Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 12
May 14 >

May 13

Category:Investigational tinnitus drugs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 21#Category:Investigational tinnitus drugs

Category:Schools in Perpignan

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) 01:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 23:47, 13 May 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:1994 crimes in Spain

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 23#Category:1994 crimes in Spain

Category:Hybrid characters in comics

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 28#Category:Hybrid characters in comics

Category:Fictional feliforms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_23#Category:Fictional_carnivorans reached no consensus. However, three of the nomincated categories were merged in follow-up discussions, and one of those created the unacceptable condition where Caniformia are not in this tree at all. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support empty and superfluous layer of category that is not needed. Archrogue (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge/delete, redundant intermediate category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge/delete per my rationale in the 2024 nomination ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete per nom. I do not think we should use very specialized terms to group Fictional beings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional echidnas and platypuses

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 3#Category:Fictional echidnas and platypuses

Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * in solidarity 18:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Includes redirects as well. We don't want to confuse editors who see this category and think that there is already a full-length article on the topic, it may just be a redirect. Because, if there's an article on the topic, you obviously can't write about it, or will at least have to change the name. Better to be more clear and accurate with "mainspace pages". 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Support If there is a redirect at the mainspace title, the draft should probably overwrite it. I submitted an article through AfC that conflicted with a redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I am a regular reviewer of drafts in this category, and I think that regular users of the category will not be confused, because we know what the category is, and that it includes redirects. If a draft in this category is being accepted, the reviewer tags the redirect with {{db-afc-move}}. I support the renaming because it is a clarification for an editor who encounters it on a one-time basis. By the way, I sort of sarcastically disagree with Because, if there's an article on the topic, you obviously can't write about it, or will at least have to change the name. No. You are well advised not to write a new article on the topic, but I have seen articles submitted to AFC to replace existing articles. But changing the name is a clarification, although not essential. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 22 May 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.

Fictional story elements introduced in the 19th century

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) 01:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: And so on... Less clear is how to handle the 1900s, since there is better coverage for characters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge and re-org. Archrogue (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional story elements introduced in 1590

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) 01:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Extremely isolated cateogry; the next existing one is for 1847. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:08, 13 May 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.

Literary characters

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCYEAR follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_2#Fictional_characters_introduced_in_the_16th-17th_century. I am actually surprised that no one had created century categories beyond the 17th century, however. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge and support the efforts of the nominator to do this type of cleanup. Archrogue (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:OCYEAR, this is unnecessarily overprecise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Case by case: There are 10 entries in Category:Literary characters introduced in 1818, 6 in Category:Literary characters introduced in 1816, 12 under Category:Literary characters introduced in the 1720s. I don't know if there is a directive for how many is too few, but I'd say if a category has 10 or more pages, leave it as it is. --Error (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah, the previous CfD linked in the nomination made sense because they were redundant category layers. Some of the categories nominated here are actually populated. That being said, most are not. And a lot contain redirects, which probably shouldn't be factored into the equation because we're trying to assist readers in navigation of existing articles, not redirects. So most should be merged but, as always, if there's "enough" articles to group then what is the reason for merging? Οἶδα (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nomination. Οἶδα (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tracey Ullman characters

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:Characters created by Tracey Ullman. (non-admin closure) Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose renaming Category:Tracey Ullman characters to Category:Fictional characters created by Tracey Ullman
Nominator's rationale: Am I correct in interpreting this as a by-creator category? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional statues

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles. Should these be categorized as characters or objects? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Korean military personnel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles, both already elsewhere in Category:Fictional Korean people and Category:Fictional military personnel. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Indian Army personnel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: 3 articles, 2 redirects, and a parent that contains nothing else. This one is WP:CT/IMH. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Italian military personnel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category tree with 2 articles total. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Swedish Army personnel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, who is already in Category:Fictional Swedish people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:07, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge of one and deleting other. Archrogue (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional agents of the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * in solidarity 18:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: One article and one redirect; also part of a category level with just one other subcategory (which I'll bet is mostly NCIS characters, but that's a story for another day). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Actually, maybe merge to Category:Fictional gendarmerie personnel as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge and including in multiple parent categories. Archrogue (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional United States Coast Guard personnel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only article (out of 3 pages total) is Popeye, which doesn't mention the United States Coast Guard and who is already in another subcategory of Category:Fictional American military personnel. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional United States Space Force personnel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: There are just two articles, both from works that predate the real-life United States Space Force. It is anachronistic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Fictional Judge Advocate General's Corps (United States) personnel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Of the 7 entries, 5 are from a single work, JAG, including 2 of the 3 articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Support merge as too specific (and mostly already categorized). Archrogue (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)I'd.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Fictional market inspectors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: What is a "market inspector"? In any case, all four articles are appropriately categorized in other subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by occupation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support deleting. Not clear what this is supposed to be other than WP:OR. Archrogue (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete since it is not clear what this is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
    Also, mentions of the term in the articles should be changed to something that matches the name of an article; all four characters are from EastEnders. Is this a fictional occupation that exists only in the EastEnders universe? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters by rank or title

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Parent is Category:Titles, and Category:Ranks is an immediate subcategory. It is also possible that Category:Fictional titles and ranks should just be merged, but I am not sure if it would be to Category:Fictional story elements or a subcategory thereof. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support short and follows parent. (No objection to future rank subcats though if the article count justifies it.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional dolls and dummies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 21#Category:Fictional dolls and dummies

Category:Fictional microorganisms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Content is a mixture of works and elements, and there is no need for a lower-level elements one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional activities

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Three subcategories (Category:Fictional battles, Category:Fictional games, and Category:Fictional occupations), one article (Cow tipping), and one redirect (Boko-maru) with little unification between them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge due to few and ill-suited category members. Archrogue (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters by franchise

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Not everything here needs to be a franchise; it could be a standalone work as well. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_21#Fictional_characters_by_work didn't reach a consensus to rename a nominated category of this type, but found support for a separate nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Couldn't the "work" format just be parent categories for those categories that are by franchise?★Trekker (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    There is often nothing that would go directly into such an intermediate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support rename. The term "franchise" has always been odd and inaccurate for many kinds of fictional works. Archrogue (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional saints

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, who is already well-characterized in fictional characters categories, including some that are not specific to a work. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
No objections to this as creator. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 19:34, 13 May 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.

A closed loop of 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: done. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The following categories form a closed loop, which seems to be a violation of WP:CATLOOP:

Category:Anthropology
Category:Humans
Category:Human behavior
Category:Behavioural sciences
Category:Anthropology

This loop was created by User:Cleebadee on 2026-04-09 when he/she edited Category:Anthropology, adding Category:Behavioural sciences as a parent category, and justtified it as follows:

Category:Sociology is in both Category:Social sciences and Category:Behavioural sciences, so I think Category:Anthropology should be as well.

Now, I am not sure at which point the loop shoud be broken. Perhaps, Category:Human behavior should not be a parent of Category:Behavioural sciences?

-- Ion Soggo (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, break at that point. Category:Behavioural sciences includes other animals as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:45, 13 May 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.

European men's football cups

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Each of these contains at most the main article and a final, plus a few qualifying seasons. If I did this correctly, I got all the European men's football cups here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge all as proposed. Excellent work, thank you for putting all this together. Gjs238 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • This looks like someone was crocheting in category syntax :) obviously makes sense to squash it into something that makes reader navigation actually efficient. --Joy (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. GiantSnowman 18:24, 14 May 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.

Belgian men's football cups

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Found while assembling a much larger CfD similar to the one below. Each of the upper layers contains only a single subcategory, except for 2012–13 which contains an article that also for men's football. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge all as proposed. Excellent work, thank you for putting all this together. Gjs238 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 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.

EFL Cup 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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Each of these articles contains only the main article and a final. In addition, Category:EFL Cup finals should be created to hold all of the final articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment. If that's what you want to be the case, then EVERY domestic cup category will be merged. FastCube (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge all as proposed. Excellent work, thank you for putting all this together. Gjs238 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. GiantSnowman 18:24, 14 May 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.

Artefacts

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 all except Japan, rename Category:Japanese artefact types to Category:Japanese artifact types. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category:Archaeological artifacts, the parent (or grandparent) category of all of these, uses "artifact", as does Artifact (archaeology) (mostly), so shouldn't these also use that for consistency? Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:ENGVAR. Keep what was created and what is linked. Many of the categories above have strong national ties for artefact, not artifact. Not everything needs to be in US English. Leave the status quo, just because the parent category (which is just a container) is artifact doesn't mean the sub-categories need to be. Especially when there is a national ties issue. There is no need for consistency in categories, only within an article. 08:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    I see your point about WP:ENGVAR, and I might withdraw those affected by it. I didn't know that applied to categories, but I guess that makes sense. But why should Category:Types of archaeological artefact, Category:Textile artefacts, and Category:Archaeological artefact groups use a different variety of English? Maybe we don't have to be consistent, but wouldn't it be weird if almost every subcategory in Category:Archaeological artifacts by century used "artifact", but Category:15th-century artefacts didn't? Chess enjoyer (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Chess enjoyer Canterbury Tail and per WP:ENGVAR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Sirfurboy, I'm the nominator. The editor you agree with is Canterbury Tail, who presumably used five tildes to sign their !vote instead of four. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks. Yes, the name part of the signature seems to have gone astray, thus my confusion. Fixed now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Apologies, I must have not signed it properly. Canterbury Tail talk 10:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment from the nominator: Okay, I've struck through the region-related categories that have ties to artefact, judging from the english of their main articles (ex. Wales is written in British English, so I struck that category). One category I didn't strike is Category:Japanese artefact types. Japan is written in American English, so shouldn't they match? Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    No. WP:ENGVAR is not inherited from related pages. The nomination is fundamentally flawed in that it seeks to privilege one variant of English. ENGVAR is clear that all varieties of English are equally acceptable, and as it is clear that there will not be uniformity across all names, the attempt to move some pages has no clear rationale. Consider: wouldn't it be equally acceptable to rename Category:Archaeological artifacts tor Category:Archaeological artefacts? But we won't do that either per WP:ENGVAR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Generally oppose, except for Japanese one. Japan has (to the extent English is used there) strong ties to American not British (or other Commonwealth) English. The struck ones are correctly struck (English used in those places is derived from England English, with "artefact" spelling). As for the rest of the non-struck ones, there isn't a compelling reason to change them, so they should be left as they are per MOS:ENGVAR. However, if there are any mismatches between parent and child "generic" categories (i.e., not named for a particular country/culture), they should probably be normalized, child to parent, unless parent conflicts with most or all of muliple children. It's not helpful to veer back and forth between the spellings without an ENGVAR reason to do so in a particular case, and we do have a principle of consistent naming in categories (absent a compelling guideline/policy reason for a particular category to diverge from an otherwise-consistent pattern).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Better solution. -- Just N. (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Generally oppose, except for Japanese one per  SMcCandlish. This was a poor nom - it has long been accepted that ENGVAR need not be wholly consistent throughout a category tree. A waste of everybody's time. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    I'm new to CFD, so I didn't know that. Now that I do, I won't try something like this again. Oh well, at least I found one category that had a good reason to be renamed, even if it was on accident. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • (Another) comment from the nominator: I've struck through everything except the Japanese category per everyone that opposed. @Justus Nussbaum, could you specify exactly which category (or categories) you support renaming? Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:22, 13 May 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:Public observances in Israel

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 18:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Recently created 1-article category. Article well categorized. Gjs238 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
This category is an important one replacing, as it does, the inappropriate 'Public holidays in Israel'. Yom ha-Shoah is an unique observance and we should be grateful that the category only has one article of this type. There are similar categories for other countries and peoples, and I'm not sure why the article is considered 'well-categorized'. The only other relevant categories, based on different characteristics of division, are 'Nisan observances' (by month) and 'Holocaust remembrance days'—which take place in different coutries, on different days, and in different ways. (In Israel the country comes to a halt for two minutes.) 'Observances honoring victims of war' is an incorrect category used here and should be removed; ha-Shoah is nothing to do with any war but was a system of deportation of European Jews to concentration camps in preparation for their systematic murder. This started years before any war, and would have continued had there never been a war. Yom ha-Shoah is observed differently in other countries. The category should remain for at least a year to see what other public observances might be added. I feel that the current suggestion of removal is too soon after its addition, and I am wondering why such haste is deemed necessary. Please leave. Ishpoloni (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yom ha-Shoah is an unique observance and we should be grateful that the category only has one article of this type

Well then, respectfully, you do not understand categorization on Wikipedia. We categorize articles based on their defining characteristics, which are ones that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. But the purpose of categories is to specifically group articles that share those characteristics in order to make navigation between them easier. The purpose is not to diffuse articles into deeper subcategories for every possible or most precise characteristic regardless of the amount of articles that exist for us to group on Wikipedia. 1-member categories make navigation between articles harder. I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the standards governing categorization on Wikipedia before voicing your opinion in discussions here at CfD.

There are similar categories for other countries and peoples

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other pages do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping those other pages from being deleted or changed.

The category should remain for at least a year to see what other public observances might be added.

Wikipedia does not make predictions about the future per WP:CRYSTAL. We do not disambiguate articles based on what topics could potentially be exist at the same title. For that same reason, we do not retain categories by the speculation that more articles will exist in the future, we must categorise based on what exists now. The category can be recreated when the are enough articles to justify diffusing to it. However, there are no other categories on Wikipedia called "public observances", so probably not.

Please leave

Pardon? Οἶδα (talk) 12:17, 14 May 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:Bosnia and Herzegovina–Czech Republic sports relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina–Czech Republic sports relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article, Yugoslavia at the 1978 European Athletics Championships and a sub-category which does not need this parent. The article which consists of only an opening paragraph and a medallist table has been added to five bilateral categories which I believe should be purged. AusLondonder (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete and purge article per nom. Articles about participation in a sports event do not belong in a category about bilateral relations. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems to me there has never been consensus to create this tree and every time categories in this tree have been brought to AFD the decision was to delete them. Is there a way to get the creation of new such categories that are not supported by community consensus stopped?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    What about an additional content in WP:OC that can be cited as precedent? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The scope of an A—B sports relations category is content that relates to sports, country A and country B. Here, the 53 Bosnian professional sportspeople who play or have played in the Czech Republic, and the Yugoslav sportspeople who competed at the 1978 European Athletics Championships in Prague, are within this scope. Place Clichy (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    Events that happened in Czechoslovakia involving people from Yugoslavia have absolutely nothing to do with the relations of the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Czech Republic. However more fundamentally articles about sporting events do not belong in bilateral relations categories AR all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
    I almost find it hard to believe that an experienced editor like Place Clichy genuinely believes that this article belongs in a category about Bosnia and Herzegovina and Czech Republic sports relations. AusLondonder (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
    I have yet to see a convincing argument that content related to the history of a topic A should not go into Category:Topic A in the absence of a dedicated Category:History of topic A. I know JPL thinks that, but I think this view is not globally shared. Place Clichy (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    We have categories for both Czecholsovakia and Yugoslavia. We thus have categories for the two places actually in some way related to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    I previously thought that it would not have been necessary, and maybe a bit overkill, to create dedicated sports bilateral categories for former countries such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union. However, seen your comment, I tend to think this may be necessary. Place Clichy (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The scope of an A—B sports relations category is content that relates to sports, country A and country B. -- Just N. (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Justus Nussbaum Have you looked at the category content then? AusLondonder (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    The one article here is not about Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is about Yugoslavia, and it is about an event that A-Was a multinational event so its location should not be assumed to create realtions between sending countries and receiving countries and B-Occured 15 years before the Czech Republic came to be, so has nothing to do with the Czech Republic either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    There's a defining relation between Bosnia and Yugoslavia, though. Place Clichy (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Yugoslavia is not its co stitutent parts. What next will we add an article on the 2024 USA Olympic team to relations categories for each of the 50 states and China. Things done by Yugoslavia are not bilateral relations between constituent republics and another country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 18:15, 13 May 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:Bahamas–Russia 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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing two articles about participation of the Bahamas at recurring sports events hosted in Russia and Unfriendly countries and territories list, a list of 49 countries Russia considers "unfriendly". No articles about bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete there are no articles we have for which this is a defining subject of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that Russia placed the Bahamas by law on its Unfriendly countries and territories list as a retaliation to Russo-Ukrainian War stance, one of "just" 13 countries besides the whole of NATO and the EU, is certainly relevant to international relations between these two countries. Where would that content be placed if this category was merely deleted? This action would remove it entirely from the Bahamas tree. Place Clichy (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    • A factoid is nit relevant to international relations. This "just 13 countries besides all of NATO and the EU" is a truly bizarre line. Even if it was 13 countries I would object to the 13 categories, but it is actually at least 33.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
      Wikipedia is full of "factoids". The article is in Category:Russia–NATO relations and Category:Russia–European Union relations which are relevant, there's no question of placing it in individual categories of each sanctioned EU or NATO country. Place Clichy (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
        • Yes there is. Either we put it in categories for every santioned country or none. And the only logical choice is none, because it is about actions of Russia not about actions of the sanctioned countries. Wikipedia categories are to be based on defining characteristics of the subject of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete for Now without objection to future recreation if/when more specific articles on bilateral relations appears. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. per Place Clichy. We have to reflect uneasy realities in Wikipedia. -- Just N. (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    What on earth does that mean? AusLondonder (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 18:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
If and when "uneasy" articles get published, we can categorize them. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I am convinced by the arguments against the keep !votes. We cleaned up several similar articles that concerned multinational affairs and were included in dozens of bilateral categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:00, 13 May 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:American basketball podcasters

