Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions#Current discussions

Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging

[edit]

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 03:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC). Currently, there are 131 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

[edit]

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

Opposed requests

[edit]

On hold pending other discussion

[edit]
  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

[edit]

– Lâm 06:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since municipal cities in Vietnam also ceased to exist, the categories concerning this should also be merged:
Lâm (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thplam2004: which speedy criterion applies here? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, this applies under C2D, because the categories in question are based on Vietnam’s new provincial structure, officially changed on 1 July 2025. The provinces were merged or renamed by the government, and many òf the corresponding Wikipedia articles have already been updated to reflect that. Since these categories are just sets of people defined by province, they should follow the new article names to stay consistent which I believe is what C2D is meant for. The guideline also mentioned this applies to "defined by a renamed topic; e.g. players for a sports team, or places in a district.”, and that’s exactly the situation here. As for example, when Bà Rịa-Vũng Tàu province or Bình Dương province are merged to Ho Chi Minh City, the entire adminstrative unit names are renamed to Ho Chi Minh City. I believe that the changes are straightforward, unambiguous, and based on official decisions. What do you think ? Lâm (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thplam2004: I have two issues with this: the articles of the old provinces have not been renamed, instead we now have articles about the old and the new provinces next to each other. Second, this is a lot bigger than just the People categories. It affects all Province categories and all subcategories under the provinces (buildings, geography, history etc.). I think it makes more sense to nominate all of that for full discussion, rather than for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the clarification, that makes sense. I will go for the full discussion right now. Lâm (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, none of the above cats are at the full discussion yet (and none were tagged). Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

July 16

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

July 15

[edit]

Category:Chain murders of Iran

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is a weird category. It’s categorized under the Category:Iranian serial killers but… the people in the category such as Mozzafar Baghai are not serial killers. There is the page Chain murders of Iran but I see no mention of that either on Mozzafar Baghai's page. Additionally, outside of Iran categories, I don’t see how it would fit in with any other category tree i.e. we don’t have any other chain murders in x country or something like that. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cameron Hawthorn

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Another TOOSOON creation of an eponymous category. With only two articles already sufficiently interlinked through the topic-related subcategories, this category is unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars While I understand your reasoning, I'm currently working on other articles for Hawthorn where this category would be useful. Please reconsider. Paradisetoshutdown (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles are for other albums or songs, those will still just be placed in the appropriate subcategory. In any case, it is best to create articles first then create categories when they can be reasonably populated. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Founders of cities in the Spanish West Indies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category. SMasonGarrison 20:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rusyn national awakeners stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one mainspace article in this category. Also, I believe that {{Rusyn-awakener-stub}} should be renamed to {{Rusyn-bio-stub}} to fit this change. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 00:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the other cat and template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unfinished buildings demolished

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Bad grammar. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Troy Trojans (minor league) players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category includes players from two different minor league baseball teams in two different states at multiple different times. This is similar to my nomination to split the categories for "Columbus Discoverers players" and "Rome Romans players" into separate categories for each city. Ordinarily, the convention would be to disambiguate the categories with the league name in parentheses but each of these teams played in multiple leagues. The New York Trojans can't be "Troy Trojans (New York) players" because that doesn't sufficiently disambiguate it from Category:Troy Trojans (NL) players. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acts of the Parliament of India 1901

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The Parliament of India was established in 1950 by the constitution & before the independence the legislature was the Imperial Legislative Council Pagers (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the 3 categories that were untagged, and notified the author,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Immigrants to the Kingdom of Scotland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: recreated category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_7#Category:Immigrants_to_the_Kingdom_of_Scotland SMasonGarrison 13:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cebuano male child actors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated category. SMasonGarrison 13:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tennis players from Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge per nom; only one article for the time being. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wrench in the Works albums

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Both entries are redirects to the band's page. None of the parent categories are sourced so no need for an upmerge. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010 crimes in Puerto Rico

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1-2 pages in each category. A merge to the decade category is not needed, because all the articles are already in a sibling category, 2010s murders in Puerto Rico. – numbermaniac 07:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Auto-antisemitism

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per the very long discussions about the Category:Antisemitism category and its subcategories, we are not allowed to put people or groups in any of the antisemitism categories, which is almost all that is in this category. If we were to remove all the people and groups, we would have too few articles to form a category (only Self-hating Jew, Useful Jew, and Zionist antisemitism, which are already mostly linked. Yevsektsiya doesn't seem to apply, the article does not mention antisemitism at all and it seems to be purely anti-religious Judaism). PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or purge. Initially I thought let's just purge the biographies and keep the category with three articles and a subcategory. But the three articles have quite disperate content, only one is about self-hatred as the parent category suggests, so deletion is an option too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per above. As Marco said, without the bios, there's next to nothing in the category that expressly pertains to it. And those remaining articles are already all in Category:Antisemitism or its other subcategories, so no need for an upmerge for those. The subcat may need an upmerge though; it doesn't appear to be in the Antisemitism tree otherwise, and it may be preferable for it to be there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


July 14

[edit]

Category:Abandonware games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: "Abandonware" is a loaded term. Strictly defined it means software that is not presently being sold directly by a publisher, but it is used solely in the defense of software piracy, with the connotation that all such software is "abandoned" and copyright restrictions no longer apply to it (which is completely untrue). If that were the only problem we could just rename the category "Video games not presently being sold directly by a publisher", but the category is also excessively large and impractical to keep up-to-date, especially because the removal of a game from the marketplace is rarely accompanied by any sort of announcement. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NONDEF. Also too overly broad as a secondary concern. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Although this category currently includes two of my favourite games of all time, labelling them "abandonware" is unfortunately subjective. It may be de facto true that the original owner will not do anything to invest in developing or supporting game anymore, but that doesn't mean that legally speaking it is now fair game (pun intended) to throw the source code online for old fans to enjoy (even though I'm strongly inclined to condone that if the owner makes no effort to make money off of it anymore, e.g. by putting it on Steam; I hardly regard it as "piracy" when you make practically impossible for willing consumers to give you money). I don't think the size of the category is a problem, nor that it cannot meet WP:DEFINING; it just cannot be given an objective definition of "abandonment" in anything other than practical and financial terms. But without legal terms, there is no clear threshold. NLeeuw (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish Women's Cup

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: competition was officially renamed in 2022; main article, navbox and and articles for editions since the change have already been amended Crowsus (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Given that all the articles from 2006–07 Scottish Women's Cup to 2021–22 Scottish Women's Cup are using the old name, perhaps the current category name should become a redirect to the new one? – numbermaniac 07:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems sensible. GiantSnowman 19:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs with feminist themes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overly broad and subjective, many entries are not even cited as such in the article. Also see category's talk page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 17:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt proposal: Rename to Category:Songs about feminism per siblings in Category:Songs by theme (default catname: Songs about Foo). This makes it easier to purge all items which do not belong in the category, but the category itself is relevant. NLeeuw (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't imagine that a song really is about feminism, or about any -ism for that matter. Non-fiction can be about an -ism for sure, but that is probably about it. So initially I'd say delete the category. But if someone can give a few examples of articles with songs that are seriously about feminism I might switch to the alternative proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Surely a song about feminism doesn't necessarily have to contain the word feminism (or derivatives)? Countless Category:Songs about Jesus never mention the word religion, and ironically, the famous song "Losing My Religion" isn't actually about religion (The title phrase is an expression from the Southern United States that means "losing one's temper or civility" or "feeling frustrated and desperate".).
    It's very easy to find examples of songs about feminism when we take a look at the articles already in the category. For example, "Ain't No Way to Treat a Lady" suffices when it quotes the Los Angeles Times as saying: Schock [in her oeuvre] offers a sort of applied feminism [via] lyrics which [without] rhetoric...cut to the heart of contemporary fears & uncertainties. Alejandro (song)#Music and lyrics has several critics interpret it as a song about feminism. And so on. This category isn't nonsense. The catname is just not in line with the rest of the category tree, but that can easily be fixed. NLeeuw (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can imagine there being a song about feminism, but such songs must be extraordinarily rare if they exist at all. I know I haven't heard a single one in my collection of several hundred albums. Even if such songs exist, it makes more sense to delete this category before creating that category, since renaming would lend weight to the misconception (expressed in Nleeuw's posts above) that "songs about feminism" and "songs with feminist themes" are just two different phrasings for the same thing, and there is almost certainly no overlap between the two categories anyway.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Falls under WP:SUBJECTIVECAT to a huge degree. They are also not all necessarily "about feminism" so that suggestion makes no sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective category as per Zxcbnm. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nigerian monarchs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other "Monarchs in (insert country name here)" categories - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 16:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rus' settlements

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Geography of Kievan Rus' better fits the overall category tree, as d:Q21968150 (Geography of Kievan Rus') shows. NLeeuw (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American criminals

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The Manual of Style/BIOGRAPHY says that Labels such as "criminal", "convicted felon", "fraudster", and "convicted sex offender" are imprecise and could be construed as name-calling or a moral judgement. It is better to describe the specific crime itself. Seems a bit illogical to then attach the label per category to every person convicted of a crime. I therefore propose to move the category and the subcategories containing the word "criminals", with the exception of "Fictional American criminals", to "Americans convicted of crimes", "21st century Americans convicted of crimes", etc. There's currently a discussion at the Donald Trump talk page whether to add the category. The argument against using it is MOS:CONVICTEDFELON; the argument for using it is that the definition for inclusion in the category (convicted of a felony by one or more Federal Article III courts or State courts) applies. Removing the word "criminal" from the categories would solve the problem. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American stained glass artists and manufacturers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This overlaps with Category:Glassmaking companies of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railways in the Cook Islands

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as it contains just one article and is unlikely to ever have more. Nurg (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. (I was being conservative at first.) Nurg (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian protectionists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category, that I'm not sure is defining. delete for now. SMasonGarrison 02:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Patriotic War, 1st class

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These categories were discussed and deleted prior. Toadboy123 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Asia Institute Heidelberg faculty

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Academic staff of Heidelberg University not subcategorized by its constituent facilities. Gjs238 (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the category 'South Asia Institute Heidelberg faculty' needs to be retained. If you look at the category 'Heidelberg University', you will see many subcategories listed underneath, most being the faculty or alumni of this or that institute or department of the university. Therefore, the category 'South Asia Institute Heidelberg faculty' has a precedent for existing, and instead of being merged with 'Academic staff of Heidelberg University', it should be retained as a standalone subcategory of the category 'Heidelberg University'. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal of Apandeyhp89. -- Just N. (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I don't see the "...many subcategories listed underneath... of this or that institute or department of the university." I see:

Category:Heidelberg University
> Category:Heidelberg University alumni
> Category:Academic staff of Heidelberg University
> Category:South Asia Institute Heidelberg faculty (the category in question).
In the very least, Category:South Asia Institute Heidelberg faculty would be a subcategory of Category:Academic staff of Heidelberg University.
Gjs238 (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not seeing opposition to the rename proposal if kept, but no consensus on whether the category should continue to exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Silent radio stations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is not an appropriate category. Being silent is a temporary characteristic of a radio station, so one would expect stations to move in and out of this category all the time. (Reasons for silence may include financial reasons, facility damage, etc.) Some stations in this category may never return to the air and eventually need switching to defunct station categories. Categorization is inappropriate for this condition. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as category creator): Being "silent", where a station is allowed to be off the air but still retain it's broadcast license, is definitely intended to be temporary and 20 years ago I would have agreed with the nominator. But the broadcast industry is in such shambles that being silent often persists. WHNQ (AM) went off the air in 2023 for financial reasons while WVOD did so in 2024. Even with stations that went silent this year, I wonder if it would really be WP:CRYSTALBALL to add them to Category:Defunct radio stations right now: WLZR was an uneconomical daytime-only AM station and WLBG had been for sale for 8 years but could not find a buyer. Also note that these articles typically have both their infobox and and text updated to reflect they are silent, so a category doesn't seem like too much overhead.
    A radio station that doesn't broadcast on the radio seems defining to me, but this could also work as a maintenance category. I look forward to other perspectives! - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More perspectives would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge to the tree of Category:Defunct radio stations which is what they are in practice. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per Dark (broadcasting), the dividing line between silent and defunct seems to be whether they still have the license or not. So, Support Manual Purge, per Marcocapelle. I'm unsure if the remaining (licensed) stations' category should be kept or listified. I think that would be better known after purging the defunct ones. - jc37 21:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your idea would make sense if there were known defunct stations here. Let me explain a feature of US law that results in stations that might be dead but not dead yet. We've seen stations go off the air because they lose their tower site or whatever. Then they try to get back on the air. Under US law, you get 12 months to get back on the air before your license expires. Then you're well and truly defunct. WCMS-FM should be dead, but the FCC hasn't marked it for deletion yet. I also found stations that don't qualify to be listed as silent, including one that was off the air for only five days and one I can't tell was off the air at all. Cases like WVES (FM) and KZGD, which I double-checked, exemplify why this should not be a category. The status is too transitory. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for improving those articles. Ideally, the FCC would have two statuses: "making repairs/upgrades with vendors under contract" and "indefinitely shut down and license for sale". I would see the former as non-defining and the latter as defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Jc37's suggestion to purge and then reassess?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think purging would solve something. Presumably the intention is to remove stations from the category that have been silent but now back in the air. So after purging we will be left with stations that are still silent and thus (de facto, but not de jure) defunct. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I assumed purging meant moving stations to "defunct" categories and was going to ask what for clarification on which stations that would apply to: KZAC was stripped of its most valuable asset (the old "KSFO" call letters) and shut down while another editor has already reworded the intro of WTRX to be in the past tense. But I'm also fine removing ones that are back on the air if that's the consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century Spanish Jews

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, Spain did not exist yet and "Sephardi" already covers the fact that it is on the Iberian Peninsula. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean opposed. This category helps with navigation. 14th-century Spanish people is a category as is 15th-century Spanish people SMasonGarrison 14:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mason's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose per Mason. Marcocapelle's point that "Spain" didn't exist yet has merit, but this is the wrong venue/way to raise that point. If that were the point, I would recommend that Marco starts with nominating Category:8th-century Spanish people, and then see what others think. The nominated categories are too interwoven with the larger tree to untangle them here as proposed. NLeeuw (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 10th millennium BC

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It's the only entry in the 10th-millennium BC works category, so there's really no need for this category to be divided into subcategories at all. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category. Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish ministers of Ukraine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It's unclear whether this category is for Ukrainian ministers who are of Jewish descent (e.g. Oleksii Reznikov, Yevhen Chervonenko), or for people who held the historical position of Minister of Jewish Affairs in the Ukrainian People's Republic (e.g. Moishe Zilberfarb, Abraham Revusky, Zeev Latsky). I suggest splitting the category to reflect this, in line with the parent category Category:Ukrainian politicians of Jewish desent (there is a typo in this category and I have nominated it for speedy renaming), which was itself recently renamed (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_22#Category:Jewish_Ukrainian_politicians). Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 23:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I'm fine with this - I guess we don't need a separate Category:Ukrainian ministers of Jewish descent that would have only two entries, so those two articles can just go in the parent category Category:Ukrainian politicians of Jewish descent. Helpful Cat {talk} 15:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marcocappelle's comment. NLeeuw (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National minority ministers of Ukraine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The title is ambiguous about whether this category is for ministers who held positions related to national minorities (which I understand were historical positions in the Ukrainian People's Republic), or if it's for any Ukrainian ministers who belong to national minorities. Currently, the category is being used in the former way, as the only two entries are the deputy-secretary of Polish affairs (Mieczysław Mickiewicz) and the minister of Great Russian affairs (Dmitry Odinets) in the UPR. I suggest renaming the category to keep its scope clear, and prevent editors adding other ministers based on their ethnic descent. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_July_2#Category:Jewish_ministers_of_Ukraine. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 23:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Medal "For the Development of Virgin Lands"

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per WP:OCAWARD and WP:DEFINING because receiving the medal is not a defining characteristic for most recipients, such as Yuri Gagarin, and its broadly awarded to many, including non-notable individuals, thus failing to justify a distinct award category. - Toadboy123 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


July 13

[edit]

A-Bomb crews

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Just trying to sort out the grammatical issues properly. :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, "Crews that dropped" would refer to each crew collectively, whereas here "crew," short for "aircrew" is being used to refer to the members of the aircrews individually. Like in some of the examples given in the OED:
  • "It has been quite impossible for many young married pilots and aircrew to make proper provision for their dependents."
  • "The squadron was commissioned in 2001 to train aircrew and engineers in every aspect of the Navy's new Merlin helicopter." Jahaza (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then why not propose an alternative name that's less clunky, instead of opposing? It's clear that this name isn't easy to parse as is. SMasonGarrison 23:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I decided against adding further clunkiness to the name with "Members of crews...", which is readily inferred and understood. However, I would have no problem with using the term "aircrews" if other editors find that preferable. Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chief Presidential Secretaries (South Korea)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: think not proper noun; also no name collision so disambig fmt not necessary I think? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Altai cuisine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Another language family WP:OR WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:CROSSCAT. None of the articles even mention the Altai people, let alone what a particular dish or culinary product is called in any of the Altai languages. Many things just seem to be part of general Central Asian cuisine and have no special link to the Altaians. (Some dishes are only linked to Mongolian/Mongolic peoples, not Turkic, so that would also theoretically exclude the Altaians). NLeeuw (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Founders of cities in New Spain

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Moving to full due to oppose at speedy SMasonGarrison 19:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From speedy

SMasonGarrison 19:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose, the current title is more accurate as this mostly involves conquistadores. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal of this nom was only to harmonize the names. This one is an outlier. I also have doubts whether the nationality is defining, as NLeeuw details below. I think that's worthy of its own CFD. Would you rather it be purged and then renamed? SMasonGarrison 20:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current category tree Category:City founders has only 2 types of child categories: fictional and mythological founders on the one hand, and historical ones on the other; the latter are all categorised by nationality, not by the location of the city they founded. If we presume that nationality is WP:DEFINING for a city founder, then this nomination only makes sense.
The alternative offered by John Pack Lambert is interesting, but cannot be used to oppose the entire category tree, unless we first all agree that nationality is WP:NONDEFINING for a city founder, but the location where they founded the city is defining for that city founder. Those are two separate questions. Moreover, how does he imagine the category tree? The location of the city needs to defining somehow as well, so... Category:Populated places by establishment > Populated places established in New Spain > Category:Founders of cities in New Spain? I don't think the middle one makes much sense. The cities will stay put in the location where they were founded of course, so I wouldn't make that a new, redundant category tree. But I'm open to hearing arguments. NLeeuw (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that JPL makes a good analogy with mayors of populated places-- that the location of the city is defining, not the nationality of the founder. (I'm also not sure that he's allowed to participate in speedy under his editing restrictions.) SMasonGarrison 20:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"unless we first all agree that nationality is WP:NONDEFINING for a city founder, but the location where they founded the city is defining for that city founder."
Nationality doesn't have to be non-defining, because we can have more than one category per article. But the place that they found clearly seems to me to be defining. Imagine creating a category: Founders of American colonies, it could plausibly contain both Peter Stuyvesant and Roger Williams. We probably wouldn't want categories based solely on national origin at all, e.g. "Dutch founders of colonies," but rather "Founders of Dutch Colonies" or "Dutch colony founders."
Similarly, we'd conceptualize Alexander Hamilton as a founder of the United States, even though he was born in Saint Kitts and Nevis. We probably wouldn't recategorize him as "Founders of countries from Saint Kitts and Nevis." Jahaza (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So should we be renaming all of these as Founders of populated places in FOO? SMasonGarrison 20:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current title is accurate for this category per JPL even if it means the title is non-standard. Open to other discussions about sibling cats, but not sure what my !votes would be without looking at them. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hereditary peeresses created by William IV

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category with only a redirect. delete for now SMasonGarrison 16:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executive secretaries of the Economic Community of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Some extraneous words got introduced during the requested renaming a few days ago. There is no "economic community" involved here. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electoral disputes in Ghana

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category newly created for just one thing. There is no Category:Electoral disputes parent tree for this to be a part of, and no "Electoral disputes in [Country]" siblings for any other country -- and nothing exists at the obvious alternate wording possibilities of "Election disputes" or "Disputed elections" either -- so if we're not otherwise categorizing elections on this basis on a comprehensive basis in every country across the board, then Ghana doesn't have a special need of this for just one thing. Bearcat (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turn of a century

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be WP:SHAREDNAME * Pppery * it has begun... 04:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If deleted, Category:Turn of a time period will be empty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century Afghan women painters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden this category and repurpose it to include the missing parent category of Afghan women artists instead SMasonGarrison 02:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as a missing parent. Inclusion in painter categories should be double-checked for each article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liechtenstein plumbers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 02:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minangkabau culture

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only remaining contents after two CfD's is a redirect to Minangkabau people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liechtenstein hoteliers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Category:Liechtenstein innkeepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is the only populated category in this entire tree SMasonGarrison 02:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to upmerging for the time being. TheBritinator (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: @Smasongarrison & @Marcocapelle, please note that Category:Liechtenstein hoteliers and Category:Liechtenstein restaurateurs are now populated by two and one entries respectively. TheBritinator (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please populate categories when you create them. SMasonGarrison 23:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I have now done. TheBritinator (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that you should populate them WHEN you make them. SMasonGarrison 20:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tax farmers of Siam

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think that we should broaden this category to not be limited to Siam SMasonGarrison 01:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The RM closed in favor of moving the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slitheen novels

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A subcategory for one alien species' appearances in novels, of which it only appears in two. There was presently only one article in it, before I BLAR'd it recently for lacking in SIGCOV while I was researching the monster in question. Now it lacks none, and regardless of the article that used to be present there, it's an unnecessary subcategory that can't even reach three entries if it wants to. No need for this category to remain. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was seemingly emptied out of process. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan members

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per the discussion at the last CFD: almost all KKK members are American. Not enough aren't to diffuse by nationality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus to mer the American category, but no consensus yet for the Canadian one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


July 12

[edit]

Category:Vegetation templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I propose upmerging the only template in the category – Template:Vegetation – into the parent category Botany navigational boxes. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stanley Cup Finals

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This may qualify as WP:C2D in response to Talk:Stanley Cup Final#RfC/RM on "Final" vs "Finals" (discussion can be seen here), though this request was challenged by one editor. Left guide (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neomexicano slave owners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category and it's not clear to me that this intersection is defining given that there is no Category:Neomexicano people. SMasonGarrison 22:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison What happened to the other people in the category? Somebody emptied it. It would be worth finding out why before this category is deleted. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that JPL removed them [4] SMasonGarrison 20:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Johnpacklambert If so, what was the reason for removal? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mister World templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This template category only has onetwo templates in it SMasonGarrison 20:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proto-punk groups

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge newly created category into previously existing category. Gjs238 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monarchs of Epirus

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer (0 P, 1 C). NLeeuw (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croatian monarchs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Same scope. Parents Category:People of medieval Croatia, Category:Heads of state of Croatia, Category:Heads of state of former countries indicate per WP:C2C the name should be of Croatia. NLeeuw (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serb families

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Manually merge per WP:NARROWCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT. The only child categories not already in Category:Serbian families are:
The only articles not already in Category:Serbian families are:

Category:Albanian monarchs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with all of the other subcategories in Monarchs by country - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 17:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Annenberg

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename this to Annenberg Foundation and purge it so it avoids the pitfall of being a category of things named after the Category:Annenberg family SMasonGarrison 16:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celtic families

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Another language family / geography WP:OR WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:CROSSCAT. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 22#Category:Celtic clans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Celtic clans, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 21#Category:Celtic women, etc. As these precedents have established, it is inappropriate to label anyone 'Celtic' after the year 500 BCE. Celts (modern) is a modern idea about the identity of people living in certain modern regions of Europe, whether they actually speak any Celtic language or not, and whether they actually self-identify with it or not. I took some samples from Category:Cornish families (basically all of them), Category:Irish families, and Category:Scottish families. None of them was about families mentioned in sources before the year 1000 BCE, none of them was about anything 'Celtic' (except maybe their surname), and many of these families immigrated from elsewhere, e.g. to Cornwall from England, Normandy, Brittany, Ireland etc. so that we can't assume that they even spoke Celtic languages, or that if they did, this was WP:DEFINING for who they were as a family. For comparison: all other siblings in Category:European families are defined by nationality (except Category:Germanic families, which I have just speeded to be renamed to Early Germanic families, because that category tree is limited to pre-1200 people and groups of people by long-standing consensus). There is no Category:Slavic families, no Category:Romance families or Category:Latin families, no Category:Baltic families etc., and rightly so. NLeeuw (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Countries results at Miss Universe

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: highly overlapping SMasonGarrison 15:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military history of the Byzantine Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Since the Byazantine empire no longer exists everything it (or its army) did is by definition history; also these two categories form a loop. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Mongols

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These seem to be the same (and form a category loop of each other). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian beauty pageant templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopluated category. only one template in here SMasonGarrison 15:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James River Watershed

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category forms a loop with Category:James River (Virginia) and is not a defining characteristic of Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System. Manually move Category:James River (Virginia) up to Category:Chesapeake Bay watershed. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Attempted assassinations of presidents of the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per actual content, and to more clearly distinguish from successful assasinations, which are in a separate category (that is currently forming a category loop with this one). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Face of Beauty International

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. this only contains the eponymous article and the logo. SMasonGarrison 15:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2013 crimes in New Jersey

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these categories only has 1-2 pages. Per WP:OCYEAR, suggesting a merge to the decade category. – numbermaniac 14:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The collection of the National Gallery (Norway) entered the National Museum of Norway in 2022; the categories should be for the current location, not the previous one.
Category:Collection of the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design (an alternative name for the current museum) also exists, with one article: Paus collection. That category should be merged into Category:Collection of the National Museum of Norway if this CfR is successful. Ham II (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orders of battle Russian invasion of Ukraine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Current category name is not grammatical in the English language. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian people of Norman descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, with few exceptions we do not categorize people by provincial descent. These are people of Normandian descent rather than Norman descent per se. The main article Norman Canadians is also of questionable quality. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime in the Dutch East Indies by type

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging is unnecessary, the subcategory is already in Category:Social history of the Dutch East Indies. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom SMasonGarrison 15:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovenian novels 1900-2000

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCYEAR. It makes more sense to group them into centuries since most decades are empty and some years have a single entry. TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet finished categorizing these novels. Only one decade - the 1920s - would be empty in the end. So I'd suggest grouping by decade rather than century. I think this would be more useful. 19th century novels may seem like a reasonable group, but there is a lot of difference between a novel from the 1900s and one from the 1950s or 1990s. Meanwhile, I'll wait to see what is decided. Robina Fox (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "1900-2000", it should be Category:20th-century Slovenian novels. See Category:20th-century novels for similar categories by nationality or language. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait to see what is decided.
@Robina Fox I'd suggest you continue adding novels so that we can see whether there are enough of them to justify grouping them by decade. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than that: 1900s - 2, 1910s - 1, 1930s - 3, 1940s - 1, 1950s - 1, 1960s - 5, 1970s - 3, 1980s - 5, 1990s - 20. This includes all current 1900 to 1999 Slovenian novel articles. Not enough, I expect, though perhaps the 1990s could be a separate subcat under 20th-century Slovenian novels. --- Robina Fox (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it makes sense to create a subcat for 1990. TurboSuperA+(connect) 05:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovenian novels 1800-1900

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCYEAR. It wouldn't make sense to group them by decade because some decades would have only one entry. Grouping them by the century makes sense. TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "1800-1900", it should be Category:19th-century Slovenian novels. See Category:19th-century novels for similar categories by nationality or language. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cagua players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. There is even no mention of it in the articles at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sabaneta, Barinas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. No need to merge, because the article is already in Category:Municipalities of Barinas (state). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User python-0.5

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function, compare Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_27#Category:User_fr-0.5, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_19#Category:User_ru-0.5, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/May_2007#Category:User_Hrkt-0.5. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French people of Norman descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, these are French people whose parents came from the (former) province of Normandy. We do not normally categorize people by provincial descent in their own country. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secretaries-general of political parties

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Highly overlapping. Merge target states that "This category is for holders of positions of General secretary, Secretary-general, First secretary or other associated titles, given to leaders of some international organizations political parties, trade unions and other organizations." SMasonGarrison 04:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leaders of political parties by ideology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. SMasonGarrison 04:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


July 11

[edit]

Category:Jones (Bowie) family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't imagine most people know the members of this family by the name "Jones," which is David Bowie's original surname. There's already a Category:Bowie family for the colonial family of John Bowie Sr. so we can't use that. I've given the proposed name the traditional "show business" we used for entertainment families that need disambiguation. Mike Selinker (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games with low poly graphics

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category runs into WP:SUBJECTIVECAT issues. Kind of hard to define what "low-poly" actually means. I might consider PS2 games "low-poly" while others might call PS1 games "low-poly". There is no set definition, though it's obvious to tell when a game is retro-styled. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category description states that it refers to graphics "similar to those of the fifth generation of video game consoles" as a stylistic choice. Category:Retro-style video games is a very broad category that includes pixel art, including 8 and 16-bit, and is not 3D. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it states that, it's not necessarily what the title implies. Maybe "Retro-style 3D video games" might be a good renaming compromise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Main article Low poly itself says: There is no defined threshold for a mesh to be low poly; low poly is always a relative term and depends on... (goes on to list 3 factors, adding that there are other factors, and that whole summary is WP:UNSOURCED). Because it lacks a commonly accepted definition, "low poly" automatically becomes WP:NONDEFINING for the purpose of categorisation. NLeeuw (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Something with a fluid definition is better in the narrative of the articles where nuance can be discussed, as opposed to a binary in/out category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have an article defining the concept of low poly, and this should guide how the category is approached. Retro-style is much broader and all-encompassing — it includes 8-bit, sprite graphics, and so on. In contrast, low poly appears to be a fairly well-defined concept that can be distinguished from that broader set. In sources related to games, it also seems to be a fairly established term [5][6][7][8][9]. As for individual games, in borderline cases we should primarily rely on whether sources describe the game that way, and include such characteristics in the article. Solidest (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Neighborhood (TV series)

[edit]
Also including the following related categories in this nomination:
Nominator's rationale: With only two distinct articles for the entire series, this category and its subcategories are full of redirects which target one of those two. Being in appropriate lists of seasons, episodes or characters categories should be enough here. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Talkin' 'Bout Your Generation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: According to the main article, the 3 people in this category are the host of the show and the 2 team captains. I believe this violates WP:PERFCAT. – numbermaniac 16:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Azerbaijani medical physicists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Azerbaijani physicists. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norman society

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Years and decades in pre-existing Romania

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCYEAR, WP:NARROWCAT and per precedent in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_1#Years_and_decades_in_pre-existing_Romania. These categories have been created after the previous discussion. A second merge target is not necessary, the articles are already in a century category of Moldavia, Transylvania or Wallachia. Note that these are not massively overpopulated categories, e.g. Category:17th century in Moldavia directly contains only 12 articles and Category:17th-century establishments in Moldavia contains another 12 articles. Other century categories even less. Pinging contributors to previous discussions: @Fram, Numbermaniac, Kaffet i halsen, RevelationDirect, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Justus Nussbaum:. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nominator - particularly the individual year categories per WP:OCYEAR. These categories with 1-2 pages in them don't help readers navigate between related topics. (Side note, the 1629 category has not been tagged.) – numbermaniac 07:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural Note: The 1639 subcat was tagged as of this time stamp.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and at the very least also upmerge to 17th century establishments in Romania. I hope this has been done with the previous deletions of such czts for other years, otherwise please correct this oversight. These deletions really only make things harder to find, not easier, and serve no good purpose at all but are busybodywork. Fram (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:NARROWCAT, and WP:OCYEAR. I also don't see the point in keeping these underpopulated years, when we just deleted the others. (Hopefully English Wikipedia's coverage of this topic area grows and, if we get to the point where most years are well populated, no objection to recreation at that time.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images with non-English text

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Clearer, less confusing, category name. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Move to match main article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Alternatively, if people think it might be better to WP:SHORTFORM the main article to AI, might do an RM first) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2020 crimes in New York (state)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: One article in the category. Suggest upmerging to the decade category for now. – numbermaniac 08:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Later dukes of Normandy

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. The Duchy of Normandy lost its independence in 1204 and duke of Normandy became an empty title afterwards. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chilean geochemists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Chilean chemists and Category:Chilean geologists.

Also nominating for merge:

Category:Bashania

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in the category. Merging is not needed since the page is already in another subcategory, Bambusoideae genera. – numbermaniac 04:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SM Town

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is largely a duplicate of Category:SM Entertainment artists. All SM Entertainment artists are collectively branded as SM Town, which means that all Category:SM Entertainment artists members would also theoretically belong in Category:SM Town.

"<X record label> artists" is the naming convention that seems to be settled upon for lists of artists under a record label (see Category:Recording artists by label, so it makes sense to keep Category:SM Entertainment artists and nix the other.

Proposing cleaning all the artists out of Category:SM Town as they're already covered by the other category. This would then leave only 2 or 3 remaining articles (SM Station, SuperStar SM Town and I Am (2012 film) are what I see at a glance), which should be just merged into Category:SM Entertainment (or another one of its subcategories) as appropriate. RachelTensions (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miss Thailand templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. only one template in here SMasonGarrison 02:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Windows-only freeware

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Confusing category, as it doesn't make clear whether the software should be Windows-only in general, or that only its Windows version should be free. Furthermore, I don't see how this specifically is defining, compared to it just being freeware. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proprietary software by operating system

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unencyclopedic cross-categorization.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose maybe not all of them, but the OS-only proprietary software seems clearly defining. SportingFlyer T·C 15:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it defining? Proprietary software is basically the default, there is nothing special about it. Since one would not specifically mention the fact that it is "proprietary" when discussing it, it's not defining in the same way that "Male soldiers" is not defining. These types of things are usually done by new users who don't know what NONDEF policy is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, I know that also implies Category:Proprietary software, made by a banned user, should also be deleted, but I wanted to avoid a trainwreck since that one does have a main article. I think that people can agree that these in particular are never actually more defining than just the platform the software is on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher families

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The first set of Fishers is all from Gap Inc. It's certainly less known than the actors that make up the second family. The fact that these family members of Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher are from Burbank (which not all of them are) is rather irrelevant. They're all actors and movie industry folk, though. Seems better to attach them to that detail. But the third category is made up of a family from Norfolk, England, which is also in show business but is far less known. So, I'd suggest attaching a demonym to both. The fourth category is fine as is, but refers to a company called Fisher Brothers, which is how the members are thought of (like Category:Marx Brothers or Category:Ritz Brothers). I'd suggest making Category:Fisher family a redirect for all four. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion on the rename target is requested :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Countries results at Miss Grand International

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. This category is highly overlapping SMasonGarrison 02:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brazilian geochemists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Brazilian geologists and Category:Geochemists. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom SMasonGarrison 02:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bengali-language science fiction romantic films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with others categories Kailash29792 (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miss Grand Thailand templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one template in here SMasonGarrison 01:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fénix Awards

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now there are only two pages in the award that are already interlinked SMasonGarrison 01:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


July 10

[edit]

Category:Eastern cuisine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. In effect, 'Eastern' should be read as 'Asian'. It identifies Asian cuisine as its main article, and all three 3 P and all 4 P are about Asian stuff. NLeeuw (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bamboo taxa

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category's very existence is an undesirable category loop ... * Pppery * it has begun... 18:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway companies disestablished in 1829

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This entire tree only has a single page. – numbermaniac 07:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of the Sloboda Ukraine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer, 1 C, 0 P. Upmerge for now. NLeeuw (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scandinavian countries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant WP:NARROWCAT. It has no navigational value over parent Category:Scandinavia, which already says which 3 countries it is, and Category:Scandinavian history by country is already a grandchild of Category:Scandinavia. NLeeuw (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:De Salis family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, it concerns the same family. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South African Thoroughbred Horse of the Year

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. underpopulated SMasonGarrison 05:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:July 2023 crimes in Oceania

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article in the category. A merge isn't needed because the article is already in another category in the tree, 2023 murders in Australia. – numbermaniac 04:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnya redundant layers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 6 redundant layers:
Categories no. #1 to #6 are redundant layers, all created by the same user on the same day (19 January 2025). Only category no. #7 (also created that day by the same user, apparently left empty until 9 February when someone else started populating it) is useful at the moment with 12 P, and it is in sufficient other category trees (Category:Chechen people by occupation tree and Category:Russian male martial artists). Therefore, I propose Deleting categories no. #1 to #6 as redundant layers for now. NLeeuw (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: As a follow-up, I recommend looking into Category:Chechen people in sports (1 C, 0 P; created 19 January 2025 by same user); Category:Martial arts in Chechnya (1 C, 0 P; created 3 January 2017); and the overlap between Category:Chechen martial artists (created 19 August 2007), Category:Martial artists from Chechnya and Category:Martial artists from Grozny (both created 7 February 2025 by a different user).
These duplications seem to be symptoms of a larger problem, namely that Category:Russian people by federal subject, which is in the Category:People by nationality tree, has child categories which are all named People from Fooland, including Category:People from Chechnya. However, the People from Fooland formula is mostly used to indicate where people live or have lived, regardless of their nationality.
Meanwhile, Category:Chechen people is mostly tied to the Category:People by ethnicity tree through parent Category:European people by ethnicity. But, it is also in the Category:Russian people by descent, which is a child of Category:Russian people, which is in the Category:People by nationality tree. The cat description seems to be lumping them together: Chechen people - People from Chechnya or people of Chechen ethnicity. I'd like to highlight that this category was already challenged when it was created as such in 2007; the initialy cat desc People from the Chechen Republic. was changed to Chechen people - People from Chechnya or people of Chechen ethnicity. soon after and has remained unchanged ever since, a crosscat between nationality and ethnicity. NLeeuw (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counts de Salis-Soglio and Comtes de Salis-Seewis

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These seem to be the same. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Management cybernetics

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains a large number of pages and subcats from extremely varied topics, almost none of which are really about cybernetics. Delete as non-defining * Pppery * it has begun... 01:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Basketball Association flagship radio stations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCASSOC, WP:NONDEFINING, and WP:CLNT
The American Basketball Association operated from 1967 to 1976 and this contains radio stations that aired games. (I'm not totally sure what "flagship" means here; the usage seems different than Flagship (radio)). This dated and relatively brief association is not defining in the category space and the same information is already in List of American Basketball Association broadcasters for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IndyCar Series on the radio

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT
This category was created in 2007 and so far the only article is Indianapolis Motor Speedway Radio Network. No objection to future recreation though, if multiple new articles ever get published. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2025 in Finnish sport by month

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Clean up stragglers that should have been part of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 16#Danish sport by year and month but weren't. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transgenders' gender

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename per Transgender men, Transgender women, Category:Transgender men, Category:Transgender women, Category:Transgender men by occupation, and Category:Transgender women by occupation, i.e. "Transgender men" and "Transgender women" are the common expression. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the examples in the nominator's rationale are compound nouns. Is there evidence of "transgender men"(/"man") or "transgender women"(/"woman") being commonly used as compound adjectives in the way they are in the proposed category names? Or, looking at it another way, perhaps there is such evidence for "women"/"woman" as an adjective, which here is modified by another adjective, but is there for "men"/"man" as an adjective? Ham II (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Transgender male" as a compound noun is common, e.g. "transgender male pregnancy". Would be in favour of renaming "transgender female" categories to "transgender women" as Wikipedia tends to use "women" as an adjective rather than "female" even though it uses "male" as an adjective more than "men" (I'm not sure why this is the case, but I want to maintain consistency). Keep categories using "transgender male" as a compound noun, rename categories using "transgender female" as a compound noun. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'Transgender women adult models' is a pleonasm. Suggest deleting/merging with 'Transgender women models' Traumnovelle (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Traumnovelle I suspect you may have misunderstood. "Adult model" refers to a model who poses nude/in erotica, and is a distinct category from other modeling. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So not adult as in a human adult? I guess the wording is still somewhat awkward. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 00:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


July 9

[edit]

History of Urumqi by period

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: TIL that Ürümqi is spelled with the little dots above the u's (like the word Führer), not as "Urumqi". I have found numerous categories that should be renamed to fix this spelling mistake. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 22:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Max (streaming service) original programming

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Requesting this be merged into the HBO Max cat as, just like the parent cat I have requested to go back to the HBO Max name, the service has reverted to its original name. There will be some inevitable duplication between these cats, and it is fruitless to have a standalone cat for this short-lived name. The article List of HBO Max original programming currently covers the service's programming from both names, so the cats should follow suit. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 22:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per anachronism and long standing consensus. Long standing way of how film and television pages handle production and distribution categories is to list the pages in the categories of the actual entity, and not use a made up system. Adventure Time: Fionna and Cake, for example, was never released on something called "HBO Max". It was released on the streaming service Max. The above proposal leads to idiotic edits such as this which not only are incorrect, but makes it incredibly harder down the road to find out what was released where. Gonnym (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-corruption activism by country

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriates from the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza in France

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category, which is not helpful for navigation. The article happens to be about an ambassador. Although ambassador on behalf of the duke of Parma, Category:People from the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza does not really seem a good merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek expatriates in the Ayutthaya Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: dual merge, only one article in this category, this is not helpful for navigation. Strictly speaking the article should be in Category:Immigrants in the Ayutthaya Kingdom but that category does not exist so then let's be pragmatic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fred Again

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 08:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1837 disestablishments in Washington, D.C.

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1-2 pages in each of these categories. Not enough to justify splitting by year, per WP:OCYEAR. – numbermaniac 08:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Senegambian culture

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT / redundant layer. Note that the Senegambia Confederation existed for just 7.5 years (1982–1989). The region article Senegambia (the only P in this category) does have a (small) section Senegambia#Culture, but that's it. The 2 child categories are already in the same parents Category:West African culture and Category:Culture of Africa by country, and are also grandchildren of parent Category:Senegambia, which also already contains the only article Senegambia. NLeeuw (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Huai River floods

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category with a single page in it SMasonGarrison 02:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Duchy of Normandy

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Can't we combine these? These seem to have a ton of overlap without a lot of help for navigation SMasonGarrison 01:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriates from the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza in France

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now this category is extremely underpopulated SMasonGarrison 01:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Punjabi-speaking countries and territories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant - articles in category already in the similar Category:Countries and territories where Punjabi is an official language. Brings nothing new to the table, no improvement to navigation. Gjs238 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This category serves a distinct purpose. While Category:Countries and territories where Punjabi is an official language focuses on legal or administrative status, this category highlights regions where Punjabi is the majority spoken language, even if not officially recognized. For example:
  • In Pakistan's Punjab province, Punjabi is the mother tongue of the vast majority, yet Urdu is the official language.
  • In India’s Punjab, Punjabi is both official and majority spoken — this overlap does not negate the importance of non-official majority cases.
This category helps in sociolinguistic and demographic navigation, offering insights that an "official language" category cannot capture alone. The two are complementary, not redundant. ChronoVeritasScavenger (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the significance of the issues of recognising the Punjabi language in Punjab, Pakistan to many people living there. But categorisation is not the best way to highlight these issues. If this topic is important to you, I would recommend expanding the Punjabi Language Movement article instead. NLeeuw (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, @NLeeuw. I understand your point about the limitations of categorization as a platform for broader language activism. However, this category — "Punjabi-speaking countries and territories" — is not intended as advocacy, but rather as a factual, linguistic-demographic classification.
The key distinction is this:
  • "Countries and territories where Punjabi is an official language" reflects state recognition,
  • while "Punjabi-speaking countries and territories" reflects actual majority/minority usage, regardless of official status.
ChronoVeritasScavenger (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw ChronoVeritasScavenger (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but for the reasons I have outlined below, we cannot use "actual majority/minority usage, regardless of official status" in language/geography categorisation. NLeeuw (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent, we are sticking to "official language" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. There is strong consensus to not classify countries and territories by how many people in it speak a certain language due to verifiability issues, WP:ARBITRARYCAT/WP:SUBJECTIVECAT issues with which percentage to consider WP:DEFINING, whether to count only citizens, or also expats, migrants (legal or illegal), tourists, passers-by, all inhabitants, and so on, and whether only native speakers count or also anyone who has played a Duolingo course or two in Fooian while renting an apartment in the capital city of Barland for 6 months etc.. The status of official language is the only objective, verifiable and defining characteristic that requires no arbitrary or subjective thresholds for inclusion. NLeeuw (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions

[edit]

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of unclosed discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

For older closed and unclosed discussions, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days.