslaved in Arabia, they should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    Please leave redirects behind. It makes any template transition easier. SMasonGarrison 14:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Better is the enemy of good, and I don't see the proposal as an improvement. It is fine to call people from or in the Byzantine Empire Byzantine. "We generally..." is wrong: many attempts by the nominator to replace ethnonyms by name of country were opposed or reversed after creating havoc, although some got through. Place Clichy (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
    • This comment ignores the specific context of the proposal which only relates to categories about slaves. In multiple discussions it has been decided to name categories related to slaves using in. Slaves in general are not fully part of the societies where they are held as slaves and using demonyms is generally confusing at best. This is ehy we have Category:Slaves in France and Category:Slaves in Spain among others. In the specific context of slaves using the in form makes to connection of slaves to place clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment because of the trans-Continental scope of the Byzantine Empire the contents of this category do not full under 1 continent. However the Continental categories are named Category:Slaves in Europe; Slaves in Asia and Category:Slaves in Africa. The connection between the place they are resident and working in and themselves for slaves is different than for most people who are not slaves. So how we name this category is based on factors unique to slaves and so can be different than how we name other categories involving people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (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:7th-century Arab slaves

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#Category:7th-century Arab slaves

Category:Cell communication

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) 00:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category:Cell communication reads: "Any process that mediates interactions between a cell and its surroundings". Cell signaling reads: "the process by which a cell interacts with itself, other cells, and the environment". I might be missing something, but this does not suggest a distinction. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The categories overlap but are not the same. Cell communication is cell with outside, and indeed there is cell-cell communication via signaling. However, (i) cell signaling can happen within cells, which wouldn't be considered cell communication; (ii) cell-cell communication can be through signaling mechanisms but also by mechanical (passive) interactions that are not considered signaling. The problem here might be the classical use of the term signaling in molecular biology, which implies that there are pathways of signaling proteins with effectors and receptors at the ends of the pathways; this is more specific than the way we use the term in normal life. Miguel Andrade (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 18:14, 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:Undertale and Category:Deltarune

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) 00:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Feel should be merged!

-TalkTuahLunchly

  • @TalkTuahLunchly: can you please specify a reason? Just a feeling will not do. Note that we have two separate articles on Undertale and Deltarune. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    Neither categories have that many articles, so it would make sense to merge them into one. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    I created Category:Undertale and Deltarune yesterday and I would oppose a merge.
    There are some things that are only Undertale or Deltarune (ex. Music of Deltarune, Undertale Soundtrack) and it doesn't make sense to merge just because "Neither categories have that many articles".
    That just doesn't feel like a valid reason, especially since both categories survived up until this point without the conjoined one.
    Also, I didn't get notified of this, but I'm unsure if that's different with CfD. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    Comment: Nominating user also failed to add {{subst:Cfm}} onto the categories; I have added them myself. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 18:14, 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:Japan–South Vietnam 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). GoldRomean (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article, a biography about a war photographer (Kyōichi Sawada) killed during the Vietnam War. Not helpful for navigation and unrelated to bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 22 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) 18:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I'd still argue for deletion instead of merge. Japan as a country was not involved in this. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If a war correspondent can be considered an expatriate, merge to Category:Japanese expatriates in Vietnam, but if not, don't merge to the parent. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    I agree with that. As this journalist is most famous for his work in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, the expatriate category is the best fit. Place Clichy (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging to the expatriate category. In general I do not think soldiers or war correspondents should be in expatriate categories. Expatriate categories should be for people who had a fixed residence in a place, not for people who were constantly on the move there. Soldiers actively deployed to a war zone I do not think should go in expatriate categories. Only those who were there as part of a multi-year present force of some kind. I think it is enough to correspond war correspondents as being such, we do not need to categorize them by location but when can categorize them in some cases by conflict.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Indeed, and the latter is done here by Vietnam War photographers and its subcat. Category:People of the Vietnam War has some sub-cats by nationality, but none for Japanese. So the Japan-Vietnam intersection will be lost altogether. Well, fair enough, we don't have categories for all small intersections, and people could use category intersection tools if they have a particular interest in such overlapping topics. – Fayenatic London 10:42, 4 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:Coupe LFFP seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category. upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 22:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, but shouldn't it also be merged to the three other parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. GiantSnowman 19:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: multi merge to other parents?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Smasongarrison: can you have another look at potential merge targets? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    Sure thing. I've now added the relevant parent categories to the only page in the category: . SMasonGarrison 20:59, 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:Wikipedians with spina bifida

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) 00:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, the category has existed for more than 10 years and still only one member. This is not helpful for user collaboration. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 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:Wikipedian cancer survivors

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 7#Category:Wikipedian cancer survivors

Category:Wade Robson

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, newly created category with little growth potential and not helpful to navigation, Category:Michael Jackson and it's subcats are suitable. Gjs238 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, the main topic is Michael Jackson. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete no need for an eponymous category in this case. Pichpich (talk) 16:00, 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:UEFA Champions League–winning captains

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be overcategorization, we already have categories for all tournament winners such as Category:UEFA Champions League–winning players. No articles even exist on the winning captains, this information seems better suited to include in an existing article if anywhere. Also, there is not always a clear definition of who a winning captain is, as a team may have multiple captains or a captain who misses the final. • Quinn (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial information, as it concerns a team sport rather than someone's individual achievement. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 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.

Jewish prime ministers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 7#Jewish prime ministers

Bilateral relations categories containing only a single expatriates/emigrants

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) 00:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: As discussed previously at CFD, this is a redundant and useless category layer. All of these categories contain no articles and only a single, often under-populated expatriates or emigrants subcategories. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we shouldn't keep these for just migrants/expatriates, this is primarily about political relations. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    If you mean by that relations between governments and diplomats exclusively, this is really not the way these bilateral categories are used (or useful) and not the way people usually understand what "international relations" mean. Are you suggesting we should purge all non-"political" content from bilateral relations categories? Place Clichy (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:DEFINING. As in the other batch of such categories being discussed, the link between the countries is defining for these groups of expatriates and migrants. There is no higher-level category which would reflect this link, hence it is not a redundant layer. Place Clichy (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree completely. An individual living in a country other than their own as an expatriate is not defining in any way for bilateral relations. The categories themselves already reflect the link between the two countries anyway. As an example Category:Senegalese expatriates in Armenia already mentions both countries. AusLondonder (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    DEFINING works the other way around: an Italian settling in the United States is largely defined by this Italian-American identity, although not limited to it. Re: redundancy, would you argue to remove all immigrant, expatriate and descent categories from the parent bilateral relations category, e.g. Category:American expatriates in France from Category:France–United States relations? Place Clichy (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I would argue to remove all expatriate, descent and emigration categories from bilateral relations categories. I think they have other parents that are adequate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm willing to keep expats as a subcat of relations where there is other content about the relations, but there is no point having a parent for relations with no other contents. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    I tend to agree with Fayenatic london here: one could delete without prejudice bilateral categories if such sub-categories are their only content, but it would be completely wrong to remove all diaspora, descent, expatriate and migration sub-categories from all bilateral categories. Place Clichy (talk) 14:38, 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:Children of prime ministers of Great Britain

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#Category:Children of prime ministers of Great Britain