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 am also interpreting SportsGuy789's comment as a !vote against a purge for now. Further actions that work to define the scope of the category would be appreciated. As this discussion is now two months stale, such actions should probably be discussed in a new nomination, if necessary. (non-admin closure) Staraction (talk · contribs) 14:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per preliminary discussion at the NBA project this seems to fail WP:NONDEF, especially for accomplished professional basketball players. Left guide (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep when it is defining (Zach Lowe, Bill Simmons, Raja Bell and purge for those it is non-defining e.g. Derek Harper, Austin Rivers, Michael Porter Jr., Udonis Haslem, Josh Hart.--User:Namiba 21:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete have any of the others been raised to prominence because of their podcasts? I think not. This whole category is not defining. As is Category:Basketball podcasters.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep it is defining for a lot of the people in that category. Can maybe take out a couple people whose podcasts are secondary to their careers, but plenty of them have big basketball podcasts. Lebron's Mind the Game podcst was pretty big and a ton of those others have careers doing podcasts now. That qualifies for defining. (Keep vote added by User:Dresq23 who forgot to add signature.)
Note: Dresq23 is the category's creator. SportsGuy789 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I disagree with User:Namiba to keep this for Lowe, Simmons, Bell etc. because the mere existence of this category is like not killing a weed. The weed will still exist, and future gung-ho editors not familiar with this CfD will AutoCat that category into non-defining people's articles. Cut the head off the snake and delete the category altogether. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
By that logic, we should just delete half the categories on Wikipedia because people might add things to them that you might not agree with or might be questionable. It's not cutting the head off the snake. I think you are the gung-ho editor you are afraid of, but you are gung-ho about deleting things instead.Dresq23 (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Nice try with the slippery slope fallacy. You're just butt hurt because someone disagrees with a category you created. And, from a glance at your editing history, it's all you ever do. 'American basketball podcasters' is ill-defined and has no clear criteria for inclusion. Head off the snake is the logical course. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
You should refresh yourself on Wikipedia:Civility and WP:AGF. Calling someone "butt hurt" is disrespectful and not acceptable on Wikipedia.--User:Namiba 14:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep For people like Kenny Beecham, being a basketball podcaster is one of their most significant claims to fame. Even for current and former NBA players, being involved in a podcast is an important way of keeping them in the public eye. I would argue that Darius Miles' podcasting work is more significant (and is a larger body of work) than the 34 games he played as a reserve for the Grizzlies. Zagalejo (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems defining for some guys. -- Just N. (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment – If this category stays per consensus, there's still an unaddressed issue which is the lack of defining criteria about who is to be included. All that's been said in this CfD by other editors is who they think should be included but they don't say why with any objective measures. This category, without a specific, written description in its category page, is problematic. SportsGuy789 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be content with including anyone who verifiably hosts a podcast about basketball. I don't know if there's any realistic way to purge the category from some articles but not others. I think podcasts are reasonably important to athletes' careers and enduring visibility. And ultimately, I don't think deleting this category would solve anything as long as Category:Podcasters still exists. Zagalejo (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:14, 13 May 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 films about cancer

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Films about cancer in the United Kingdom. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a change in scope. The current category is for any film that is "Indian", exactly how the national affiliation of a film is decided is another issue, that deals with cancer. The target is for films that have as their subject cancer in India. This would exclude A-films that are Indian (I think this is normally based on the nationality of the production team) that either i-are about cancer but elsewhere ii-are about cancer but their setting is unstated or unclear. However it would B- include films produced by nationals of any other country that have as their subject cancer in India. I am not sure how many films there are that we have articles for that are in sub-set A or B, these may all presently be films set in India made by production teams from India. Overall there are a lot more American films set in Britain than in India (probably also more American films set in France than in India), so I would suspect that the British film categories would have less overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Well the first film in this category is one about cancer. If I read it right the subject is shown with cancer in India, Brazil and the United States. The film has two different language versions, and they set it in different cities in India in each.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subject + location of production is a lot more defining for a film than subject + location covered by the film. Also the new name brings up big issues, such as, if we have a film made by an Indian production team, and at least partially set in India, but where our subject who has cancer for part of the film is suffereing from cancer in Brazil, do we have to categorize this under a Films about cancer in Brazil? I believe what is defining for a film is nationality of production, and then subject matter. I think we should rename the other category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Withdraw: Agree that your comments make sense. The UK cancer category is being tagged for renaming, but that and the US cancer category should be jointly nominated. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and the related discussions also happening now (above). Οἶδα (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Films about cancer per Οἶδα, as they proposed in the discussions above. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Country of production and topic. Same as the other cases above. -- Just N. (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    You are mistaken, @Justus Nussbaum: This one nomination here is about rescoping it to align with existing categories, i.e. "Films about cancer in [country]", not "[Country] films about [topic]". The category nominated here is already the latter. It's the opposite of the two cases above. Οἶδα (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is as yet no consensus if this subcategory is useful under the new scope (country of origin + subject).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:51, 13 May 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:Films about cancer in the United Kingdom

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 7#Category:Films about cancer in the United Kingdom

Category:Films about cancer in France

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 as nominated. I'll list this at WP:CFDWM for follow-up. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale I think what is actually defining is the intersection between the subjecto f the film being cancer and the nationality of the film. Setting of the film is often a matter of debate. Some films may have a setting that is more guessed at than ever stated. This change will cause of change of scope and require some films being moved in or out, but I think the targeted name is a defining aspect of a definition of a film. The current name also makes it unclear if all films set in x place with cancer as the subject belong, or if the subject of the film needs to be "cancer in France"; "Cancer in Spain" or "Cancer in the United States". The literal reading is the latter, so the film would need to say something about cancer in that locality broadly, not just something about cancer. I would not oppose upmerging this categories and the other by country sub-cats of Films about cancer. I am not actually convinced that we need to break this subject up geographically, however I am not sure it is unneeded either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose these are not synonymous. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 00:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator already said in the rationale that the change of scope is intentional, so just that is not a reason to oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support if the change of scope is actually followed through, i.e. each and every article in the categories are checked for their "country". Easier said than done. It cannot be assumed they are synonymous, because by definition they are not. Though I also question whether we even need this diffusion by country at all. Would Category:Films about cancer really be too large to navigate? I don't think so. We're going to end up with the subcat situation at Category:Films about Alzheimer's disease. I don't find this country+subject intersection meaningful or helpful. Οἶδα (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Films about cancer per Οἶδα. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. And against Marco's proposal. National film cultures are significantly different. -- Just N. (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
    Did you mean rename? Οἶδα (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is as yet no consensus if this subcategory is useful under the new scope (country of origin + subject).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I am ok with either rename or merging all to films about cancer. I am very clear that location of the setting of a film + cancer is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:SAGE Publishing academic journals

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) 01:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: While we allow all-capital business named when they are acronyms or initialisms (i.e., each letter stands for a word), SAGE does not qualify. According to their About page, Sage is a portmanteau of Sara & George, using the first two letters of each. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Speedy rename per C2D, main article is Sage Publishing and there is no indication that it is all-caps. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:56, 13 May 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:Suicide by explosive material

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we really need this layer. SMasonGarrison 14:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Merge, while the articles directly in the category should be moved down. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Manually merge, for sure the subcategories can be moved directly under Category:Suicide methods but I don't know where the articles should go, maybe they should just be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose two of the pages could possibly be moved to "devices" (al-Baghdadi and falling on a grenade), but not the older historical attacks. Two pages and two sub-categories is enough to justify a category. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 01:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 17:06, 13 May 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:Burials in Sussex County, Delaware

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) 21:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Category:Burials in Sussex County, Delaware
Nominator's rationale The only level of burial that is defining is by cemetery, or by cemetery like place. Our guidelines actually say if there are very few articles to put in such a category we should instead have them as a list. Because of this everything that is not a cemetery or a place that is functioning like a cemetery we have tagged as a container category. In this case there is nothing to contain in this container category, it is all just biographies no cemetery categories, so it would be best to delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Rather than full-on deletion, I'd rather sort them into their individual cemetery categories.--User:Namiba 21:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should not categorize people by non-notable burial places, even less by county of burial. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:12, 13 May 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:National Front (UK) politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename. Editors are welcome to create new categories without CFD approval. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Most of the people in this category aren't politicians. Being part of a political organization does not make you a politician, 'person who participates in policy-making processes, usually holding a position in a political party or an elective position in government'. The vast majority of people in this category did not hold office or attempt to seek office. And membership here is more defining than politician status because, despite technically being a political party, the NF was more generally an activist group. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Alternative, create a parallel Category:National Front (UK) activists (interlinked with a "See also" note) and keep the politicians in the existing category when applicable. If needed, purge articles about people who are neither a politician nor an activist. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Also fine, though I prefer my suggestion that would be alright. I just don't want it to be only "politicians". PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Right, while on the other hand we should avoid including people for whom it is not a defining characteristic, which makes "activists" better than "members". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
      I think members is more defining. For members who were crucial to the organization, they are defined by their membership but were not so public about it (e.g. by writing for their papers or by behind the scenes organizational stuff), but are not activists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
      • Many articles, apart from those about NF politicians, are about people hopping between various political parties without significant contribution to any of those parties. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
        I don't think so? e.g. Joseph Pearce began his career organizing their youth newspaper and being involved in their internal politics. This is a defining aspect of how sources describe him, but he was not a politician. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
        • Compare that against John Bean (politician) for whom another party was defining, or Jane Birdwood, Lady Birdwood or Eddy Butler whose involvement was low anyway. Just membership is simply not good enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
          I'd say the NF is defining for Bean considering he helped found it! And while the Birdwood article is badly structured, her NF involvement is defining, she's covered in full length books by the NF, it marked a major controversy in her career. Butler's article is too badly sourced on everything to really say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:09, 13 May 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:Art schools in Zagreb

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, four articles now. Fram (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge art schools in Croatia only has 4 total articles. We should not be splitting such small by country articles by city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 13:47, 13 May 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:COVID-19 pandemic in autonomous cities of Spain

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) 01:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: delete, only two articles in the category and they are already in Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Spain and in Category:21st century in Ceuta and Category:21st century in Melilla respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 13:47, 13 May 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:Roman sites in France by region

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories (or one subcategory if this goes ahead). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 13:47, 13 May 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:Hawaiian songwriters

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. There are many proposals which might gain consensus in a fresh discussion; no prejudice against speedy renomination. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale It is not fully clear what the actually difference is between these categories. For places that are not indepedent nations we generally use the Booians from Foo format. All other states have Songwriters from categories. I see no benefit to having both these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is the difference between Category:Native Hawaiian people and someone from the state of Hawaii.--18:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namiba (talk • contribs)
    • If that is the case we should use that name. Also if that is the case it should not be a sub-cat of Songwriters from Hawaii, because not all Native Hawaiian people are from Hawaii.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Yes. The main aticle is titled Native Hawaiians as is the category: Native Hawaiians. Not Hawaiians. Οἶδα (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • At least we should not keep it as is, because the current situation is just confusing. Possibly rename to Category:Native Hawaiian songwriters. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Do we have an article Native Hawaiian songwriters? Can we create such an article that is A-based on multiple indepdent reliable sources that are secondary and B-more than just a list article. If the answer to 1 or 2 is not the case, then this rename would lead us to having a category does not work with EGRS rules. Also is the difference between Category:Songwriters from Hawaii and Native Hawaiian songwriters big enough that it will avoid EGRS issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Question would work instead to merge these two categories and then create Category:Songwriters from the Kingdom of Hawaii and Category:Songwriters from the Territory of Hawaii?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • New proposal on further review I think there are multiple categories here. We should split the two existing categories into 3. We should keep Category:Songwriters from Hawaii and also split out Category:Songwriters from the Hawaiian Kingdom (our article is named Hawaiian Kingdom) and Category:Songwriters from the Territory of Hawaii (our article is named Territory of Hawaii). Based on my review we will have 5 or more articles in each of those categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • That is also a good way to solve the current confusing situation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 13:46, 13 May 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:Pottsville Antarcites players

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 18#Category:Pottsville Antarcites players

Category:Provinces of the Islamic State militant movement

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:Provinces of the Islamic State. (non-admin closure) Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose renaming Category:Provinces of the Islamic State militant movement to Category:Provinces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Nominator's rationale: per discussion at speedy SMasonGarrison 21:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
More information speedy ...
Close

pinging @Mclay1: SMasonGarrison 21:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 13:42, 13 May 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:Transgender female rapists

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 18:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:EGRS, only 4 entries [2 of which are "cases"] Katzrockso (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Support, plus merging with female rapists Snokalok2 (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Manually merge to Category:Female rapists (only if the rape happened after transitioning). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    Every article in the category is already included in Category:Female rapists. @Marcocapelle Katzrockso (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Ok then the category can be deleted as nominated. But isn't it odd to have them in Category:Female rapists if they committed the crime before transitioning? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
      Not sure, but that's a matter of regular editing, not CfD. Katzrockso (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Ok, then I will purge them from that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
        You are apt to get kickback. The common point of view among the trans-supportive community is that the person did not become female at transition; the person who had always been female and revealed that fact. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
      The pages should be retained under Category:Female rapists. Even if the crime was committed before they transitioned, MOS:GENDERID holds that individuals should be referred to as their preferred identity "for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise". TRCRF22 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support deletion per Katzrockso. I do not believe that a valid and encyclopedic main article could be written on this topic per the guidelines. Additionally, I think it's relevant to mention that the category appears only to have been created because one user did not fully understand how MOS:GENDERID applies in such cases (and was also wrong on the relevant law, but that's another matter) and another user was tired of arguing with them about it. Creating a whole category without regard to the editing guidelines on categorizing minority issues is not the correct way to respond to a dispute, and we should not allow such categories to remain if they aren't genuinely helpful. TRCRF22 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 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:Cabinet of Norway

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 of Norway. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose renaming Category:Cabinet of Norway to Category:Governments of Norway
Nominator's rationale: The proposed title is based on the main article: List of Norwegian governments. I'm also fine with Cabinets of Norway (since most of the individual articles are titled that way), or with Ministries of Norway. The main point is that it should be plural rather than singular, as the content covers different successive governments (cabinets, ministries, administrations, executives, or whatever term is preferred). CosdonH (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Rename to Cabinets of Norway. The individual articles are titled that way, and the article List of Norwegian governments should probably be retitled too. Katzrockso (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Alt rename to Cabinets of Norway per Katzrockso. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 13 May 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:Anthropomorphic objects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 3#Category:Anthropomorphic objects

Category:Anthropomorphic vehicles

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. However, there is clear consensus that articles about works should be removed, so I'll list this for follow up at WP:CFDWM. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: When you remove the fiction that just CONTAINS the characters rather than articles specifically about the characters, you mostly just end up with characters that are in Category:Cars (franchise) characters and Category:The Railway Series characters, as well as Herbie. Transformers are just robots... in disguise. In other words it's a narrow intersection that should be dual merged, also to Category:Anthropomorphic objects. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: Based on my argument above, I think the Transformers, appearing as vehicles a significant portion of the time and showing human-like behaviour/emotions, would still qualify, as probably would KITT, too. So together I think there are enough entries to warrant a category. Also, I think there is conceptually a pretty significant difference between the anthropomorphic vehicles and the likes of James Bond vehicles or the Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle, even though they all rightfully belong to Category:Fictional vehicles. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Remove articles on works instead of on vehicles. After that we can revisit to see if we have enough articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Clean up per Johnpacklambert. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge. I wouldn't be so WP:BOLD as to clean up while this discussion is still running but the nominator is correct: these are mostly articles about works, and the few actual vehicles are already categorized in better categories. Archrogue (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • What if we changed it to Category:Anthropomorphic vehicles in fiction or Category:Fiction about anthropomorphic vehicles? Anthropomorphic vehicles are very clearly extremely common in fiction. I think it's useful for it to be it's own category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
    Whether it is common doesn't matter, whether it fails WP:NONDEF does. If people can prove that "Anthropomorphic vehicles in fiction" is potentially notable as a subtopic then I wouldn't be opposed to it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    If a piece of fiction has anthropomorphic vehicles as a main character, it is inherently defining to it. I'm confused how someone could even atrempt to argue that the inclusion of anthropomorphic vehicles aren't defing to shows like Thomas & Friends and Jay Jay the Jet Plane. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    Correction: The fact that it is about vehicles, and that it is about anthropomorphic characters, are both separately defining. Is there proof the combination of BOTH is? That it would be demonstrably different to scholarly study than if Jay Jay the Jet Plane was an anthropomorphic animal instead? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:21, 16 May 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:Hokan languages

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 18:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Unaccepted proposal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. Granted, not all linguists accept the existence of a Hokan family, but neither has the proposal been completely rejected by scholarship. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete when the opening line in the article says somethign is "hypothetical" it is not widely accepted enough to justify a category. Categories need to be based on scholarly consensus, not things that are still described as "hypothetical".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Johnpacklambert. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: per John Pack Lambert and past precedent. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:36, 21 May 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:Nature

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: redirect to Category:Natural environment. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: empty and redirect per WP:NONDEF, "nature" is not a defining characteristic of e.g. Earth or of e.g. Supernatural. By all means redirect to Category:Natural environment which contains everything that many people would expect to be part of nature. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect This is the big problem with the word. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional museums

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) 01:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only Guantanamo Bay Museum of Art and History, Raccoon Police Station, and possibly the ride Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission: Breakout! qualify as fictional elements. I also removed Fortress of Solitude and Batcave as not qualifying as museums. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Actually contents should go in Category:Museums in popular culture as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge those that are actual fictional things to the buildings and structures category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge really excessive and confusing category with incorrect articles. Archrogue (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional rooms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles and the redirect are about fictional elements. (The Tiki Tiki Tiki Room is about a song, not the attraction it's for. Whether that latter article qualifies here, I don't know.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment, meanwhile there are more articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge If you remove the ones that are WP:SHAREDNAME or tangential to the subject, you only have The Backrooms, The Holodeck and the Danger Room. This is typically too much of a narrow intersection for its own category. I would not be surprised if Room 101 was notable enough for an article, but even then it's just 4 articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Manually merge the articles on fictional things to the fictional buildings and structures category. Remove the articles on works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Archrogue (talk) 02:51, 14 May 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:Rooms in the White House

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 12:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: No clear precedent for a naming convention, except that the parent is Category:Individual rooms. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional skyscrapers

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only one of the 6 articles is actually about a fictional element. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for creating the category. Just merge it per the nominator. - Sebbog13 (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional gates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 12:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Four redirects, two works, and two fictional elements: Gates of horn and ivory and Stargate (device). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:07, 13 May 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:Bridges in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:TRIVIALCAT, regardless of actual contents; there are also only four contents here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to have a category like this we should clearly limit it to cases where it is the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge to make this more clear. Archrogue (talk) 02:48, 14 May 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:International Space Station in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * in solidarity 18:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Yet another "in fiction" category about a setting. (Real-life subcategories of Category:International Space Station use the preposition on, not aboard or in, for similar usage as the proposal.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:24, 13 May 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.


Fiction about (interstellar/intergalactic) travel

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) 21:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Much of soft science fiction does not distinguish the two at all. TV Tropes calls it "Everything in Space Is a Galaxy". I don't see many works where the distinction is important and plot-relevant, even for hard science fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is an obvious difference between interstellar and intergalactic travel. Even in soft sci-fi, Mass Effect: Andromeda, for example, has an entire plot that is about dealing with the complications of traveling to another galaxy. I am sure there is plenty of hard sci-fi that distinguishes between the two and has it be plot relevant. This seems like more of a surmountable problem to do with categorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Anything at either scale is fictional. I do not think there is realistically enough of a differnece to justify two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Even something like Andromeda takes place entirely in one galaxy. It's an ambiguous and unnecessary line to draw. Archrogue (talk) 02:44, 14 May 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:Space Robinsonades

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 28#Category:Space Robinsonades

Category:Secondary schools in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: After taking out Category:Fictional high schools and Category:Fictional high school teachers below, everything here is about works set in schools. There is no consistency between usage of high school and secondary school in this category tree, except in Category:High school films which is hard to deal with, but the latter is more inclusive. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support: This will be more consistent and clear. Archrogue (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional high school teachers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: A small subcategory that is distinguished in a way that is kinda irrelevant for fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge the exact school level and type teachers teach at in works of fiction is not in many cases defining. Having recently watched Project Hail Mary the work would not be much different if the main character was a high school teacher. There is only one flashback thing where that comes up. Being too precise in Fictional categories is not helpful. If we were to keep this category I think we should Rename and restore it to Fictional Secondary School teachers. There is no reason to seperate out high school teachers from middle school teachers, junior high teachers, Germanan gymnasia teachers, British secondary school teachers or a large range of other secondary teachers in secondary schools who are not high school teachers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Narrow intersection made by a now blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge WP:NARROWCAT and superfluous separation of articles. Archrogue (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional high schools

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All non-redirect entries are works, not story elements. Merge should be done manually into appropriate subcategories of the target; I think we have 3 TV series and a multimedia franchise. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Manually merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, now 6 entries, probably more can be found. Fram (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Fictional secondary schools. 4 of the articles here are Fictional schools that are not high schools but other types of secondary school. That is half of the articles. It was more until I removed 3 other articles that wwre on works about works set in fictional non-high school secondsry schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    high school is a redirect to secondary school, which starts "A secondary school, high school, or senior school," So no, none of these schools were "not high schools but other types of secondary schools". I'll readd them to this cat. Fram (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
      • What I removed was articles about works. We should not categorize articles where the subject is a work as about a fictional thing. The article should be categorized based on what the subject is. High schools are a different type of institution that other secondary schools. I do not think we should call high school things that are not high schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
        Wikipedia treats high schools as a synonym of secondary schools. What makes you say otherwise? Fram (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
          • they are not synonyms. category:High school is a sub-cat of Caegory:Secondary school. Middle schools are not high schools. They are secondary school. Even the usage of top level secondary school as a near synonym for high school is limited to current US usage. In the 19th-century most such schools were called academies and were very different than modern high schools. In Britain the terminology is different. We should use the more broad secondary school as the category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
            I have no objection to renaming the cat from fictional high schools to fictional secondary schools to reflect the article we have, but the remainder of what you say doesn't match our article on them. You can see an overview of the used terms for secondary schools in different countries in Secondary education#By country, English speaking countries which use (normally or sometimes) "high school" for secondary schools include Australia, Fiji, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Africa, UK. Fram (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Per nom, the vast majority of the entries aren't relevant or arguably aren't high schools. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment if we had enough articles actually on schools we could have a category named Category:Fictional high schools in the United States which could be a by country sub-category of Category:Fictional secondary schools. We do not have enough articles to justify such a structure at this time. This is an English variation usage and we should not impose the American usage of "high school" or a global scale.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    Which is an argument to rename the cat to Category:Fictional secondary schools, which I don't onject to. Fram (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Most of these articles do not fit this category. Archrogue (talk) 02:38, 14 May 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:Elementary and primary schools in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Everything here is about works by setting, and the category names should be inclusive of all (real-world) countries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename setting is the best way to describe what the scope of this category makes sense as.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • 'Support rename for clearer scope. Archrogue (talk) 02:36, 14 May 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:Middle schools in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Works set in middle schools. Rough consensus for a rename, and under WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE this option had the most support. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: What to do with this one... Only contents are two subcategories about works set in middle schools. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Works set in middle schools SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
You mean rename? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Middle schools, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Renane to Category:Works set in middle schools and junior high schools. From the standpoint of most Works which of these two is the setting is not a major issue. That could contain the novel Wonder that was adapted into a film, and also Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Theif or whatever it's exact title would be. I am sure there are other novels that could be included, probably at least one play as well. So the scope is beyond the two sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    Those terms are nearly synonymous, and the parent category is Category:Middle schools.
    I also recognized that if we eliminate a category distinction between secondary and high schools, this should be a subcategory of whatever Category:Secondary schools in fiction is renamed to. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support rename or merge to Category:Works set in middle schools... not picky about the precise name. Archrogue (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Middle schools are different in their organization in many key ways than junior high schools. I do not think we should treat them as synonyms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films set in police academies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 18#Category:Films set in police academies

Category:Universities and colleges in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: "In fiction" renames. I am unsure if in or at is the correct preposition for ones about specific settings, but every subcategory of those categories about a specific medium uses in. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Small note, but this change would expand the scope to include non-fiction works like documentaries. (Also, for specific universities I'd use "at"). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename to use at in cases of specific universities. I think the expanded scope is better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator's rationale. I agree with John Pack Lambert too that the broader scope is better. RapidDweller (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename for clearer and broader scope. Archrogue (talk) 02:32, 14 May 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 the Bahamas to Belgium

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge Category:Ambassadors of the Bahamas to Cuba (1) to Category:Ambassadors of the Bahamas and Category:Ambassadors to Cuba
  • Nominator's rationale These categories are too narrow to be useful. These 5 categories combined have only 2 total articles. This is too narrow a set of catrgories and a merger to the parent categories will aid navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional holidays

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 to Category:Unofficial observances and Category:Fictional story elements. (non-admin closure) Staraction (talk · contribs) 23:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Five of the nine entries are unambiguously about works, not story elements. Main article List of fictional holidays was deleted at AfD in 2023. Plus, the new name could accommodate subcategories for real holidays. Either the nominated target or Category:Holiday fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional science

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are Robopsychology (which probably shouldn't be classified as fictional, though it could belong in Category:Words originating in fiction), a work article, and two subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:34, 13 May 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:Time travel devices

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Time machine is the likely main article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. But it surprises me that the article is not at Time travel machine. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Rename Honestly, this could have just been a speedy rename. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support rename. Archrogue (talk) 02:26, 14 May 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.

Video game $1

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 21#Video game $1

Category:Ambassadors of Azerbaijan to France

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale This category has 1 article. It is too narrow to be helpful to navigation. Merging to the parent categories will make navigation easier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 13 May 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:Star Wars objects

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (equivalent to merging, per Marcocapelle's comment). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category layer with two subcategories and no direct contents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment It may be better to downmerge Category:Star Wars weapons here, small as it is. The Death Star is even dubiously a weapon - the structure itself is a space station, the actual weapon is the laser battery on it. But I support either that or downmerging this category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    You mean to upmerge? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Zxcvbnm can you clarify exactly which merge targets you're referring to here? (please ping on reply) Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support nom. Empty category acting as superfluous hierarchy. Archrogue (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but just delete, the two subcategories are already in Category:Star Wars technology. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fictional vehicles by work

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Small categories by franchise. Likely originally larger, but almost everything got redirected or deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:07, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support SMALLCAT is no longer a guideline, but these are narrow intersections, so I support merging. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support nom. Vehicles is a WP:NARROWCAT while grouping as fictional objects are broader and more standard. Archrogue (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, not sufficiently populated as they are now. I created the Captain Scarlet one by diffusing several pages from the parent category, including some images. Three images were removed from the franchise hierarchy altogether by an anon editor; I have just retrieved them and put them into the more useful images category which has been created by the nominator. – Fayenatic London 13:33, 16 May 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:Batman elements introduced in 1939

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Extreme WP:NARROWCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge as narrow. Except delete Batman since he is a character not a story element, and he is already in 44 other categories. Which is far more than enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
    Characters are story elements, but it's overwhelmingly likely that some of those 44 categories are about characters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support nom as WP:NARROWCAT. Archrogue (talk) 02:22, 14 May 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:Marvel Comics magical objects

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 21:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The parent is over-diffused, and there are no similar categories for magical objects in fiction. Deletion is an alternative, since everything is a redirect except for two articles and a navbox template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing that would actually make sense to merge, the members that aren't redirects are characters rather than necessarily objects. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I see Zxcvbnm's point about deleting since there are very few real articles here. Archrogue (talk) 02:22, 14 May 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:Marvel Comics cosmic objects

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Ill-defined category. Although every entry except one is a redirect, they are all to different targets. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support nom. An ambiguous and ill-defined way to group these objects. Archrogue (talk) 02:15, 14 May 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:University of Missouri Curators

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 21#Category:University of Missouri Curators

Category:School districts in the United States established in 1947

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: Single merge * Pppery * in solidarity 18:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: isolated category. multiupmerge for now. This category is pretty redundant with School districts established in 1947 SMasonGarrison 03:44, 13 May 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 ambassadors of the Federated States of Micronesia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:46, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only two lists here, both of which are directly in Category:Ambassadors of the Federated States of Micronesia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 13 May 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.

Non-resident ambassadors of Poland to Oceania

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Categories for non-resident positions that are resident in Australia or New Zealand, collectively containing three articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete non-resident ambassadorships are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should not categorize non-resident ambassadorship. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 13 May 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 China to the Federated States of Micronesia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting Category:Ambassadors of China to the Federated States of Micronesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are a list and a person who served when the position was non-resident. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
I have added the list to Category:China–Federated States of Micronesia relations, so no merge will be needed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete nom-resident ambassadorships are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should not categorize non-resident ambassadorship. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 13 May 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–Federated States of Micronesia 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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are a descent category and Japanese Lighthouse (Micronesia), built by the Japanese during the colonial era. It is possible that more articles related to Japanese colonialism in Micronesia could be added or a main article could be created, but I'm not sure which articles should be placed there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I do not think the light house goes here. It might go in an article on Japanese control over the Micronesia Trust Territory but that would need a different name. This should be about Japan and the FSM itself not Japan and areas that later became MSM.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 13 May 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 Indonesia to the Federated States of Micronesia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting Category:Ambassadors of Indonesia to the Federated States of Micronesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non-resident position accredited with Japan; both articles are already in Category:Ambassadors of Indonesia to Japan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete non-resident ambassadorships are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should not categorize non-resident ambassadorship. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 13 May 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:Marshall Islands–Federated States of Micronesia border

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 July 15#Category:Marshall Islands–Federated States of Micronesia border

Category:Macro-Paesan languages

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Fringe language family proposal accepted or proposed by no living linguist that serves no encyclopedic value 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete According to Paezan languages, this might also conflate multiple proposals regarding the Páez language. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who like the Planet Earth series

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 21#Category:Wikipedians who like the Planet Earth series

Category:Recipients of the Meritorious Service Medal (United Kingdom)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 20#Category:Recipients of the Meritorious Service Medal (United Kingdom)

Category:Chaldean Democratic Party politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The category only has one politician that is also the founder and most notable figure of the political party. The only other article is for the party itself. This category is not likely to have any other politicians under its scope, and as there's no reasonable place for a merge, deletion is the best route. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, the two articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks