Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 1
May 3 >

May 2

Category:Maltese Holocaust deniers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 10#Category:Maltese Holocaust deniers

Category:Danish ethnomusicologists

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) 16:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: SMasonGarrison 18:20, 2 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:Lithuanian ethnomusicologists

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) 16:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category, upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 18:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Dual merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 3 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:Women fascists

Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced that this intersection between sex and specific policital orientation is defining under WP:EGRSD. I think that this should be purged and possibility renamed to Women in fascism or something like that. SMasonGarrison 16:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose both rename and deletion I view it as very much defining and sociologically significant, as one would quickly pick up from glancing at Elena Bacaloglu and Edda Mussolini. The proposed rename seems like an attempt at introducing vagueness for the sake of piety -- "Women Holocaust victims" or "Female anti-fascists" are also women in fascism; let me add that women, just like men, can and have supported bad or inane ideologies on both the right and left, and this only reflects bad on other women if the implicit assumption is that all women should be liberal. No objection to purginig articles on conservative women who are being mistagged as fascist (the same issue that pops up in the male categories, we just live with it). Also, if anyone wishes to invoke WP:EGRSD, let them fully quote the relevant portion, and let them state something more objective and quantifiable than "I am not convinced". Dahn (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Dahn I am not convinced that this intersection is defining, which is why I did not propose deletion. However EGRS requires that any intersection be defining as a subject of study, so insisting that I quote the specific language of the policy is not helpful here. Do you have any sources or suggestions that would support it existing? SMasonGarrison 18:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    What do you need, precisely? As the author of some of those articles, I came across and sometimes used entire historical and sociological monographs, or chapters of monographs, exclusively on fascist women as a collective entity. If that won't do, what will? Dahn (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    To wit, Julie Gottlieb, Martin Durham, Kevin Passmore have written whole books on this intersection. Just about every fascist movement has had its own women's section (Fasci Femminili, Sección Femenina, National Socialist Women's League are three easy examples) -- they found it to be a defining trait, go figure. Dahn (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:EGRS, the topic of women in fascism is not notable, it is not a surprise that Women in fascism does not exist. If not deleted then keep; renaming does not make sense due to lack of topic articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    There are 90 articles in the cat and 30 more in the subcat. Articles on women who have led fascist organizations, for instance. What "lack of topic articles"? Dahn (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    • They are biographies, not topic articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
      Not only do I find it strange that a "women in fascism" topic/article must exist for the category to exist (was there a vote on this scheme, or is it imposed on all of us by the rubber-stamping that's being done here?), when the validity of the topic can at the very least be weighed against its coverage by scientific monographs; I am also perplexed by the notion that, since this article does not exist, then it must follow that "the topic of women in fascism is not notable". Now, mind you, the category may in theory be without merit, and I do not absolutely hold on to it; but this discussion seems to rely on presuppositions that are at best arcane, and at worst groupthink. Dahn (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete until we have women in fascism as a well sourced article that is more than a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
    Bizarrely, this reasoning doesn't seem to apply to your own category creations like Category:Founders of populated places in Missouri, Category:Coffee house owners, Category:Composers from Oklahoma, Category:Composers from Nevada (a one-article category, I thought you were so vehemently opposed to those?), Category:Sailors from Kansas (hey, another 1 article cat), and so on. I hope whoever closes this disregards this !vote as based on a requirement which isn't applied normally, not even by the !voter himself. Fram (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Stop trying to get my vote disregarded. Stop being rude and attacking others. The requirement applies to EGRS categories which this is. It does not apply to categories that are not EGRS. Category:Composers from Nevada has 8 articles and a sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
        The requirement is that an article can be written, not that it already has to be written. The topic needs to be notable, but an article does not have to exist. Your delete vote has no basis in policy whatsoever. Fram (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be nice and reasonable if !voters here were to engage with two points: (1) that entire monographs exist on this topic, out there in the real world; (2) that fascist movements and women within them apparently viewed the trait as significant, since the movements created female-only sections. The above discussion seems to be vote-stacking from preordained positions, with no engaging with those points. (The only note vaguely resembling an argument is that we absolutely must have a "women in fascism" essay for this reality to become palpable. Which strikes me as contrived, as in: specifically creating an intricate hurdle against this categorizing.) Dahn (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep — A cursory search found ten sources, nearly all academic, about just the British Union of Fascists. In addition, these reference two full-length books. , , , , , , , , ,
I’m sure that if we were to include fascism from Italy, Germany and other countries, the depth of coverage would increase exponentially. This is clearly a notable intersection and there’s no coherent rationale for renaming. — Biruitorul Talk 11:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, though purge, maybe. There is an entire book about this. The topic is notable but it is inherently biographical. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and please don't post blatantly wrong statements like "Delete per WP:EGRS, the topic of women in fascism is not notable". and many more (also in Google Scholar). Fram (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment If people are so convinced this is a notable subject, they shoud go create the article first.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    Bizarrely, this reasoning doesn't seem to apply to your own category creations like Category:Founders of populated places in Missouri, Category:Coffee house owners, Category:Composers from Oklahoma, Category:Composers from Nevada (a one-article category, I thought you were so vehemently opposed to those?), Category:Sailors from Kansas (hey, another 1 article cat), and so on. I hope whoever closes this disregards this !vote as based on a requirement which isn't applied normally, not even by the !voter himself. Fram (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
    That isn't necessary? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Yes it is. Do the work first.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
        You can repeat this as often as you want, but it is not a policy requirement at all. The topic has to be notable (which it clearly is), an article does not have to exist. Please stop repeating this. Fram (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
          • The policy requirement is that it has to be possible to create an article as I have described. Not just that the topic be "notable". I still think EGRS policies would be much easier to consistently implement if we made people create the article first, than create the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
            Mr Lambert, are you arguing that it us impossible to write such an article? And are you arguing this against all the authors who have managed to write books on this topic? And are you also arguing that "has to be possible" is synonymous with "must be written"? Dahn (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Category:Sailors from Kansas now has 4 articles. So the attempt to silence me and ban my contributions can end now. Reasonable categories can be reasonably populated and EGRS categories can be limited to ones that have related articles. There is no reason we should have categories that are EGRS that do not have corresponding articles and there is no reason we should have any categories with less than 4 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
    There is no policy which requires EGRS categories to have articles, only that an article is possible, which is clearly the case here. There is no reason to delete this category at all, and your continued insistence on some non-policy requirement is tiring. Fram (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Ain't it fascinating how Category:Female anti-fascists comes with no theorizing about how we "need" the "topical" article Women in anti-fascism? (Nor is there a push for the category to be renamed, suggesting the implicit logic: women fascists cannot be defined, and readily collected in one category, as fascists, since that is a negative quality; they may only be defined if/when they are anti-fascists.) Dahn (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I would probably support deleting that article more even than this one. Anti-fascism is much more clearly an opinion category, actually fascism is a political party category. We do political party categories, we do not do opinion categories. Neither category am I convinced passes ERGS rules. Nominating categories for rename or deletion takes time and effort. Not having nominated another category in no way implies support for it existing. It only says that editors have not found the time and emotional energy to nominate those categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
      Filling and defending categories that one or two or three editors then delete on a whim takes much more time and effort, to be sure. Much more. At least this time the nominator took the time to notify me of the proposal (which, in their version, was not exactly a deletion). Dahn (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic is very clearly notable, as a 5-second Google Books or Google Scholar will find a plethora of academic books on the topic. Deletion rationales are therefore inaccurateKatzrockso (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedias in Sinitic languages

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 10#Category:Wikipedias in Sinitic languages

Category:Right-wing terrorism in the 20th 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: delete (non-admin closure). Staraction (talk · contribs) 17:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. isolated redudant category that just contains Right-wing terrorism in the FOO subcats. SMasonGarrison 15:10, 2 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.


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) 06:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: computing is a slightly wider topic than just computers, which helps cover more relevant user templates. It will be more consistent with the parent category Category:Computing templates and its subcategories Category:Computing graphical timeline templates, Category:Computing infobox templates, Category:Computing navigational boxes, and Category:Computing sidebar templates. The talk page is marked with {{WikiProject Computing}}. The userbox gallery page linked on the category page is User:UBX/Userboxes/Computing. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Rename: I agree with the nominator, computing is a more consistent name, and the parent categories all use computing. BSH (talk) - (they/them) 11:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Support rename, and jeez, I really needed it, like, three days ago when I was trying to find the correct category for a userbox. Also for beautiful consistency with all those other categories. Wonderful. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 16:17, 3 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 characters introduced in the 16th-17th 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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, until the rise of mass media this is an unnecessary intermediate layer. I will nominate the 18th and 19th century later. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - these are unambiguous introductions years. Being before "the rise of mass media" doesn't really matter and it is not a valid reason for deletion. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Before the rise of mass media means these categories can be diffused by hardly anything else than Literary characters introduced in these years, for which we already have a tree on its own. This is just an empty interim layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Most of the literary characters subcategories in this time period should be upmerged as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge This is an unneeded extra layer. Also support upmerging overly narrow sub-cats by year to higher level categories that will allow navigation between articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 5 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.

Nature and environment

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/merge * Pppery * it has begun... 00:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, two poorly diffused category trees by country can better be merged together. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge per ambiguity. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:10, 2 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 members of the clergy convicted of crimes

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) 17:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This category is named "of the clegy" - clergy meaning leaders within established religions", like Christianity or Judaism - the problem is, the vast majority of the category are the exxact opposite, instead leaders of small, fringe religious movements, a la Marshall Applewhite or Matthew F. Hale or Wallace Fard Muhammad. So the vast majority of this category is not actually clergy. Would also be OK with delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:27, 2 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

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)

Category:American segregationists

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:American segregationist activists. (non-admin closure) Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale This is an opinion category. Like all opinion categiries it suffers by grouping people not be being unfied in an organization, but by supporting a specific point of view. In this case, what exactly the point of view they supported actually is not clear. Some of these people merely expressed support for various forms of racial secgreation, not always in very public ways. Others opposed or voted against specific measures to end racial segregation. One of the main problems with this sort of category is people voting for or against a bill does not always tell us fully about their view. Some people oppose bills because they do not feel that it is the role of the government to force some things, even if they support the underlying goal. This can be even more pronounced if it is on the federal level. Most of the sub-categories work, but we do not need this parent category, and I believe it is an opinion category that is not in line with out guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Segregation in the U.S. is a non-trivial topic and a non-trivial political stance. Place Clichy (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
    • We do not categorize people merely for their opinions. Some of the people here were not public office holders. Others it is not even clear why they are said to be pro-segregation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as category creator. Being pro-segregation is not an opinion, but a political and moral stance, supported by overt acts. Watkins Abbitt "became known for his opposition to school desegregation in the 1950s, supporting massive resistance" ... and signed the segregationist Southern Manifesto (which was not a bill). Thomas Abernethy also signed the Southern Manifesto. On the other hand, Bidwell Adam may very well have been a segregationist, seeing as he was born in Alabama and served as lieutenant governor of Mississippi, but nothing in his article or his obituaries note any concrete examples, so I have removed him from the category. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Alt rename to Category:American segregationist activists in order to weed out mere opinion-based categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
      • I would support this. There are articles here that clearly do not belong. If we limited it to clear activists it would work. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus to not delete, but should the category be renamed and purged per Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Support rename and purge, would make the category less ambiguous, which is rarely a bad thing. Arctic Circle System (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support rename and purge to the people that this is defining for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 2 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

Wikiwand AI