Category:Children of prime ministers of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Merge with parent category. This comes under WP:OVERCAT. Dual merge the Winston Churchill category and William Cavendish Bentinck category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Why is it overcategorisation though? Many of these people are presumably notable because they are children of prime ministers. We have a large tree of Category:Children by person and I can't see what section of WP:OVERCAT it would fall into. Mclay1 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Mclay1, I don't know if OVERCAT is the best place for this to fall under but making a category for children of every UK/GB PM who has more than one child is a bit overkill and not very helpful in navigation. There are limited possibilities for further additions if we go by person, unless that one person has a high number of children. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete if not kept, if anything the articles should be part of the tree of the prime minister, but its definingness is questionable. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not think this is defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Johnpacklambert and @Marcocapelle, I'd say whether to keep or delete categories like "children of British PMs" and "children of American Presidents" is a different nomination all together and one I agree should take place. There is a whole tree of "Children of PMs" and "children of Presidents".
    For now, however, I'd say it's best to merge this back into one tree and THEN consider whether categories like this are definining or not. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
    • But if not deleted, I disagree that the articles about children are removed from their parent's category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename/merge to "Family of X" or an equivalent existing category and recategorise under Category:Families of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Children is probably too narrow, but it is defining that these people are related to prime ministers. Many of them would not have Wikipedia articles if they were not related to a more notable person. Mclay1 (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Noting the discussion in the above CfD where the nominator agreed with the dual merge proposed above. Mclay1 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:Leaders of the opposition (Canada)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Split and capitalization as outlined by Fayenatic London in comment at 15:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC).. This seems to best align with MOS:JOBTITLE and cited articles, despite the previous blanket rename. -- Beland (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose renaming Category:Leaders of the opposition (Canada) to Category:Leaders of the Opposition (Canada)
Nominator's rationale: Opposition and Official Opposition are proper nouns and should be capitalized. RedBlueGreen93 22:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't it be Category:Leaders of the Official Opposition (Canada), including Official, per article title Leader of the Official Opposition (Canada)? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was covered just this past March in this discussion —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
    Aside from one user, all the support for that move came from Wikipedians who do not frequently contribute to Canadian politics articles, and I don't think they understood that Opposition is a proper noun when used in this context (especially the Americans where there is no parliamentary opposition). We wouldn't say "speaker of the house of commons" just because it's a job title. RedBlueGreen93 05:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Split the first one to Category:Leaders of the Official Opposition (Canada) per Official Opposition (Canada); that gets capitalised per RedBlueGreen93. But keep the lowercase parent which also contains other opposition leaders within Canada's political system. Oppose renaming the BC & Saskatchewan subcats. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
    I suppose that would mostly make sense, although the articles for British Columbia and Saskatchewan also always keep "Opposition" capitalized. So I think the category structure would look something like this:
    As for this discussion mentioned by Joeyconnick, the result of that discussion moved categories in a way that does not match the Canadian standards within the existing articles about these officeholders. In other countries such as the United Kingdom, there is no consistency as to when the job title or the word opposition must be capitalized, but that is not the case in Canada. Honestly, it was a poor attempt to blanket-rename 184 categories without considering any of the various standards for how these positions are titled in different jurisdictions.
    In the meantime, I will perform the split. That seems somewhat overdue. RedBlueGreen93 06:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Split per above. I don't expect anything else but Official Opposition needs to be capitalized though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
– Fayenatic London 15:16, 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:Eunuchs from the Ottoman Empire

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) 00:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename Category:Eunuchs from the Ottoman Empire to Eunuchs in the Ottoman Empire
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Question: What do the other Category:Eunuchs from FOO categories do? SMasonGarrison 21:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per Smasongarrison's question: the Ottoman Empire is the only case with "from" in the eunuchs tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 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:Ambassadors of Kiribati to the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 7#Category:Ambassadors of Kiribati to the United States

Category:Manufacturers by product type

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) 00:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The parent is Category:Manufacturing companies. The subcategories of this are named inconsistently, mostly "manufacturers", sometimes "companies" and more rarely "manufacturing companies". At the very least the first and third should be uniformised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Of course standardize the naming. It might help to add more categories to the nomination in order to avoid different discussions with possibly different outcomes. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 15:15, 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:Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 7#Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus

Category:Knight Riders Group in 2026

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: withdrawn. as a note, probably only remove the tag if you close the discussion too (more info at WP:WITHDRAWN) but no harm done either way :). (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: No article or category for "Knight Riders Group" to place a year-specific category into. Gjs238 (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination. Category has been categorized. Gjs238 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Category has been emptied. I think if you are withdrawing a nomination, you need to untag the category, too. Liz Read! Talk! 16:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Category untagged - thanks, I wasn't sure if that was appropriate. Gjs238 (talk)
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:Iranian-language surnames

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to merge or delete, but rename to Category:Surnames originating in Iranian languages. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: These seem to have the same scope, referring to any languages spoken in Iran. Move the older page Category:Iranian-language surnames over the newer one. Reparent in Culture of Iran and remove Surnames by language. Manually merge Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8552742, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q77607077 . – Fayenatic London 11:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Iranian languages are a concept separate from the nation of Iran. But the descriptions of both categories should make this distinction clearer. Right now, the description in Category:Iranian-language surnames "Surnames used in Iran from Iranian languages origin." is wrong -- the category already contains subcategories for Iranian languages not spoken in Iran: e.g. Category:Ossetian-language surnames. Conversely, surnames like Gharabaghi are Iranian, but not in an Iranian language (it's Azerbaijani Turkic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slovborg (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • If not merged it should become Category:Iranian-languages surnames with plural s. Iranian is not a language but a language family. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I see. More specifically, Iranian is a sub-branch of the Indo-European language family. There is a Category:Iranian languages, but only a few language families and branches/groups have sub-cats for names, or for words and phrases generally. I did find a few, e.g. Category:Names of Germanic origin and Category:Germanic-language surnames. I think both of those are grammatically correct, not pluralising "languages". However, they don't provide useful precedents or patterns in this case, as "Germanic" specifically refers to a language family, but "Iranian" is ambiguous. If not merged, the nominated cat might need a longer name e.g. Category:Surnames originating in Iranian languages.
I came across Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_25#Discussion_and_cleanup_after_closure where similar renamings by family/branch were proposed (e.g. Category:Iranian words and phrases to Category:Words and phrases in Iranian languages), but that discussion carries no weight; there was little participation because the nominator had not tagged the category pages, and it ended with a procedural close. – Fayenatic London 19:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
There are other cleanup suggestions for these language-family cats at Category talk:Words and phrases by language. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no Iranian language. There are multiple languages that form the Iranian languages. So there is no Iranian-language for surnames to come from so it is an incorrect categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. The current name is wrong, but many of the contents would be accurately categorised as Iranian. If there are any contents that would not be accurately described as Iranian, they can be purged. Deleting the category as suggested above would unnecessarily de-categorise many articles. If kept, it should be renamed to plural per Iranian languages. Mclay1 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:24, 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:Generals of the Russian Empire

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:Imperial Russian Army generals - overlapping scope. Beland (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Recreated. Restoring existing change Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_8#Category:Generals_of_the_Russian_Empire SMasonGarrison 21:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose The military people served as generals for is defining. Being in the service of the military of the Russian Empire is the defining thing for these people. Beyond this many of these people were not Russian at all and would not have so identified. They were Finnish or other non-Russian identifies. The Russian Empire also had generals who identified as German most of whom came from various states. In War and Peace it is said there was an ethnic Russian who had asked to be made an honorary German so he could be advanced to a higher standing in the military. There are a lot of people who served in the military of the Russian Empire who were not Russian. We should not merge the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
    This case was already settled as highly overlapping. SMasonGarrison 21:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
    Do you not see the problem here is that you recreated a recent case? @Marcocapelle and @Thepharoah17 pinging the previous participants. SMasonGarrison 21:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
        • These are very different things. They should not be merged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
          Again, you're not hearing that this is a settled case. SMasonGarrison 16:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • In the last discussion no one even discussed whether it was appropriate to call Georgians, Armenians, Ukrainians, and other non-Russian subjects of the Russian Empire Russia. Also no one explained why it was OK to call as Russian nationals of other countries who only came to the Russian Empire to serve in the military. Some of whom came immediately to serve as generals. I think all these factors mean that we should have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment/Alt Merge The earlier discussion focused on the practical issue that there was not enough content to justify the category, rather than a conceptual objection, so I don't see a procedural problem that it was recreated. But I do have a conceptual concern for this discussion about this inherently being WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:Imperial Russian Army generals and subcats. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Question Should the merge target instead be Category:Imperial Russian Army generals and its subcategories? - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
    • I really think it would be better to merge that here. I think it would be much easier if all former country general Category used geberals of [country name] as the category name. This would make it much easier to easily know what the category will be called and will make the nature of the country connection more evident to readers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support alt merge to Category:Imperial Russian Army generals, duplicate scope. Possibly with redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose, same reasons as Johnpacklambert. And I'm not convinced that Marcocapelle's proposal of Alt Merge is really self-evident. -- Just N. (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Manual merge to Category:Imperial Russian Army generals or subcats per Marcocapelle, and WP:SALT. We only have Category:People by occupation and country of work for occupations that frequently or mostly involve expatriate working. Military officers mostly serve in the armed forces of their own country, therefore WP:OVERLAPCAT applies here. Non-Russians have their specific categories as notable intersections, e.g. Category:Azerbaijani generals in the Imperial Russian Army, but it's not notable for an officer of the Imperial Russian Army to be Russian. – Fayenatic London 15:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • See also recent precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_January_20#Category:Generals_by_nationality, where splitting between nationality and employing country was opposed and withdrawn by the nominator Johnpacklambert. I note from that listing that Bangladesh, France, Germany, Latvia, Netherlands and Spain currently have both categories. – Fayenatic London 15:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Another note: John Pack Lambert has started constructing, and has very thinly populated, Category:Military personnel by country. – Fayenatic London 16:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment The above claims ignore the actual facts. 1. This false under Category:Military personnel by former country with former countries we use the term country not nationality. 2. As has been explained in the cases of government officials, military personnel and diplomats what matters most is the country for which the people are operating for. That really should be the primary way we sort such people. 3. In the specific case of the Russian Empire the majority of generals at least in the first quarter of the 19th-century were not people born in the Russian Empire. The majority of generals were people who were "Germans" moat of them born in various German states who then came to Russia to serve in the military. More broadly there are a whole range of people who switched what military they served in in their career. You also have a large number of people who lived in some cases their entire life in Colonies but served in the military of the controlling country. Is someone who was born somewhere in New Slain, lived his whole life in New Spain and died in New Spain in any way Spanish? Yet we have lots of cases of such people who served in the Spanish military. The primary way we would be best off categorizing military personnel is by the military they served in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment The above claim about categories by country only being for categories where a large number of people are expatriates is just incorrect. Rectors/presidents/chancelors/similar titles of universities are sorted by location of the university. So we have Category:Rector of universities in Austria, etc. The vast majority of heada of universities are nationals of the country where they headed the university. We also have Categoey:Mayors of cities in the United States, etc. Even more than university leaders mayors are normally nationals of the place where they are mayor. These categories are sorted this way because the location of the place lead is defining, not the nationality of the person leading. Even though they are often the same. Military location does not matter. You have people who served in a military without ever setting foot in the country they were serving. You have people who served in the Spanish military without ever being in Spain. We do not call people who lived their entire lived in the Viceoyalty of Peru Soanish, but if they were in the Spanish military that is the primary way to sort their military service.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Category:Imperial Russian Army generals should be merged here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Johnpacklambert: I would be okay with reverse merge too, but realistically speaking there is not going to be consensus about that. So then let's then stick to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    • I will support a merge to the Russian Imperial Generals category to be collegial and collaborative. I still think the existing name is better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:28, 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:Greater Punjabi languages and dialects

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. Contents that were moved here from the parent Category:Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages will be restored to that category. – Fayenatic London 12:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose merging Category:Greater Punjabi languages and dialects to Category:Punjabi dialects
Nominator's rationale: Spurious category largely overlapping with Category:Punjabi language. Gotitbro (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Seeing the comments below, I will now be going for a greater thrust for deletion. Proposed a merger as I saw these "Category:Punjabi language, Khalsa bole, Punjabi dialects and languages, Punjabi language" being covered there. Since they are readily present at/replaceable by Category:Punjabi dialects and with no actual contemporary linguist giving credence to Hindko and Saraiki being dialects of Punjabi or Greater Punjabi/Punjabic (the latter itself an uncommon usage and dubious name). It should be noted that Category:Lahnda languages was already merged into the Punjabi dialects cat (the existence of Lahnda as a grouping also questionable). This Greater Punjabi cat cannot really stand linguistically and otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
You more than welcome to but it would be unorthodox - I have no opinion on the matter, just parroting what is widely accepted.
  • Saraiki is accepted as a language by Elena Bashir (who authored A Descriptive Grammar of Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki), Christopher Shackle (The Siraiki Language of Central Pakistan: A Reference Grammar), George Abraham Grierson and goes as far back as Andrew Jukes (under various names), not to mention countless other lesser known linguists. Saraiki is accepted as a language by the government of Pakistan, has its own regulatory departments in Multan and Bahawalpur. It is distinct enough that its vocabulary and phonology is not found in any Punjabi dialect (ie. implosive sounds, and is not tonal unlike Punjabi).
  • Same is the case for Potwari which is majorly spoken in all districts of Azad Kashmir except in Bhimber (which borders Punjab), where Punjabi attains a plurality. Its verb conjugations and vocabulary are wholly different to Punjabi, and Potwari itself has several dialects (as recorded by the AJK yearbook) spoken across Azad Kashmir, Jammu division and Potohar region. The Lothers (2010) carried out a linguistic survey for Pahari and Pothwari, which also discusses the lexical similarity and clearly differentiated between Pothwari and Hindko (linguistically and by the speakers themselves).
Hindko is probably the closest to Punjabi, but again like I say it has its own regulatory board (the Gandhara Hindko Board), accepted as a distinct language by the government and by people, and is linguistically considered separate as well. All of these varieties have their own subdialects which, if these varities were to be categorised as "Punjabi dialects", would make Punjabi language article and the Category:Punjabi dialects, wholly complex and vague about what is actually considered Punjabi. FWIW, I agree that the existence of Lahnda as a grouping also questionable, but it doesn't negate that there are definetly varying Punjabic varieties separate to the Punjabi language, that's the bit that needs to be clarified. نعم البدل (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The reason deletion has been presented as the preferred option now. If these are not dialects nor is the grouping/categorization based on any solid grounds better to do away with this dubious cat entirely. Gotitbro (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Better to delete than to aggregate a giant continuum as one big langauge and, cause further confusion. Arguably, I'm not seeing any academic arguments against it. Feel free to get more opinions though. نعم البدل (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I do not really understand this nomination. Hindko and Saraiki language are not a dialect of Punjabi language, are they? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep separate. Please excuse the long-winded reply. The reason for this is because Saraiki and Hindko are considered languages separate to the Punjabi language, but these three combined (along with Pothwari) are known as 'Punjabic languages' (or often referred to as Lahnda, meaning 'Western'), these are part of Category:Greater Punjabi languages and dialects. People often intertwine Punjabic languages with Punjabi [language] dialects. Category:Punjabi dialects should only be used for dialects within the Punjabi language, such as Majhi dialect, Malwai dialect, Puadhi dialect, Doabi dialect, Gujrat dialect and what-not. etc. Articles should only be part of one category, but not both. There are also some Punjabi dialects like Jhangvi & Shahpuri [?] that are closely related to Punjabi (Western) varieties like Saraiki, but should be part of Category:Punjabi dialects, unless otherwise debated.
Whether the latter should be a category or not can be debated but the categories should be cleaned up, but not merged or overlapping.
TL;DR – The best way to explain this would be the Scots language vs the English language, both of which are part of Category:Anglic languages, but Category:Dialects of English still exists for the English language (while Scottish English would be categorised under Dialects of English). نعم البدل (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted again today. Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Greater Punjabi redirects to Punjabi dialects, and for some years the term was prominently discussed within that article, until a series of recent edits by InterEdits (talk · contribs), especially this one which relegated the term to a passing mention under "Characteristics" and in citations. @InterEdits: please explain your rationale for removing the term from the lede, and give us your view on the category nominated here. – Fayenatic London 15:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    The whole "Punjabi" debate is complex, so here is what I understand about it:
    • Punjabi/Punjabic/whatever you call it (the group), is dialect continuum which constitutes a distinct group within the northwestern Indo-Aryan language family (alongside Sindhic) - while the distinction between Sindhi and other Sindhic languages is largely established, this is not the case for the Punjabi group where the dialects are grouped in three subgroups but there's still so much confusion as Hindko and Saraiki in the Lahnda subgroup are considered by some to be "languages", Pothwari largely isn't but it's sister dialect Pahari is, and the Jatki dialects are never. Too much confusion.
    • So, Punjabi is both a group and a language. It consists of Majhi (Central Punjabi), Eastern Punjabi, and Lahnda. Saraiki and Hindko, and even Pahari-Pothwari in some cases - from the Lahnda group - are "language varieties" rather than being completely independent of the Punjabi group, as they are just a group of dialects in a dialect continuum where establishing a line is difficult. Take for example, Jatki-Saraiki divide, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A LINE BETWEEN THEM (at least linguistically)
    So All of that being said, Greater Punjabi just refers to the Punjabi group but I see all that as overlapping as I explained, so it's best to delete that category, and place them within the Punjabi dialects category as they are part of the same group at the end of the day, even if social differences have separated the terms where now "Punjabi" just refers to "Eastern/Majhi/Jatki" dialects. InterEdits (talk) 16:38, 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:Governments of country subdivisions

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: alt rename as outlined by Mclay1. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: rename, this is a topic category instead of a set category. This is not about successive cabinets and governments. Most subcategories, or subcategories thereof, are called "Government of". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The suggested rename sounds weird to me. The topic is not "government in Europe" by country, but "government by country" in Europe. It's the "government by country" tree, subdivided by continent; putting the continent in the middle of what the actual tree is about is not optimal. Rename to Category:Government by country in Africa and so on. Fram (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The convention is to have the splitter at the end, but if that sounds weird in this particular case then I'm fine with the alternative as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:40, 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:"Country" Johnny Mathis songs

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 or at least nowhere close to the level of consensus that would be required to overturn a longstanding norm as is proposed here. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article, Please Talk to My Heart. Johnny Mathis did made other songs, bt they don't have thier own articles. We dont need to merge it to Category:Songs by artist. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • There is a note on Category:Songs by artist saying that 1-article categories should be kept. I do not know why. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge I do not think this 1 article Category is useful. I think we should remove that note. Categories are meant to help navigate between articles. Setting up systems of lots of one article categories (or even only redirect categories) is not helpful to this. Which is why the old small Category guideline was deprecated. I think we need to stop teying to sort all books/songs/films and other works completely by creator. We should only sort these by creator when we have enough works from that creator for a category to allow navigating between several articles. There are enough other traits to sort works by that we will have works in enough categories even when we do not have a category for their creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, per long-standing consensus, as noted by Marcocapelle. - jc37 10:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Mike Selinker added that note on Songs by artist in 2006. I tried to find the consensus behind it. Tracing links is tricky because many categories used the word "singles" until these were harmonised using "songs" in 2006. The note seems to be based on WP:SONG#Categories which says we categorise by artist "wherever applicable", which means we do so even if the category is small. This rule was amongst other project info that was explicitly copied from WP:ALBUMS on 27/12/2004, and was not contested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 1 (that page covers 2004–2006). Early CFD precedents for keeping album categories by artist, noted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_1#Category:Albums_by_artist, include Category talk:Ashlee Simpson albums (one album) and Category talk:Chantal Kreviazuk albums (notability). – Fayenatic London 12:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, per long-standing consensus. WP:SMALLCAT was deprecated, but it included the long-standing consensus that Works by creator subcategories were unique exceptions that could be created even if they include only one page. Despite the deprecation, I can't find any overall conclusions that were reached in WT:SMALLCAT for the Works by creator subcategories. Anyone is free to revisit the consensus alluded to above by Fayenatic london in a wider discussion focused on these Works by creator subcategories. But this single subcategory isn't any different from the system that already exists. Οἶδα (talk) 23:29, 12 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:Ultimate Fighting Championship events in New York City

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#Category:Ultimate Fighting Championship events in New York City

Category:Explorers of 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale For way too many articles in this category this in an anachronistic category. For some others it is too narrow breaking up their exploring in ways that do not make sense. The United States comes into being starting in 1776, so anyone exploring before that date does not belong there. However it does not reach its contiguous mainland boundaries until the mid-1850s. Weather areas are or are not in the United States is a hard to parse question in the period from 1783-1850 or so any maybe a little after due to the nature f de facto independent Native American control in some areas, as well as de facto British control of non-native areas in what is now Michigan and Wisconsin from 1783-1796. By their nature Explorers often cross existing boundaries. They cross boundaries that will not exist for years, decades or centuries even more. There are far too many cases of Explorers crossing boundaries for this to make sense, and to put Spanish Explorers exploring in the northern reaches of New Spain in here because of political and military decisions made decades later, among others does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose. These categories are defining. Why is this not bundled with the other nominations? SMasonGarrison 23:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not bundled because the issues here are unique to the United States and its history. The issue is that there is no coherent way to define this. How would we define it. Would we limit it to people who explored within the then recognized boundaries of the United States. I have explained why that even is hard. I do not think we can use the current boundaries of the United States. Especially since this would lead to Mexicans exploring within the theme recognized boundaries of Mexico being classed as Explorers of the United States which I think would not be a justified way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
    But the point you are raising is the same about de facto limits. SMasonGarrison 18:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment if kept I think we should limit it to exploring done within the de facto limits of the United States from 1776 to the present. I do not think this is actually a very useful set for Explorers and so do not think this is a useful category to have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. In many cases, the U.S. did not exist yet. We have been specific about this in European kingdoms et al, no reaason not to do this here as well. - jc37 20:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename, per nom and considering that subcategories are currently being discussed to be renamed to regional categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
On the other hand, seen how the notion of explorers is nowadays very much challenged, one could argue to get rid of all modern designations and merge every explorer category to just Explorers of Africa, Explorers of Antarctica, Explorers of Asia, Explorers of Europe, Explorers of North America Explorers of Oceania, and Explorers of South America. Place Clichy (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
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:French military personnel of the Thirty Years' War

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. Beland (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominstor's rationale Many of the people in the French and in the Swedish Armies during this war were mercenaries from other states, or otherwise not clearly Swedish or French nationals. This gers even more complex because there were several small states along France's boundaries that were technically under the vassalage of the French king but were independent for all intents and purposes. For the War we want to sort people by what army thry served in. We can also put them in military from categories for their state of origin. We already have the Imperial Army personnel which is sorted by military served in. That is the closest to a "German" army we have in the 7 Years War. The German Category is a hodge podge of people who served in the military of various states like the Electorate of Brandenburg, the Electorate of Saxony, the Electorate of Bavaria and more. If any of these have enough articles to create a category we can do that but having the German category mix people from multiple militaries is not helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Christoph Martin von Degenfeld was in the Imperial, French and Swedish armies during the war.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename/merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
    Comment: The parent is Category:Military personnel of the Thirty Years' War, not Category:Military personnel in the Thirty Years' War, we should be consistent. SMasonGarrison 20:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
    • I think in that case we need to rename the parent. Having of twice in a title is not good if it can be avoided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
      • I am fine with either "of" or "in". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment If people would prefer we can do Category:Military personnel of France of the Thirty Years War etc. Category:Swiss mercenaries has biographies for people who served for France in several wars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose the change of scope. Renaming as is would create mayhem. The nominator can create in parallel new categories based on the specific military for which these individuals are known to have served, they would not conflict with nationality categories.
In general, these propositions put too much focus on political entities, which vary greatly throughout time. On the other hand, nationality is a defining characteristic that can almost always be established with certainty according to reliable sources. A general comment on the category structure is that its logic is, as the same time, historic and geographic; this naturally sometimes leads to apparent conflicts because a place or a person was associated with a different country at the time of events than in the present, but attempting to solve these natural inconsistencies brings more problems than it solves. E.g. having a hard-line notion of nationality, by restricting it to present-day states rather than what reliable sources call an individual, is a bad idea. If someone is called German according to reliable sources, then we should called them that, even in the times of the Holy Roman Empire. Place Clichy (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Revise I am dropping the motion on the German issue. The issue here is not if these people are "German" but that the served Hesse-Kassel, the Imperial Army of the Holy Roman Empire, the Electorate of Saxony, etc. The defining thing about military personnel in a war is what military they serve under. However I guess we can keep the German category. However for both France and Sweden this is the people serving in the military of those countries. Which in both cases is so close to all the notable people of those countries who served in the war I fldo not think two categories are justified. However the number of people from areas clearly in Germany who joined both Armies, as well as Swiss mercenaries, defectors from the Imperial Army who went to the other side, and soldiers who served both France and Sweden are so high I believe we are justified in renaming the categories. I do not care if we use in or of but would note the military killed in x war uses in, so there is prevent for in so I think if we do not want to use of here it would very justified. If we insisted on of we would get Military personnel of the Republic of Venice of the War of the Spanish Succession which has 4 uses of of. The more I reflect on it the more I like it but I know some would say that is too many used of the word of. I am not sure the Republic of Venice participated in that war either. There are wars where the overlap is such that 2 categories are justified. There are enough notable Americans who served for the French military in Workd War I that both American and French categories can be split by those who were nationals of that country and those who were in that countries military.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I already voted above. Just want to add that in certain occupations one primarily represents a country while one's nationality does not matter so much. Politicians, ambassadors and military are such occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There are too many of these military CfDs and most of them have closed as keep. This piecemeal approach is going to result in a lot of inconsistency. In general, we categorise people by their nationality not their employer. I think the whole tree needs a proper discussion to determine which system to use rather than using both simultaneously. Mclay1 (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    • In the case of military what is defining is the military they served in, not anything else. That should be the primary way that we sort military personnel. In the case of ambassadors we sort them by what country they held office under. This is also true of most government positions. In the military the military the person served in is the most important thing. In general this is how we actually categorize military even though the names do not always make this clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
      • In this specific war we have people in multiple categories because they switched what military they were serving in during the war.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:17, 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:Bulgarians from Aegean Macedonia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. I suggest that John Pack Lambert carries on populating his newly-created Category:Bulgarian people in Ottoman Macedonia, and then makes a fresh nomination of the Aegean Macedonia category once it is clearer what else is left in it. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Split Category:Bulgarians from Aegean Macedonia to Category:Bulgarian people in Ottoman Macedonia and Category:Bulgarian people in Greece
  • Nominator's rationale This is an irregular cross national catehory. From the 15th-century on this area was in the Ottoman Empire. Arguably during the Ottoman Empire all Macedonia was one conceptual area, and splitting people then by if the place they then lived became part of Greece, Yugoslavia or Bulgariaby the end of the 1910s does not make sense. In the period of 1910-1920 the Ottoman Empire rule ended and Macedonia as a historic region was divided between Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria. Then in the 1990s the country now called North Macedonia emerged from the collapse of Yugoslavia. I think it is best to split this into Bulgarian people in Greece and Bulgarian people in the Ottoman Empire. We can also populate Category:Bulgarians in Ottoman Macedonia and Category:Bulgarians in Greece for non-biographical articles if we have any. We do not even have Category:Aegean Macedonia or Category:People from Aegean Macedonia to put this under. We do have Category:Macedonia (Greece), but that would not be a good catrgory for those who lived in the Ottoman Empire, and within Greece itself I do not think we need to divide Bulgarians by what part if Greece they lived in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support. The category can come off as anachronistic, especially when it concerns people who were born in the Ottoman Empire, even though by post-Ottoman borders, it is Greek Macedonia. The category also does not have a suitable name, as Aegean Macedonia is only an alternative name for Greek Macedonia. Any potential new category should match the main article's name. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Alt rename to Category:Bulgarian people from Salonica vilayet per article title Salonica vilayet, and purge articles to which this does not apply. It seems that only in the late 19th century some people from this area self-identified as Bulgarians rather than as Macedonians and moved to Bulgaria when the area became part of Greece. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
    • I do not object to this. We do have to keep in mind this entity was only formed in 1867 and make sure to not place people who do not fit in the post-1867 time frame in the category. If applicable people can also be placed in Category:People of the Bulgarian National Awakening.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
      • On further review the Bulgarian National Awakening article seems to say it ended in 1808. I thought I had seen an article on a person who lived into the 20th-century describe the subject as part of the Bulgarian National Awakening. I am going to hold off on creating the catrgory until I have a better idea what is going on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
      • Just to make things confusing National awakening of Bulgaria is a different article mainly focused on events of the 1870s. Neither of these articles talk about the emergence of a National literature and cultural institutions in the language that is so crucial to what is covered in Czech National Revival.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment We also have an article Bulgarian National Revival.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Having two articles about what seems to be synonymous is weird. I left a notification at the talk page of WikiProject Bulgaria. Bulgarian National Revival is broader and thus more applicable to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The rationale that it is "irregular" to place in the same category Bulgarian people in the same region before and after the reunion of the region to Greece has been negated multiple times. There is nothing irregular about that. The topic here is clearly Bulgarians in present-day Greece and their history. It would could be moved to Bulgarians in Greek Macedonia though, because Aegean Macedonia is somewhat loaded with POV. Place Clichy (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Super strong oppose bad idea above The idea above is downright horrible. If the people did not live in Greece we should not imply they did. This esecially applies to those who lived from the creation of indepdent Greece in 1830 until the area was annexed by Greece in 1912. Which is when most of the people in this category did in fact live in this area. Calling that area "Greek Macedonia" as a Category A- Saying that the outcome of the First Balkan War was the right outcome, making all areas that are part of "Greece" part of Greece, which is a POV position in total violation of NPOV guidelines B- ahistorcal as implying the people here were in some way Greek (when not Greek by ethnicity in this case) when it fact they were not Greek, they were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and living outside of the place that was at the time Greece. At times when a country of Greece existed, for us to refer to anything outside of its boundaries as a Greek place is a clear taking of POV position that clearly violates the underlying principles of neutrality that we should take. Considering that the current boundaries of Greece were the result of multiple wars, acting like they are natural or inherent just does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Johnpacklambert: just to be sure, you are strongly opposing Place Clichy's alternative, right? "The idea above" can mean multiple things in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yes. I am strongly opposing putting Greek in the name of this category that is about people who were not ethnically Greek who primarily lived in an area that at no point while they were resident there was part of Greece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    You don't need to be "ethnically Greek" (whatever that means) to be Greek, though. Greek Macedonia is the name of the place. It was multi-ethnic/multi-cultural in Ottoman times and before that, and it still is today. Place Clichy (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    • No, today hardly anyone in Greece identifies as ethnic Bulgarian. The articles in the category are about people living in this part of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and early 20th century. After 1913 they moved to Bulgaria. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment The population exchange begans in 1913 but takes a few years to be completed. In 1920 48% of the population of the area of Macedonia under Greek control was not Greek. In 1928 that percetage had dropped to 12%. Our article on the Demographics of Macedonia further states "The Slavic population was viewed as Slavophone Greeks and prepared to be reeducated in Greek. Any vesitges of Bulgarian and Slavic Macedonia in Greece have been eliminated from the Balkan Wars, continuing to the present." In the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine. There was a large number of Greeks expelled from Bulgaria and bulgarians expelled from Greece, but the numbers do not seem to be stated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Governments by country

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:Cabinets and governments by country, Category:Cabinets and governments

and Category:Cabinets and governments by continent respectively. – Fayenatic London 10:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: rename, many countries have cabinets and cabinets is a less ambiguous term. If this goes ahead the remainder of the tree can be nominated for a similar rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Have added the parent and sibling category. Once "cabinets" is added the word "successive" becomes redundant as a disambiguator. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Rename per nom. Hassan697 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC) Struck as a sockpuppet. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. But Alt rename Category:National governments by continent to Category:Cabinets and governments by continent because I'm not sure we need "National"? Mclay1 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: thoughts on alt?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Omitting "national" may be confusing because then the suggestion is created that is about governments of continents. That applies in particular to Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
    Would it be a problem is the continent categories contained both categories for national governments and continental governments such as the EU? Mclay1 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
    • That is a good point. Then we can omit "national" after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Some countries have both cabinets and governments. These are two different things in British and Westminster-system usage, for instance. See Government of the United Kingdom and Cabinet of the United Kingdom. Governments and cabinets should not be conflated. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
    These categories only contain articles on individual ministries etc. such as the ones in Category:British ministries. There are no equivalent articles for the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, so there is no chance of confusion or miscategorisation there. Different countries use different terminology, so the proposed names are intended to be more inclusive. I don't see an issue if slightly different interpetations of governments are grouped together. Mclay1 (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Cabinets and governments are not the same thing – never mind the additional problem of the difference in function between cabinets in presidential systems and those in parliamentary systems. This move is a recipe for disaster. 'Governments' in the current category titles refers specifically to successive governments in parliamentary systems – this proposal would mix these with completely unrelated presidential cabinets! Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 08:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • They are not completely unrelated. In either case it is a board of ministers. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename as nominated. It may be useful to refine the description of the category to explicitly state that this is in the sense of collective executive or council of ministers. Some countries use government, some cabinet, some ministry, and sometimes usage has changed with time, but in substance it is the same or a very similar function. Place Clichy (talk) 17:15, 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:British people in British India

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. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category is not confined to people from British India but includes people from the British Raj. DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose we are using this category broadly and including people during British control through the British East India Company. We are also using Category:People from British India in the same way. I think this works and do not think we need to split people between company and Imperial control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose: British India redirects to Presidencies and provinces of British India, which says that "British India" refers to the various British administrations of India from 1612 and 1947, including the British Raj. Mclay1 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
    Reply It says, as you will know having read it, ""British India" did not include the many princely states which continued to be ruled by Indian princes". DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Then we should exclude from the category people who only resided in a princely state and did not live in places under direct administration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • According to the definitions in our articles, British India existing from 1612 to 1947, whereas the British Raj was 1858 to 1947, so the scope of the latter is significantly shorter. However, as stated above the British Raj does include the princely states that aren't included under British India. It would be convenient if there was a term that encompassed both. Mclay1 (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The only entirely accurate solution would be Category:British people in British India and the British Raj. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Are there people we have articles who were only definingly in areas that were not part of British India. I am think most people who were not in British India would be something like Category:British political residents assigned to work with princely states. Most British people were living in the provinces and presidencies of British India, not in the princely states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
I would support that name if there isn't a simpler one. Mclay1 (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose — Heaven help us. "British Raj" is certainly not a country, and even as a form of rule it's a hopelessly vague term. At least "British India" is a geographical name. If someone wants the meaning of "British India and the princely states", there is always British Indian Empire, which means just that. Moonraker (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above given reasons by John Pack Lambert. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:13, 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.

Sports relations categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All of these sports relations categories were created in the last eight months or so. All contain only articles about participation at multi-nation sports events. For example, Category:Italy–Lithuania sports relations contains Soviet Union at the 1956 Winter Olympics which has been added to seven bilateral categories. Another article is Lithuania at the 2025 Winter World University Games. This is category clutter.
These categories have been added as parent category to expatriate sportspeople categories but I don't even think that is appropriate. It's certainly not necessary. AusLondonder (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all per the very well reasoned argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete all as unehlpful and factually incorrect.--User:Namiba 19:51, 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.
After consensus to delete these categories, the category creator has simply been moving many of the articles on multi-nation sports events from these deleted categories to bilateral relations categories. This is pretty clearly disruptive editing against consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Category:Sea captains from New York (state)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 11#Category:Sea captains from New York (state)

Small community schools in England categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: These categories are too small to be useful for navigation - county level categories containing only one article or district level categories containing only a few articles at best. These schools would be better categorised either within county-level categories or where the county-level category is too small, within the parent category. We currently have the absurd situation where Category:Community schools in Berkshire consists of no articles itself but six subcategories, five with a single article and one with two articles. This actively makes navigation more difficult. AusLondonder (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merging many of the districts such as "Telford and Wrekin", Borough of Bedford and Kirklees that aren't names after a settlement or include the district disambiguator however those like Essex that are ceremonial counties or Portsmouth that are single area districts as well as London Borough of Croydon which is a London borough might make sense to keep. The reason is that districts aren't normally a useful way to subdivide as most people won't know which district a school is in. London boroughs and single area districts probably make sense if there is enough articles as people are more likely to know which settlement or London borough a school is in. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    The problem is all three of those categories you mention are underpopulated - all containing only a single article which is unhelpful for navigation. The articles will already make clear what area the school is in. AusLondonder (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:07, 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:Fine illustrated books

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * in solidarity 02:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Not an actual recognized category of thing outside of Wikipedia. This term appears in one or two of the articles in this category, in the infobox without a source, both articles made by the same person who created the category. Searching the term a "fine illustrated book" does not appear to be a term outside of saying an illustrated book is fine, as in good. The creator gave a definition on the talk page but as far as I can tell from how they describe it this is their own constructed term for what they are referring to; without an real and identifiably named concept I do not think this is a defining category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I think in this case the category can not be justified. Without widespread use saying the illustrations are "fine" is a clear case of value judgement that unless it has been widely adopted in reliable sources asks us to impose it. Even if we had reliable sources regularly calling some books by the term, we would need to show the term was co.monly understood to apply to a specific people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep (or rename to "Very expensive illustrated books" or "Rare illustrated books") which is another way of looking at it. "Not an actual recognized category of thing outside of Wikipedia" is just not true; this dealer's catalogue uses the term and gives a feel for the territory. This is a book-dealers' and auctioneers' term (confusingly, they may also use "fine" as a term for the condition of an individual copy). Some, like Illustrations of the Nests and Eggs of Birds of Ohio, have modern reprints that are cheaper (a few $100 for the full set), but most will run to 4 or 5 figure sums, and some into the millions - see The_Birds_of_America#Recent_sales, where $8.8 million is the current record. Having said that, the category needs both expansion beyond books on birds and plants, and also a clear-out of some inappropriate members. The definition on the talk (from 2009) is indeed vague and rambling, but any rare book dealer or collector will know what is meant. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
    The dealer's catalogue uses it, as I said, to literally mean "good", or of "high quality". Because the word fine means good. Saying "fine illustrated books" is promo language, and fine is a very common word.
    Expensive or rare is not what this category is for, it is for "books which are primarily published for the high quality illustrations, even though they may also contain important descriptive, or even analytical prose", which is a completely made up category of thing. Not all of these are expensive, and not all of them are are rare. We could just as easily title this "very good illustrated books", which would mean the same thing. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Also neither "very expensive books" or "rare books" would be any less subjective. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
      • We could make "very expensive" not subjective by choosing a specific value the books were over and "rare" not subjective with something like Category:Illustrated books with less than 100 copies in existence. However unless we could show these were regularly used definitions that al.ost all reliable sources used the sane number they would be arbitrary. From what I know of book marketing and the fine and rare book market I have a sense people there intentionally work to avoid words like "rare book" and "fine book" having a commonly agreed upon definition. That would undermine promotional markeulting and open some book dealers up to fraud charges. As long as "rare" and "fine" with books lack universal definitions no one can sue you for calling a book rare or fine, it is all in the eyes of the beholder. Categories have to be such we can clearly know what does not belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The criterion is too subjective but perhaps we can salvage the category as Category:Illustrated biology books. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  • As this alternative does not get any support, I am supporting deletion now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Not all of these are biology books, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Listify - WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. - jc37 09:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete There's not an objective line here which is what we need for the in/out nature of categories. The perceived quality can be discussed in the article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment "Very expensive" is a very bad idea. If we were to go that route we might as well just chose Catrgory:Illustrated books sold for over $1,000 US or some other clear line. It would be arbitrary but at least it would be clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Altjough apparently this category is "books with good illustrations". Some have been mass printed to the point of not being rare, and to include them all in a price category we would set it so low it would include other books with not very good illustrations that are expensive for other reasons. I am not convinced the set of books here are a catrgory people actually think in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
    That would be arbitrary and therefore fail WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Mclay1 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Which is why I supported deletion above. Any name is either going to involve words with disputed meaning and so make the inclusion criteria unclear or it will involve arbitrary inclusion criteria that we will have invented ourselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps a "real term" (dubious), but not encylopedic and far too arbitrary and therefore fails WP:ARBITRARYCAT. There is no parent cat Fine books. Nor categories such as Rare books. Nor Finest works of art. Οἶδα (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Artificial intelligence art

  • Nominator's rationale: Almost all sources on the topics stick to the acronym "AI" in their titles, to a point where the phrase "Artificial intelligence art" feels unnatural to say – MW(t•c) 12:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
    Support This should be carried over to relevant articles as well, such as Artificial intelligence visual art. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
    Agreed. If this is successful I'll request to move the articles – MW(t•c) 07:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think "Artificial Intelligence" is the term, and AI is an abbreviation. That the abbreviation "feels" more appropriate may just be recentism. I wonder what the MoS has to say about article names and use of abbreviations. - jc37 10:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    We upheld the use of the abbreviation "CIA" in most article titles concerning the Central Intelligence Agency at some point in the past. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    The difference is that "AI" is used commonly as an adjective and "artificial intelligence" isn't. Dictionary.com backs me up on this. – MW(t•c) 23:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not necessarily opposing, I was/am just hoping to see if anyone knew if there was current MoS on this, as I have little doubt we'll be seeing more of these. - jc37 05:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the longer name makes confusion less likely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
I gave the rationale for the first two bullet points above. As for the second two bullet points, I've just boldly moved Music and artificial intelligence to Artificial intelligence in music, as that appears to be becoming the standard article naming convention for applications of AI – e.g. Artificial intelligence in architecture, Artificial intelligence in fiction and Artificial intelligence in video games. (I counted 14 examples before making the move.) Therefore, the category corresponding to Artificial intelligence in music should have a matching name, and the category for film and video can be consistent with that. It's different for AI art as that article title gives the name of a genre, unlike Artificial intelligence in music. Ham II (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Actually I agree with those renames for music and film and video. They should match the format of the article titles. Subcategories using the names I proposed above could be created specifically for works as opposed to articles about the topic. Mclay1 (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:People of the Cretan War from the Republic of Venice

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:Military personnel of the Republic of Venice in the Cretan War (1645-1669). Beland (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename Category:People of the Cretan War from the Republic of Venice to Category:Military personnel of the Republic of Venice in the Cretan War (1645-1669)
  • Nominator's rationale The people in this category are all military personnel. I found it because Christoph Martin von Degenfeld is in it, the Military of the Republic of Venice was at least the 4th he served in. There is also a person here from the Spanish Netherlands. Half the people here, though, are Serbs from within the Ottoman Empire recruited to serve in the forces of the Republic of Venice during the war. The target accurately describes who the people in the category are. We also need to disambiguate which Cretan War is referred to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per actual content. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Alt rename to Category:People of the Cretan War (1645–1669) from the Republic of Venice. The format established in its sibling categories and in Category:People by nationality and war is "Fooian people of X War" (e.g. Category:Albanian people of the Greek War of Independence) or "People of X War from Fooland" for countries where we don't use demonyms (e.g. Category:People of World War I from Georgia (country)). I don't think it's necessary to specify military personnel because there is no need to diffuse to that level, but if it is named like that, the natural parent is Category:Military personnel from the Republic of Venice. I understand nom's concerns about some of the people maybe not technically being from the Republic of Venice, but I don't know if that really matters, and if it does, we can purge. Either way, the date range in the disambiguation should use an en-dash. Mclay1 (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Many of these people are not from the Republic of Venice. With military personnel the issue is what military they served in not where they were from. The parent category should be renamed as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
      • Even Category:Military personnel from the Republic of Venice says in its header "Military personnel in the service of the Republic of Venice, whether native to Venice or not." So even that has the intended scope of people who served in the Republic of Venice Military, not actually people who ever even lived in the Republic of Venice at all. For Military personnel by war what we are primarily sorting is what Military people served in so of is the best conjunction. I really thing every sub-cat should use of. There may be some cases where categorizing people by nationality in cases where they served in the militaries of other countries in a war is also justified, however the main way we need to sort military personnel is by the country for which they served in the military.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment if people prefer it I would not object to Category:Military personnel of the Republic of Venice of the Cretan War (1646-1669). What is clear is that what is defining is these peiple were of the military of the Republic of Venice. From is the wrong conjunction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if rename, target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:45, 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:Army installations by country

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 and delete Category:Army installations by time period. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge redundant layer. We don't need a "by country" container when there are no other subcats, as with Category:Air force installations. Mclay1 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
This distinction was intended to allow creation in the future of "Army installations by type" and maybe "Army installations by period/war".. like maybe "Army installations of World War II" etc. For that reason, I would kindly request that the growth potential of this category be maintained, by maintaining this wording. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)Category.
  • Merge it is an unneeded layer at present. Since many Army installations function for a long time I am not convinced a by war scheme would be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge for Now with no objection to future recreation if other category branches are ever created. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge for now with no objection to future recreation if other category branches are ever created. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
This category is no longer a redundant layer.
I have taken a little time in response and created the other potential category branches:
There are now three categories under Category:Army installations.
There were seven categories for different types of U.S. Army installations, plus Category:Army training installations, so I have now created the intermediary Category:Army installations by type. As a subcategory of Category:Former military installations I have also created Category:Army installations by time period to cover Category:Former installations of the United States Army and a German Army World War II training site.
So, by creating Army installation categories by type and time period, I have grouped a total of eight U.S. Army subcategories together, plus the Army training installations category, plus a category for closed and World War II camps/site. Kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't know, I still don't think we need the extra layers. I would upmerge Category:Army installations by type and delete Category:Army installations by time period since the name doesn't really apply to the contents. Mclay1 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Conceptually, Category:Army installations by time period sounds fine but I don't think the contents fit. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  • That is right, the contents of Category:Army installations by time period does not fit. That category should be deleted. I have tagged it too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: noting that Category:Army installations by time period has now also been tagged, for merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  • For clarification:I had copied the merge tag from Category:Army installations by country to Category:Army installations by time period but the latter should be deleted instead of merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, delete Category:Army installations by time period. Mclay1 (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The new situation is not convincing enough for me to withdraw my support to the original merge nomination. The set-up is unnecessarily complicated while we can easily have 17 country subcats and 2 type subcats next to each other directly under Category:Army installations. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I too think leaving everything directly under the army installations Category is best. I think we have created too many intermediate categories for no good reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I don't find the additions to be helpful enough for navigation to withdraw my earlier delete !vote. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:10, 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:Extinct animals of the United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#Category:Extinct animals of the United States

Category:Fort Douglas GIs football

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 This has been open for almost 5 months and is largely repetitions of two incompatible principles that have been discussed to death here and in other CfDs, without either side gaining a clear numerical or strength-of-arguments advantage. Time to put this out of its misery. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Category:Fort Douglas GIs football coaches to Category:American military sports coaches, Category:College football coaches in Utah and Category:Fort Douglas GIs football
  • Merge Category:Fort Douglas GIs football seasons to Category:Fort Douglas GIs football and Category:College football seasons in Utah
  • Nominator's rationale Category:Fort Douglas GIs football has a total of 3 articles spread across 4 categories. This actively hinders navigation. I already proposed upmerging Category:Fort Douglas GIs football players to its 2 parent categories. With these mergers Category:Fort Douglas GIs football will have 3 articles in 1 category. There is no reason to split up such a small category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    And what with Category:College football seasons by team? This type of noms would remove all small cats from this large category, thereby making it incomplete and less useful. The same goes for other such omissions (e.g. deletion of Category:Air Transport Command Rockets football in the nom above would remove it from e.g. Category:College football teams in Tennessee or Category:United States Army Air Forces sports teams, thereby making navigation harder, not easier. Fram (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
      • Categories are not lists. They are not meant to have all possible components. They are meant to be useful connections of article, not just having all possible sub-components. In theory Category:College football teams in Tennessee should have articles on all the teams in Tennessee under it. but we do not have an article Air Transport Command Rockets football so we cannot put that article in that cateogry. If we did we would put it in that category. We do not need overly small categories that do not actually group articles. There may be other existing or potential targets that these categories should be merged to, but there is no reason we should have these as 1 article categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
        "Categories are not lists. They are not meant to have all possible components. " Er, yes, they are supposed to have all possible relevant subcomponents either as articles or as subcats. Deliberately making categories incomplete is akin to vandalism. Fram (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
        Hopefully we can hold different perspectives on categorization while still mutually assuming good faith! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
        It's hard to assume good faith from someone who with a straight face announces that "Categories are not lists. They are not meant to have all possible components. " Every article where X is a defining characteristic should be in category X or one of its subcats. Seems pretty obvious and straightforward. Fram (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment a category of X by y is only meant to hold the sub-cats that are useful. For example we regularly merge 1 article people by occupation categories up to the x occupation category. College football seasons by team is not a category we need everything in. What we want everything is is College football seasons, and the contents remain there by putting them in Category:College football seasons in Utah. We do not need everything under a sorting category, we just want everything under the actual topic category, and it remains there since it is in under the category of College football seasons. There is no reason to have a category with one article, and that remains the case of Category:Air Traonsport Command Rockes we have one article on one season of that team and that is it. The merger there would leave it under Category:College football in Tennessee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    Why wouldn't we want the category to be complete? What do you base this arbitrary distinction on, that people will not want to see the smaller cats in the complete tree? Yes, they can be found per state, but "you can find this some other way" is not really a reason why people shouldn't be able to find it some other way as well. There is no good reason why someone who visits Category:College football seasons by team should not see all teams we have one or more season articles for. I hope you aren't planning on starting this all across our categories, something like the "albums" tree would be obliterated if you removed all 1- and 2-article cats from e.g. Category:Electronic albums by American artists. Fram (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
      • You are deliberately ignoring what I am saying. I already gave the example of how we have Category:Poets. We have Category:Poets by nationality. However if we have too few poets to justify the placement of the category in say Palau poets, we place the article in Poets. The same works here. The articles remain in Category"College football coaches in the United States and Category:College football seasons in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
        No, I'm not ignoring anything. You want these pages out of the Category:College football seasons by team tree, without providing a good reason.
        Furthermore, " We have Category:Poets by nationality. However if we have too few poets to justify the placement of the category in say Palau poets, we place the article in Poets. " is poor practice. For navigation, ease of use, you get subcats for large countries, and then a bunch of articles lumped together for small categories. If I was looking for "poets from Palau", I would much prefer a cat with one article in it over a bunch of articles about poets from Palau, East Timor, French Guiana, Fiji, Nauru, San Marino, South Sudan and Vanuatu all lumped together where I have to open each article to find the right one or ones. What possible benefit does your solution have? Fram (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
        How far down does that logic go? A large country like India has a bunch of subcategories under Category:Indian poets , some of which are inherently unique but a lot aren't like blind, children's and communist poets. Assuming there was 1 article in small country, would you place that article separately in Fooian communists and Fooian poets or create a single article entry in Category:Communist poets by nationality?
        The 1 article is definitely defined as American football season in the United States so it should remain under the Category:College football seasons in the United States tree. This proposal moves it from that tree's "by team" branch but it stays in the tree under the "by state" branch. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
        ...which means that people who arrive through the by team tree won´t see it. Why? Again, what´s the benefit for readers to no longer have it there? Fram (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
        No, it also remains under the Category:College football teams in the United States tree but again, changes branches. Clearly you favor keeping the current 1-article category and that's fine, but the proposal does keep that article in both the team and seasons trees. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
        Which is only one of the five parents of the by team cat. Please don´t look zt things from an "is it possible to get there by some way" look, but from a "which ways are no longer available if we do this" position. You (plural) are removing these from a whole bunch of category routes. Fine if that´s what you want, but then at least acknowledge it, and indicate why that is a good thing. Fram (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Since Fort Douglas GIs football is a redirect we could in theory put that redirect into the parent category so that it had 4 articles, although I am not sure we would want to do that. It would not really effect the outcome here. I am not sure to what extent we want to be placing redirects into categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge, easier navigation between the articles in Category:Fort Douglas GIs football and also a step less in order to go to other articles about seasons in Utah. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge for Now These are conceptually fine but don't aid navigation given the current article counts. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Category:College football seasons by team is not a "category tree" it is a container Category. The category tree is Category:"College football seasons in the United States. The 1 College football season article in discussion here will remain in that tree both by the diffusion by year and by the diffusion by state. We are not removing the article free the tree, we are leaving the article in the tree. No one here has argued we should get rid of all diffusion by team, but there is no reason for us to insist on having every possible narrow category. We only need those that are large enough to aid navigation. Having 4 categories for the 3 articles we have that in any way fall under the subject Fort Douglas GIs football is not reasonable. We should have very few if any trees where the number of categories in the tree exceeds the number of articles in the tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
    A category is never a category tree. This one is part of five categories (and thus multiple category trees). Again you focus on just the one, ignoring the other categories " Category:College football seasons by team " is a subcat of. You claim that "The 1 College football season article in discussion here will remain in that tree both by the diffusion by year and by the diffusion by state. We are not removing the article free the tree, we are leaving the article in the tree." which is false as you start from a wrong supposition with "the tree" instead of "all trees". It is e.g. removed from Category:College sports team seasons in the United States by sport and from Category:History of college sports in the United States by team. I don't know why all the merge proponents continue to act as if the Category:College football seasons by team is only part of one category and thus there is no problem. Fram (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
    • The category tree in reference is Category:College football seasons in the United States. We do not try to include everything in a container category, because container categories are sub-cats of larger categories meant only for sorting. Not all sorting by that characteristic is going to be justifiable, so some articles we put in the parent. So we want all college football seasons in the United States to be in Category:College football seasons in the United States or in a sub-category of that. The by team category is only there to sort categories. Container categories exist to sort categories, not to hold a whole group. Not everything is reasonably sortable by all chracteristics. When we have some football teams we only have 1 season article for (a few of which only played one season period) it is not reasonable to sort all the contents by team and some entries should either be in Category:College football seasons in the United States or sorted in another way. The other way we sort is by state and so in this case the proposal is to move the contents to Category:College football seasons in Utah. It still remains under the tree College football seasons in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
      No, that´s not the "category tree in reference". There are 5 trees "in reference", whatever that´s supposed to mean. There is only one you want to discuss apparently. You are restricting access by removing it from the place where it would logically be expected, and placing it in one possible path as if readers will automatically find it there, or will be grateful that for this one case they will reach it one whole click sooner, if they are lucky to pick the right path. Fram (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Let's look at this through the eyes of a random reader. They are for example reading 1943 300th Infantry Sabers football team, and notice the categories at the bottom. Interesting, let's look at Category:300th Infantry Sabers football seasons to find other seasons for the team. Ah, no other seasons, too bad, but continue our scroll of potentially interesting articles and go to the first category there, Category:College football seasons by team. Hey look, there is Category:Air Transport Command Rockets football seasons, and Category:Fort Douglas GIs football seasons, and countless other ones I'm interested in, with one or more articles, great!
  • Now, in the future as created by this CfD, the same reader will not encounter the Air Transport season during his category stroll, nor the Fort Douglas one, even though they 100% are "college football seasons by a team". In what universe is this better? Fram (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
    • The real universe where we decided that overly narrow categories hinder navigation. The reader can easily find these either by doing a search by year or a search by state, both of which are much shorter ways to get to all the information. As mentioned above there are lots of things that will be missed in any such search. For example most categories sorted by nationality do not sort by all nationalities so a search just through say Pediatricians by nationality will not lead to finding all pediatricians. Setting up a container Category scheme is not an excuse to ignore narrow category rules and divide up into a huge number of one article categories that in no way aid navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
      "How does this help navigation?" > "They hinder navigation because we decided that they hinder navigation". Wow, impressive reasoning. That they can be found by other means applies to all of them, small and large, so let's delete the whole parent cat. If there are multiple ways to find something, and you remove one, and the question is "how does temoving this one help anyone", then "but there are still other ways" is not an answer to that question. That other categories may be incomplete (wow, what a surprise seeing how many bad uses of "narrowcat - delete!" we have had) is again not an answer to why removing this one is helpful.
      Final attempt: please give a concrete answer, not "but guideline!" or "there are other means to find them" or "it aids navigation somehow": how is it better that the Fort Douglas season, and the Air Transport season, and countless other similar ones, are not in Category:College football seasons by team? Fram (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep the coaches categories. Part of a well-established scheme of sorting athletes by school and sport. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Category:Fort Douglas GIs football has 3 articles split over a total of 4 categories. This seems excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, per arguments by Fram and Mike Selinker. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The structure proposed by the supporters of these categories makes more sense. Place Clichy (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    No it does not. It creates hyper small categories with 1 article on teams that played for just a few years during World War II that we are unlikely to ever have any additional articles on. Narrow 1 article catefories hinder navigation. Edpecially when it leads to us building trees where there are more categories that articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 19 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:Indian male television journalists

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) 00:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. Non-defining intersection. We don't have a male television journalists tree. SMasonGarrison 01:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Dual merge per WP:OCEGRS. Honestly I have my doubts about the whole tree of Category:Male writers but let's leave that for another time. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose The general agreement has been that male writers is a defining thing. This was determined by a very well attended discussion. In this case this is also a broadcast position. There was an Rfc that ran for about 6 months and had a very high level of attendance that determined that we should have male actors and actress categories. Television journalists are along with male actors/actresses, dancers, models, singers and television presenters/hosts more broadly one of a narrow set of categories where being male or female is at one of the highest levels of being defined. After the huge discussion on this matter in 2013, which sadly involved a lot of uncalled for attacking of editors for legitimately not understanding the complex rules we have for how we sort ethnicity, gender and some related categories, the geberal consensus was that in pretty much any case where we had a women writers Category we should have a make writers Category. That was so heavily covered of a set of discussions and had so many participants that I think to reverse it 13 years later we would need an RfC with a high level of participation. We do not get enough participation in regular cfd discussions to justify reversing those decisions. At this point I think the only thing we can easily do in a cfd on this matter is to decide a particular form of writing is not defined by whether the writer is male or female. Since so many television journalists are seen and heard regularly, I would say male or female is more defining than with other forms of journalists. Radio journalists are not as defined by this as television journalists but still more defined than other jounalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Johnpacklambert But can you point to how it is defining per WP:EGRS. In case it needs to be said, this guidance is a newer than whatever you are talking about from 13 years ago.SMasonGarrison 21:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment contrary to the claim above ERGS guidance existed before 2013 and it was in light of that guidance that the decision was made to split actors and actresses at every single level. The same principles that lead to actors and actresses being split lead yo splitting television journalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Dual merge, with the same reservations about the male journalists category. Place Clichy (talk) 22:59, 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:Games and sports by decade of introduction

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#Category:Games and sports by decade of introduction

Category:Soviet Union–Ukraine 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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Most of the articles and subcategories here reference relations between the Russian SFSR and the Ukrainian State or the Ukrainian People's Republic. The Soviet Union itself wasn't established until the end of 1922, and Ukraine was part of it from beginning to end, so there were no bilateral relations to speak of. Charles Essie (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Manually merge, per nom, but not all content is about relations, e.g. the Russian Revolution in Ukraine is just part of Ukraine's history. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge as nom. There was a short-lived independent Ukraine ca. 1918-1920, and its relationship with Bolshevik Russia, including war, definitely belong in Category:Russia–Ukraine relations. Place Clichy (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:54, 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:Chilean people of Algerian descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article on a football player of French descent who had one grandparent born in French Algeria. Inaccurate and unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 03:19, 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:Lists of people by given name

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. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The title "List of people with given name" is all that separates these entries from most of those in the various other, shorter-titled given name categories. Most given names have the etymology and a list on the same page, so this category is, if you look at it a different way, woefully underpopulated. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Mclay1. There are categories for lists which help with navigation and maintenance, I see this as no different. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The category looks to be a perfectly sensible way of categorising the lists. These articles are just lists not articles about the names themselves like the ones in Category:Given names. Deleting this category would also leave articles uncategorised. Mclay1 (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mclay1. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal. The vast majority of entries in Category:Given names and its various subcategories incorporate lists of individuals, e.g. Jane (given name). You would have to copy over a huge number of entries from there to here. Why have two categories which overlap so much? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Addendum. As for them not having a category as a result, they could always go into Category:Lists of people by name as a last resort. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Addendum 2. Many entries in the given name categories are just lists of names, with no (e.g. Chapman (given name)) or minimal etymology (e.g. Jeff). In any case, the explicit criterion for this category is "lists of (notable) people with a particular given name", not "lists of (notable) people with a particular given name and nothing else", which is what the regular given name categories primarily contain. Note: even some of the entries here also have an etymology, e.g. List of people with given name Ava. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Then that article should be renamed and put in the parent category. It is not a reason to delete the lists category. I can also imagine all lists to be merged into given name articles but that too is a discussion for article space, not for here. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Let me restate this one more time. There is NO difference between the scopes of the two categories other than the page title starting with "List of people named" in this category (and the fact that the given name category also includes etymology-only articles.) Or are you volunteering to copy over the vast majority of entries from the other category to this one? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • If I renamed List of people with given name Preston to Preston (given name), then the article would have to be moved to the given name category. Same article, different category just because the title is slightly different? Does that make any sense to you? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Conversely, I could rename Fannie to List of people with given name Fannie. Another category change! Clarityfiend (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I still hold the opinion that the nominator tries to fix something in category space that ought to be fixed in article space. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Say what? We have two categories that cover practically the same thing, and this is somehow an article problem? Clarityfiend (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • No, a list category is a subcategory of a topic category, that is always the case, also here. They should not cover practically the same thing. If your argument is that all these articles are lists, or none, then many of these articles should be renamed. That should be discussed at WP:RM. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 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.

Malabo Mosque bilateral categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The only article these three bilateral relations categories contain is Malabo Mosque, apparently because politicians from these countries attended the inauguration of the mosque. Not helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
@AusLondonder "Malabo Mosque"? Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes that's the name of the mosque in these categories. AusLondonder (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not defining for the article. I do not have a conceptual problem with the categories but they shouldn't be populated with a mere trivialty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 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:Oneirologists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 8#Category:Oneirologists

Category:Mass shootings involving Glock pistols

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 6#Category:Mass shootings involving Glock pistols


Category:6th-century BC women by 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: merge (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer. upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 00:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. The 5th century may be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Updated per Marco SMasonGarrison 21:08, 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:Body Snatchers 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) 00:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: To match other categories about films based on specific works. Trivialist (talk) 00:01, 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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI