Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 01:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC). Currently, there are 90 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).

– 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]

Opposed requests

[edit]

On hold pending other discussion

[edit]
Done at Talk:Swedish Institute of Dramatic Art#Requested move 21 May 2025. TSventon (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to full discussion

[edit]

Current discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

July 4

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

July 3

[edit]

Category:Modules subject to page protection

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I have always felt that this is a redundant category exclusively used in {{module rating}} and that this category probably is better off merged. If one needs to truly get a list of all protected modules this exists. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesome Aasim and Justus Nussbaum: thoughts on Pppery's comment? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to deletion either if that is desired. We can just quick and dirty merge and turn this into a category redirect for historical reasons, or delete and have nothing there. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 00:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Takahama, Aichi

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that nominator was blocked as a sock, so their !vote should be discounted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rebels in the Holy Roman Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Under populated. If not merged, it needs to be renamed to Rebels from the Holy Roman Empire SMasonGarrison 03:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I populated the category. Rename per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    only 7 entries is not really populated (and one is a rebel group not even a person). Also are the connection between the entries strong enough to really consider this a category at all? It seems rather unlikely that people will look or be able to grasp the relations between the aristocratic leader of the Dutch revolt who rebelled mostly against the Burgundian/Spanish empire to some local peasant leaders in Austria that died before the previously named Dutch aristocrat was even born. If the category remains as temporarily geographically and socially diverse as it is now, population would require at least several dozens of entries to start to see a pattern that can be called a category. Loosely connected cases simply do not make a category of relevance in my mind.
    So in short support the reassigning of the entries to the People and Rebel categories (or both) as proposed. Arnoutf (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not agree with this objection. People being born in different times and socially diverse happens to every category that is not based on characteristics related to period or social class. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has it been populated enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Equatorial Guinea-film-stub

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think spaces are allowed in stub template names... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 23:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Textbooks in the Middle East

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category seems to be a grabbag of books SMasonGarrison 23:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blind blues musicians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: SMasonGarrison 19:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blind rock musicians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between genre and specific disability per EGRS SMasonGarrison 19:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rican social workers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT Gjs238 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You also need to make sure that they are in a Puerto Rican people category. SMasonGarrison 19:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, currently only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. The article is in lots of Puerto Rican people categories, so a second merge target is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commissions Cemeteries in Monaco

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Uniform with the other categories in the category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries. Arancycn (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political parties disestablished in the 1750s

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated decade category with only 3 pages. – numbermaniac 17:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Makeover reality television series

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is doing a bit of mixing of non-identical genres of programming that need to be better subcategorized for clarity -- however, I'm going with a CFD split discussion, rather than just creating subcategories myself, because I'm struggling to identify the best names for new subcategories and would like some input.
Most, but not all, of the contents here are personal style, fashion or health makeover shows like Queer Eye, Extreme Makeover or What Not to Wear -- but there's also a selection of building or institutional renovation shows like Ground Force, Motel Makeover, Restaurant Makeover and School Pride that can't be moved to the existing Category:Home renovation television series subcategory because they're not about homes, as well as two iterations of the car makeover series Pimp My Ride. (And, for the record, I also had to clear this category of a number of series that had been unnecessarily duplicate categorized in both this category and the home renovation subcategory at the same time.)
And when it comes to Queer Eye in particular, that obviously crosses over as both a "personal style makeover" show and a "home renovation" show at the same time, meaning it very much belongs in the home renovation subcategory even though moving it there would pull it out of being categorized alongside the other personal style makeover shows -- which is why I don't think creating a subcategory only for the real estate makeover stuff while leaving personal makeover stuff here would be the right answer either.
This absolutely remains appropriate as a parent category, so I'm not suggesting deletion, but it needs subcategories to better delinate the distinction between the human makeover shows and the object-or-structure makeover shows. But again, I'm struggling to identify the most suitable names for them -- style makeover? personal makeover? property makeover? institutional makeover? -- so I'm looking for some additional input. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linguists from Guyana

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry.

Also propose merging:

Category:Lists of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Only a single merge is necessary as the list does not belong in others e.g. Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures characters. – Fayenatic London 16:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linguists from Afghanistan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per normal naming convention for occupations by nationality.

Also propose renaming:

LibStar (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portuguese rugby union referees

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. The sole entry is already in Category:Australian rugby union referees LibStar (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Kingdom of Aragon

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge/rename with redirect for consistency with subcategories by century. The Kingdom of Aragon was the core crown land of the Crown of Aragon and for categorization it is not meaningful (or maintainable) to make a distinction between the Crown and the Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reading Keys players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is a category with only one member and no potential for growth. It's not even clear what it refers to but it is clear that, whatever it refers to, it's not a defining characteristic. The only member of the category is a deceased professional (gridiron) football player. But the {{Cat main}} template in the category redirects to an article about a minor league baseball team which does not mention the Reading Keys. The category is also in parent categories indicating it's a minor league baseball team. I can't find any record of such a baseball team existing. And if a football team by that name ever existed, it was so minor as to not be a defining characteristic of its only member. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Category:1560 treaties

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1-4 pages in each category. Per WP:OCYEAR, we can merge this into a single decade category. – numbermaniac 10:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films featuring songs by Pritam

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with others. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tongan people of German descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I already removed some people that I couldn't verify of German descent. The remaining 3 articles have no citation linking to German descent. So suggest deletion as unverifiable. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hostage taking in fiction

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Grammatical correctness. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about hostage taking

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Why was the category moved from the previous, correct name? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fijian rugby union referees

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Fijian referees and umpires.

Also nominating for merge:

LibStar (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American blind accordionists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between instrument and specific disability SMasonGarrison 04:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queensland Labor Party (1957–1978) members of the Parliament of Australia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in the category. – numbermaniac 04:08, 3 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]


July 2

[edit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Category:Lists of science fiction television characters by series

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: They seem to perform the same function --woodensuperman 15:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:20, 2 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]

Category:Madurai bridge stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough transclusions to warrant a stub category, which in this case, doesn't even have its own template and is not even affiliated with WikiProject Stub Sorting... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam provincal merger

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: After the Vietnam's Provincial Merger 2025 came to effect on 1 July 2025, Vietnam reduced its number of provinces and cities into 34. The Wikipedia categories need to follow the new provincial administrative units after merger. I propose merge all these categories and their subcategories to their new corresponding categories and subcategories.– Lâm 16:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination's tie to real-world decisions (edit: while I do support it, I still believe we should wait for further information on the decision) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expansion of slavery

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, it is unclear how the subcategories represent "expansion" per se. They contribute to the status quo at the time, but that is all to it. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 2 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]

Category:Roman royalty

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with parent categories. This was opposed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion

Category:Law firms disestablished in 1861

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in each category. Per WP:OCYEAR, categorising down to the year level is not needed here. – numbermaniac 07:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adultery

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the difference between the two categories is not very clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marthe Donas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: only one actual page in here SMasonGarrison 04:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jef Lambeaux

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: already interlinked SMasonGarrison 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Shore Albions coaches

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry, also merge with Category:Sportspeople from the Auckland Region. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People on stamps

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain primarily articles on stamps, not articles on people. This reinstates the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Category:People on postage stamps, which was undone by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_21#"(Artworks/Art)_depicting_(subject)" without sufficient consideration. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Ham II's suggestion to broaden this nomination and add the word "postage"? If so, which categories should be added to the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anticonvulsant stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This stub category has less than 60 mainspace articles in it - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all, as it is best for stub templates and categories to be as specific as possible. Element10101 AIW WPI TOLT ~ C 21:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 51 members as of relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think 51 articles is enough for a separate category. In addition, the parent category has 899 pages, which is overloaded - Petscan says there's no overlap between the two, so merging this in would bring the parent category to a whopping 950 pages - too many. – numbermaniac 07:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Kiyosu

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just three entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus. Nom was blocked as a sock, so their !vote should be discarded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former TelevisaUnivision subsidiaries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former General Motors subsidiaries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Paramount Global subsidiaries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former CBS Corporation subsidiaries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Rio Tinto (corporation) subsidiaries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former AT&T subsidiaries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former PepsiCo subsidiaries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: C2B WP:CATNATION. Nicholas0 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct towns in Russia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a mixture of two completely different entities. One is something that is not a inhabited settlement anymore, sometimes actually ruins. The other is something that used to be a city, but has now been downgraded to a village or hamlet. For the former, we already have a meta Category:Ghost towns by country. The second category can be linked to ru:Категория:Населённые пункты России, утратившие статус города - it has a lot of content, as this is quite a common case in the USSR and Russia. Solidest (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not reading Marcocapelle's comment as an objection; if you do object, please speak up :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:36, 2 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]

Category:Former cities in Russia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: In Russia, there is no distinction between cities and towns. The inclusion criteria have long specified that the category includes both cities and towns, and it is also a subcategory of Category:Cities and towns in Russia. And almost all of the contents of the category cannot be called cities either - they are mainly towns or even smaller settlements (urban-type settlement). Solidest (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although, as far as I can see, in addition to Category:Former cities, there is also Category:Former towns. At the same time, the "cities" branch is rather disorganised, and many of the articles are actually about places referred to as "former towns". Therefore, it may be reasonable to rename both branches to "cities and towns" and merge them. However, unlike the situation in Russia, I am not sure how significant the distinction between a city and a town is (in the context of becoming "former") in other countries. Therefore, I am nominating only Russia here. Solidest (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You rightly noted that there is no city/town distinction on Russia. Instead, all other category/article titles, such as List of cities and towns in Russia by population must be renamed, because this "c & t" naming creates misinformation, suggesting that there are cities and towns in Russia. --Altenmann >talk 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed into what? "cities or towns"? cities? towns? I don't think this creates misinformation, since in reality some places are technically could be called cities and others are smaller towns, both words are still relevant in English. But we cannot make the distinction for each case as it would be OR. And the "cities and towns" wording is still widely used in similar cases, where the local language does not distinguish between terms. But if we had to choose, town would probably be more appropriate in this case. Solidest (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you are saying that it includes urban-type settlements, then the proper name is category:Former urban localities in Russia. --Altenmann >talk 21:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Urban localities" is too vague and unclear a term. It is more likely to refer specifically to "urban-type settlements" – which populated places often turn into when they lose city/town status. Therefore, it won't work. Solidest (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Other suggestions for rename targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pansexual people by occupation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category and all its subcategories would seem to violate WP:OCEGRS as I am not sure pansexuality is defining as it relates to occupations. I would suggest an upmerge if necessary to the parent category or its subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 22 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) 01:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linux distributions offering KDE desktop environment

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per numerous prior discussions, it's not useful to categorize Linux distributions for the matter of which desktop environment they "offer" -- since any Linux distro can be configured to use any desktop environment of the user's choice regardless of whether it came as the preinstalled default or not, it just isn't a useful distinction between distros. You can easily install a distro that isn't here and configure it to use KDE anyway, and you can easily install a distro that is here and configure it to use Gnome or XFCE or Cinnamon anyway, so it doesn't constitute a significant difference between Linux distros. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Also okay with the suggestion to listify. The rules for article content and the rules for categories are different — because of reconfigurability the distros aren't defined by which desktop environment comes as the preinstalled default for the purposes of being categorized by desktop environment, but a list would be a perfectly valid way to serve the purpose Dadu suggests. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Propose keep: I agree from a advanced user view, but most of users do no do that, they do search by Desktop environment. --Dadu (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Propose keep per Dadu. -- Just N. (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the suggestion for listifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lovers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: An ambiguous term. User:Namiba 18:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Category:Extramarital relationships would be a better target then? I don't see a need for a separate category, especially one with an ambiguous name.--User:Namiba 14:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also lovers of mythological characters, and songs about former lovers. "Extramarital" will work, though is probably a bit of overkill, "of royalty" certainly does not work. Honestly I do not have a problem with "Lovers" as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lovers" is all inclusive of anyone who loves. We have context of [sexual] lovers only from looking at the category members.
    I think this should be split at best. And the myth and legend ones give no context. We presume that "lovers" are extra-marital relationships, but that presumes they all cultures defined marital relationships in the same way, or even had them at all. This begs explanation at best (hence lists), but I think Category:Extramarital lovers of heads of state is a possible target for some of these cats/subcats. It at least gives us more specificity.
    That said, I don't oppose WP:TNT/Deleting all the "lovers" cats, as vague in definition and inclusion criteria. - jc37 21:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flash games ported to consoles

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This would seem to violate WP:NONDEF. If it's on a console, it can also be listed in the relevant console category. But the fact that it was ported to consoles is rarely something massively important. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 22 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) 01:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forest kindergartens

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This category only has two pages in that are already linked SMasonGarrison 23:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Just N.'s comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


July 1

[edit]

Category:20th-century Lebanese illustrators

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category. Upmerge for now. SMasonGarrison 22:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bohemian emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated category at the intersection of two former countries SMasonGarrison 22:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Events by country and city

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename per precedent about splitting organized events versus past events, see earlier discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_26#Historical_events_categories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_16#Events_by_location. I have already moved battles, disasters, etc. to the history tree, so the remainder is organized events. After this the city subcategories can follow, hopefully they can be speedied. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1550s treaties

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCYEAR; Not enough pages to require dividing them into individual years. – numbermaniac 18:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plurilateral relations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see the difference between these two categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plurilateral means multiple countries (essentially an extension of bilateral), multilateral means basically any and all countries in the context of organizations (i.e. the UN or the WHO). GreekApple123 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trilateral relations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough content to warrant this layer. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canada–United Kingdom–United States relations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded one-item category whose sole member isn't really about foreign relations at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladesh–India–Pakistan–United Kingdom relations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded one-item category, the sole member seems to be in appropriate parents. This will leave a large number of content-free parent layers empty. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Color navigational boxes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category newly created for just one navigational box. Since Category:Color templates already exists, and the one navigational box filed here is already in it alongside this (and was already in it before this got created, to boot), this is also potentially just redundant -- I'm willing to withdraw this if there's a consensus that it would be useful to move navigational boxes from the other category, but it isn't needed for just one thing if nobody actually sees any value in segregating navbox templates from non-navbox templates in this context. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daffodil International University

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a thing without enough spinoff content to justify an eponymous category. The only article filed here is the eponym itself, while the other contents here are associated image files -- but non-free image files aren't allowed to be galleried in articlespace categories, and since the images are both already in the eponymous article as it is, they don't need a category to group them for browsability purposes with the same article that they're already in. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hee haw cast members

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT. Per longstanding consensus, we do not categorize performers for their status as members of individual television, radio, film or theatre casts, as that would lead to extreme category bloat as they were progressively added to another category for every cast they had ever been in, potentially swelling into hundreds of cast categories for people with long enough careers. And even if there were a valid reason to treat Hee Haw as a special exception, it would still have to be moved to fix the incorrect capitalization of "haw" here anyway. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Westampton Township, New Jersey

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Match title of parent article at Westampton, New Jersey Alansohn (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Countries results at Mister World

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category. upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 13:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American companies disestablished in 1811

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these categories only has 1 article, so these category intersections are not necessary.
The "Companies disestablished in [year] by country" categories have been nominated because they would become empty after these categories are merged. – numbermaniac 06:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Armenian illustrators

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Category is underpopulated SMasonGarrison 04:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social and solidarity economy

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Hodgepodge of unrelated things that doesn't make to a coherent category (and perverts logic by making Category:Sharing an indirect subcat of Category:Democracy, among other things). * Pppery * it has begun... 04:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bahamian directors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 03:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo virologists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo scientists.

Also nominating for merge:


June 30

[edit]

Category:Hemispheres

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a hodgepodge of unrelated things and its very existence forms an undesirable WP:Category escape hatch between earth sciences and mathematics, in addition to making things like Far side of the Moon an indirect subcat of Category:Earth. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth pointing out that the link between this category and Category:Spheres is contributing to a very large number of category cycles (see my edits removing those from the to-do list) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unidentified Vtubers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Most vtubers do not disclose the performer behind them as it is central to the "vtuber" identity to be not identified. _dk (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At the time I made this category I was just trying to organize the parent category and now I see this one wasn't as helpful YourAverageWeeb (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political activists from the Russian Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Since Category:Political activists is going to be merged/diffused, this one will become uniparented with upmerge needed. LIrala (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political activism

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories for_discussion/Log/2025 June_5#Political activists_by nationality. LIrala (talk) 23:35, 30 June 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]

Category:Arab Maghreb Union people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. Underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 20:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Titles of royal attendants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 20:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charlotte Lawrence

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The "works by" category negates the need for an eponymous parent. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Idk what you're talking about, I just followed Category:Sia (musician) instructions. Zero reason to remove the category. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 22:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural history of Catalonia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the subcategories aren't really about history. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rome Romans players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to my rationale for nominatnig the Columbus Discoverers for splitting, these are two different teams representing two different cities in two different states at two different times. The difference here is the first category can't follow the "Category:Team (League) players" convention because the Georgian team played in three different leagues. I suppose "Rome Romans (Rome, Georgia) players" is another possible title. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alabama Cooperative Extension System

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I've nominated the main ACES article for deletion for issues of promotion/spam/COI (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Cooperative Extension System), so the associated category would also need to be deleted Shredlordsupreme (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BAF Shaheen College Kurmitola

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category that was created solely to hold a draft and a logo image file -- but drafts can't be in categories per WP:DRAFTNOCAT, so that had to be removed. As always, every educational institution that exists does not automatically get its own eponymous category as a matter of course -- that can happen if there's a significant volume of spinoff content related to that institution to file in it, but is not automatically needed just to contain its logo alone. And BAF Shaheen College Kurmitola is just one campus of a larger institution, rather than a standalone thing -- so at present it's just covered in the base article about the institution as a whole rather than its own standalone article, and even if the draft did get moved into articlespace this category would still need more spinoff content, over and above just the eponym and its logo, to become justifiable anyway. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While BAF Shaheen College Kurmitola is currently included as a section of a broader article BAF Shaheen Colleges, it is a notable institution in its own right, with an independent administrative structure, a separate official website, and a significant student and faculty population (over 6,000+ students). It has had independent media coverage, a long historical presence since 1972, and English/Bengali versions, which often leads to further content such as alumni, events, or academic programs. The logo is not the only potential content — with article development underway, the category will eventually organize distinct pages such as alumni, principals, college events, etc. Precedents exist (e.g., Category:North South University) where single-campus institutions are granted their own categories. I intend to expand relevant pages accordingly.
0ximjub43r (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter what you assert that the category "will" contain "eventually" — it matters what can already be filed in the category now. The content has to exist first and then the category to group it together comes second, not vice versa — because what if the content you say the category "will" contain "eventually" never happens? So you make the content first, and then you can create a category only after at least five pieces of content for it already exist. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1540s treaties

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough pages in each category to justify dividing by year - categorising by the decade should be sufficient. – numbermaniac 13:17, 30 June 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]

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]

Category:19th-century bishops of the Assyrian Church of the East

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The Church of the East was renamed to the Assyrian Church of the East in 1976, the current category name is anachronistic. Mugsalot (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in unincorporated areas of Victoria (state)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one member, and I'm not sure what purpose this serves beyond the parent category, Category:Unincorporated areas of Victoria (state). The page in this category is already a member of the parent category. – numbermaniac 07:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Footballers from Zhaoqing

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:People from Zhaoqing. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linguists from the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per naming convention for American occupations. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Category:American linguists exists as an empty category. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 30 June 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]

Category:Shooting survivors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. Must be deleted with all subcategories. I tagged for deletion them all. --Altenmann >talk 01:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 29

[edit]

Category:Jordanian Muslims

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As an instance of WP:OVERCAT. One of the most useless categories I came across, especially in countries where 99% of the population belongs to religion XYZ. It's like a country category for people whose name starts with the letter M, completely anecdotal. Yabroq (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1530s treaties

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 4 of these categories only have 1 page, and the other has 3. Categorising by decade should be sufficient. – numbermaniac 17:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GMMTV artists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These people are primarily actors. "Artists" is just the companies' marketing-speak, and a poor descriptor for a Wikipedia category. It also results in potential confusion with recording artists, whose categories use this term. Paul_012 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thai freelance actors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not happening to be signed to an agency is likely not a WP:defining aspect of an actor's career. This appears to have been created as an attempt to complement Category:Actors under Channel 3 (Thailand) (which was deleted in January), as well as the existing Category:Nadao Bangkok artists, Category:GMMTV artists, and more which have not been created. While the business practices in the Thai media industry might make actor's agency a defining aspect of their career, comparable to the Category:Recording artists by label tree (so the Channel 3 CfD may have been a mistake), the lack of one is not. Paul_012 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how can we make this category safe from deletion? วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You will need to demonstrate that being a freelance actor is a defining characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently use to describe most persons in that category. For example, if the majority of news sources mentioning an actor call them "นักแสดงอิสระ" in pieces talking about them in general, not just ones directly about them leaving a previous agency, that would be a good indicator for keeping the category. That said, I would still say it's not a good idea. Take Patcharapa Chaichua, for example. She is known from decades of work with Channel 7, though there are recent news/rumours that the partnership is about to end. Even if she leaves, she will still be known by her decades-long career and not by her recent status as a "freelance artist". Categories about people should reflect significant aspects that remain with them their entire lives, not a status that's only true in the immediate present but could easily change in the future. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ยกตัวอย่างหน่อยได้ไหมครับ เราพูดคุยกันเป็นภาษาไทยดีกว่า เข้าใจง่ายครับ วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the English Wikipedia. Contributors are expected to discuss matters in English. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCMISC. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is very little reason to have a category with only one page and one redirect to said page. If in future more relevant pages are created (i.e. should Lebanon enter the contest) then this category can be recreated, however right now it is essentially redundant and serves very little purpose. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lactovum

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The genus holds only two species as of summer 2025, use of a separate category for three articles in this field is questionable, and was even more so when it was a monotypic genus. Compare the considerably larger genus of Streptococcus which is not (yet) branched out into a subcat. --Tyroxin (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mushroom types

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: By standard naming convention, Category:Mushrooms should be the "proper" category for the mushroom article. However, that article lists Category:Mushroom types as its home. Unfortunately, the Wikidata for d:Q9471386 says that Category:Mushrooms is "the same as" Category:Fungi which is not correct - a mushroom is a kind of fungi. Currently Category:Mushrooms is a soft redirect to Category:Fungi (which is wrong but follows the Wikidata). 1) This category should be merged into Category:Mushrooms; 2) The soft redirect would obviously be removed; 3) The Wikidata fixed. Dpleibovitz (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by medical condition (and subcats)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Wikipedians with ADHD was deleted back in 2023, because (according to delete voters) it didn't contribute to building an encyclopedia. This may well be true, but this line of reasoning could easily be applied to the other categories on this list too. Don't really wanna take a side here, just wondering what you think. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians with multiplicity/plurality is paramount to keep — just like autistic editors, plural editors will have differences in how we interact. It’s important as an explanation of why a single account might be using “we,” speaking from multiple perspectives and exhibiting varying opinions etc. And for autism, I hope it would be obvious why we who have a developmental disability impacting social communication need a category.
The rest, while i understand why they would be more questionable, are still relevant in my opinion, such as explaining why someone edits a certain Wikipedia page. Obviously I’m biased in this case due to creating the category for wikipedians with an HCTD, but it can be a sign of, say, “I am not a medical professional, but I am knowledgeable in this due to needing to research x condition due to having it” or something like that. And disability in general is relevant the same way, say, being queer is. Thefoggysystem (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don’t know if this is where I was meant to reply but yes Thefoggysystem (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a plural system myself and the creator of that category, I can't say that I'm sure that my plurality, or my choice to make it known on my userpage, has ever made that much of a difference to our experience editing Wikipedia. (I'm not currently in the category myself; I decided I didn't want to make that much of a big deal of it, personally.) However, if others find it useful and would prefer that it be kept, I'm not opposed to its retention. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Side discussion on the process for creating category redirects to avoid redlinked categories
    • Keep As someone who has Epilepsy and Dyspraxia, all these Wilipedia categories to do with being Disabled and have a Neurological condition should be kept as they are, its whom these Wikipedians are and tells other Wikipedians what these categories are about as well like Category:Wikipedians who have Epilepsy and Wikipedians with developmental coordination disorder aka like myself D Eaketts (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See prior precedent list at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/Topical_index#Wikipedians_by_medical_condition. I think my past self may well have said "delete all" on this, but now I think this nomination is a WP:TRAINWRECK, though, so I'll address each of these individually. Also note that I am autistic here.
    Definitely Delete spina bifida, HIV, tarsal tunnel syndrome, hereditary connective tissue disorder, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. These are purely physical disorders that have no correlation whatsoever to editing Wikipedia, and hence clearly fail WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. D Eaketts misunderstands the relevant standard entirely and fails to present a coherent argument on this front.
    Delete disabled as too vague to mean anything, and a recreation of a category deleted per prior precedent. See my nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 8#Category:Disabled Wikipedians
    Upmerge disabled veteran to Category:Wikipedians who served in the United States Armed Forces for the same reason; being injured in wars has extremely little to do with Wikipedia editing.
    Weak delete the others, after much more thought than I expected. These have better grounds than the others for surviving, as they are at least in some ways related to Wikipedia editing. In the case of autism, which I'm most familar with, there is a lengthy essay at WP:Autistic editors, and autism is a clearly-recognised community. But in the end WP:NOTSOCIAL applies; there isn't a clear reason I can think of for people specifically to seek out interactions with such people for editing Wikipedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the disabled veteran thing, but I dunno if we should have usercats for military service either. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 08:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to reply User:Pppery. I realise I may not have explained myself clearly the first time, so I’d like to try again.
    Speaking as someone with epilepsy and dyspraxia, I find these user categories — like Wikipedians with epilepsy or Wikipedians with developmental coordination disorder — genuinely meaningful. They’re not just labels; they reflect part of who we are and how we experience being part of this community. For people like me, they can offer a bit of visibility and help us find others who might understand the challenges we face, especially when it comes to things like communication or accessibility.
    I understand the concern about whether these categories meet the standard of having a “collaborative purpose” under WP:USERCAT. But I’d argue that shared identity categories — similar to Wikipedians who are LGBT or Wikipedians with autism — do contribute to collaboration in their own way. They foster connection, understanding, and support, which I think are all important to making Wikipedia more inclusive and welcoming.
    I do see the distinction you're making between physical and neurological conditions. But I wonder if we might be underestimating the impact physical conditions can have on how people engage with editing — whether that’s through fatigue, mobility issues, or other factors. Even if not directly tied to editing content, these things can still affect someone’s experience as a contributor.
    I’m not saying we shouldn’t look at these categories carefully — I agree some may need reviewing or refining. But I’d be cautious about removing them outright without considering the value they might have to editors who’ve often felt invisible in other spaces.D Eaketts (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking is that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place for people to feel visible per se. It's an encyclopedia, not a place for people to connect. And see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_23#c-VegaDark-20230125194300-Hobit-20230125175600 (which I agree with). Frankly a similar argument could be made for deleting Category:LGBT Wikipedians, though, and I've twice !voted to delete Category:Wikipedians with autism/Category:Autistic Wikipedians despite being autistic myself. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, User:Pppery, for your thoughtful reply. I hear what you’re saying about Wikipedia not being a place for personal visibility, and I respect your position — especially with the consistency you've shown in past discussions, like the one you linked.
    That said, I still think there's a quiet form of collaboration that these identity-based categories can support. They might not directly help with editing or article-building, but they play an important role in connecting people, fostering understanding, and making contributors feel seen. For some of us, particularly those of us managing conditions that affect how we interact with the platform — like epilepsy or dyspraxia, in my case — just knowing that there’s space where others share similar experiences can make a real difference. It’s not about seeking visibility in the traditional sense, but rather about feeling that we’re part of this community.
    I do agree that we need to be cautious about how these categories are used, and not all of them may necessarily meet the bar. But I think we should be careful about removing those that, while they may not fit the narrowest definition of “collaborative,” still play a role in creating a more inclusive and welcoming editing environment. The feeling of being understood and recognized can actually help contribute to collaboration in ways we might not immediately see.
    If these categories do end up being deleted, I think we should still find ways to keep the conversation going. There are many contributors who feel that having these categories creates a sense of belonging, and that’s something worth considering. I’d be open to finding alternative ways to create connection and support without overloading the category system. But I do think the core idea — fostering an inclusive environment where all kinds of editors can feel like they belong — is worth upholding.
    Thanks again for engaging with this, and I appreciate the respectful and open nature of the discussion.D Eaketts (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate your thoughtful reply here. On my user page I disclose that I have some learning disabilities because it impacts my editing style. ("Style" here means being able to post a comment without refactoring it 2 or 3 times, haha.) But that's a pretty mild disability and I'm not personally seeking a community with similarly situated people so my experiences certainly may not be representative.
    I'm wondering to what extent infoboxes and the hands-on problem solving Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility can foster the same sense of belonging. But I'm not sure. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for your thoughtful response, User:RevelationDirect. I truly appreciate you sharing that detail about yourself; it really helps to understand the context of your editing process. It’s clear that your commitment to making meaningful contributions is something you care deeply about, and that’s what matters most.
    I completely agree that it’s important to have spaces where people feel a sense of belonging, regardless of their individual challenges. Infoboxes and initiatives like the WikiProject Accessibility might have that sense of community could be insightful, I think the community itself and the attitude we take toward one another will always be at the heart of it and perhaps, like you, others with different experiences will be able to offer unique perspectives on how we can continue to improve Wikipedia. In any case, it’s encouraging to see someone engaging with these ideas and contributing to such important conversations. Plus I will definitely have a look at the Wikiproject over the days ahead. D Eaketts (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, editors may identify themselves as anything by means of userboxes, not categories. A useful category could be e.g. Category:Wikipedians interested in autism but that should be open to both autistic and non-autistic editors. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Autistic Wikipedians specifically, but Delete all else. (Note: updated my opinion in a new !vote below.) Given that one's autism can impact their communication style and thus their contributions to the encyclopedia and ability to collaborate (see Wikipedia:Autistic editors), that category actually is relevant to users' work on Wikipedia. The same cannot be said about the others, however, and they should be deleted as such. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I understand your point why it is relevant to know that someone individually is autistic. But what does the category add to a userbox? The category facilitates navigating from one autistic editor to others - for what purpose? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename Autism/Merge Vets/Delete Rest This conversation has convinced me that's that it benefits collaboration to keep the autism category but would prefer Category:Wikipedians interested in autism open to all Wikipedians per Marcocapelle. The disabled vets category is a subcat so upmerging makes sense. The rest don't have any collaboration value I can see but no objection to similar userboxes. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interested in autism" isn't quite the same thing as "is autistic," though. It doesn't imply the same purpose. "Interested in autism" suggests that an editor is interested in working on articles related to the topic of autism, whereas "autistic" more implies, "I'm autistic, if I seem to be misunderstanding or misconstruing something you're saying, please keep that in mind". We could have both categories, or create the "interested in" category on its own if consensus is that the "autistic" category should be deleted, but I don't think the "interested" category should replace the "autistic" category. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. I don't want to change the meaning of a category and automatically convert user pages over to a new meaning they may or may not want to be in. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-NAC discussion about the NAC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This was closed with the following rationale:

Procedural close of proposal in conflict with WMF UCoC (non-admin closure). Procedural close as the proposal runs in conflict with the Wikmedia Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) - many editors have been editing for longer than Wikipedia has codified it's Universal Code of Conduct and may not be familiar with it, but it is part of the Terms of Use of Wikipedia and editors are encouraged to familiarize themself with it.

The TOU and UCOC sets a series of expected behaviors and affords people, or in this case specifically, registered editors, certain rights, including several explicitly stated in Section 2.1 Mutual respect - the right to name and describe themself appropriately, including identifying certain medical disabilities: "People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves".
Editors on Wikipedia use user categories as the practical tool to allow editors to effectively communicate such self-disclosures, whether it is to make other editors aware of invisible disabilities or other characteristics. This helps to let other editors know that such users may need certain accommodations to use or contribute to Wikipedia effectively (and may extend to certain legal accommodations or rights under certain jurisdictions) in line with the en-wiki user category guidelines to "facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".
It may be appropriate to update the user category guidelines to appropriately incorporate the language of the UCoC into them and ensure the local policy doesn't conflict with it, as the proposal has shown that there may need to be a point to update them to incorporate these baseline minimum expectations so that such questions are clearer for the future, either directly, on the guideline talk page or via WP:RfC. (non-admin closure) Raladic (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Raladic: Does that mean Category:Wikipedians with ADHD should not have been deleted? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trilletrollet - In my understanding of the universal code of conduct, yes. As I mentioned in the close above, many editors have been editing for many years longer than the UCoC was written and may be unfamiliar with it, including its existence even, (since it was announced in 2021) and there are gaps in local policies that have not been updated since then to incorporate it yet. The local policies can enhance the UCoC, but cannot run in conflict/limit it as the baseline.
    Given that it is the de-facto norm standard on en-wiki for users to use usercats to share characteristics that may be relevant for others to know and to seek other users with shared characteristics (even if it's maybe not immediately apparent to some users on why it can be relevant - that's where improvements to the local guidelines can come in as I mentioned in the close to help users understand the breath of users and their editing experience that may look different to that of others). Disabilities most certainly fall in that category of relevancy, as self-disclosure is how a user with a disability can make their needs or rights known. It would be discriminatory to say that you cannot self-disclose such medical conditions in the same way using user cats, that other similar relevant characteristics, such as religion, gender, languages spoken, LGBTQ+ identities, or ethnicity and nationality (Incidentally, note how most of those are also listed are specific examples in UCoC as very common overlooked marginalized groups), are disclosed by users, and telling users they can't do so for this (in many countries legally protected) characteristic could be akin to a form of ostrasizing by singling them out from not having such usercats, as is evidently the norm as listed alongside the others I just mentioned. Note that I'm not saying that any and all usercats are fair game, The general guidance for user cats that are and are-not is still good. However in the case of the medical side, particularly disability, such as the ADHD category you asked about, I believe that yes, it was a misjudgement, but I'm not faulting the closer at the time, I believe it may have been more a reason of circumstance. Now having looked over that CfD more closely and its participation, it could very well be that that discussion just fell prey to the "average Wikipedian" trap, whether that's because no one informed relevant Wikiprojects at the time or some other circumstance (like CfD in general often not being as frequented as other deletion discussions) happened that led to the participation and outcome at the time.
    I'll note that I closed this CfD here on the procedural grounds that the conflict with the UCoC appears pretty clear and thus I used my judgement to close it procedurally, rather than the process running its course and it having to go through a more formal act like meta:U4C enforcement (since decentralized community enforcement is still preferred when possible).
    But I'll also note that this discussion that you raised here did already appear to have had a more balanced participation, including merits that several editors have brought forth relevant examples of why such categories can be relevant - it's just often not immediately apparent to the "average wikipedian", which is again, why the UCoC was developed - to help address some of the existing issues and prevent metaphorical echo chambers that can sometimes act in the same way they always have, so external input/rules are required to prompt re-thinking/adjustment to provide safe space for marginalized communities, whether that's people of marginalized ethnicities, sexual orientation or gender identity or disabilities to name a few.
    For some history of the UCoC - The UCoC was developed in response to address issues such as ...rising violence from online speech against marginalized groups and ethnic communities according to a report from the Council on Foreign Relations as local wiki-project guidelines have commonly fallen short of protecting users (some wiki projects have/had little policies as the drafting development research showed) and establishing a baseline for such conduct. The U4C committee was ratified just last year to help continue development, enforcement and guidance/training to help improve Wikipedia's editing environment (such as addressing Wikipedia:Systemic bias) going forward, so I imagine this will slowly address some of the existing policies to create clarification and improve the editing environment. Hope this helps. Raladic (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it came up here, I'll add that I could totally see myself supporting deleting the entire trees for most of the examples you gave for similar reasons to that which I supported here. The one exception is "languages spoken", which in theory serves a more directly collaborative role in helping each other read and digest foreign-language sources. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is the point of the procedural close. Currently a single such nomination for a specific subgroup of "Wikipedians by X", particularly when it is an obviously useful category to some/many user is subject to a popularity vote, aka a systemic failure of the en-wiki project of non-uniform application of rules, given the history of how similar such CfDs have gone and given that in this case, we're talking about defining characteristics of human editors (maybe there's a few turing complete robots hiding in our midst, who knows), by definition, it runs into discriminatory territory if one group gets their place and another doesn't.
    Hence this CfD as it was, procedurally doesn't have legs to stand on, and hence my close on UCoC basis.
    If you wish to make a CENT RfC whether any such categories should live, and the outcome of that resulting in either a whole-sale deletion of them all, or a CLEAR UNIFORM rule for them, then that is actually the correct question to ask - apologies if that crux of my procedural closure wasn't clear. Raladic (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a WP:BADNAC closure. The code of conduct does not specify the means to name and describe oneself appropriately and that is exactly what the discussion is about. Nobody here is questioning the right, as such, to name and describe oneself appropriately. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was typing out a longer explanation above that may be helpful, but if you still disagree with it after you had time to read it, you are certainly welcome to formally raise the issue to U4C to affirm/decide whether singling out Wikipedians with medical conditions/disabilities to be the only of such defining characteristics/marginalized group not to have a user category, when all other comparable ones do would procedurally somehow not run afoul of the UCoC. To simplify: A simple rule of thumb is that if you can apply the term "singled out" to a group, then it probably is violating someone's right/dignity.
    I simply used my good judgement in light of the rather clear situation to safe everyone time and procedurally close it on those grounds.
    If you want to instead have a site-wide discussion of any of such categories existing, then again, this would be a procedural close to close this CfD here for that reason instead, and address the question by raising RfC to decide whether en-wiki removes all "Wikipedians by X" categories. Raladic (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With controversial nominations, it's common to ask why is this [small town, eponymous category, award, opinion, etc.] is being nominated for deletion when others aren't. The response is usually WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but there's a larger structural problem. Whereas, my sense is that it's on average easier to submit an WP:AFD than to write an article, it takes much less time to create a category than to nominate one at WP:CFD to the point that I sometimes I feel like we're trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.
    That's why the CFD process is generally incremental and bottom up. Updating editing guidelines with consensus is more likely to lead to global changes. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note: I am reopening this XfD after undoing an inappropriate non-admin closure as discussed in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 29. Sandstein 07:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Nobody should be in a user category unless they've specifically consented to it. So for me the first question is whether all of those those in the user categories know they are there and whether they continue to consent to be there (possibly years after they added themselves). It's at least possible that they've forgotten. Second, whether user categories overall serve any useful function. I'd argue that any benefit you might get from being identified in a specific group of users with illnesses is outweighed by the risk of trolling, doxing etc. Users are able to identify themselves without needing user categories. JMWt (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC) "Nobody should be in a user category unless they've specifically consented to it." So very true![reply]
  • Procedural keep This is a trainwreck and a poorly formed discussion - who starts a discussion without taking a side? I agree with Raladic that bulk deleting all of these may be a UCoC issue. Some of these categories are quite large as well, and unlike most other categories, they have been specifically opted into by the users. I also think some of the smaller ones might be eligible for deletion, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that discussion in bulk. I'd actually favor getting rid of all user categories, but if we don't do that, it's hard to argue all of these aren't valid. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also note that two users who use these categories have supported keeping without bolding a !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep/close of proposal in conflict with WMF UCoC. Procedural close as the proposal runs in conflict with the Wikmedia Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) - many editors have been editing for longer than Wikipedia has codified it's Universal Code of Conduct and may not be familiar with it, but it is part of the Terms of Use of Wikipedia and editors are encouraged to familiarize themself with it.
The TOU and UCOC sets a series of expected behaviors and affords people, or in this case specifically, registered editors, certain rights, including several explicitly stated in Section 2.1 Mutual respect - the right to name and describe themself appropriately, including identifying certain medical disabilities: "People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves".
Editors on Wikipedia use user categories as the practical tool to allow editors to effectively communicate such self-disclosures, whether it is to make other editors aware of invisible disabilities or other characteristics. This helps to let other editors know that such users may need certain accommodations to use or contribute to Wikipedia effectively (and may extend to certain legal accommodations or rights under certain jurisdictions) in line with the en-wiki user category guidelines to "facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".
It may be appropriate to update the user category guidelines to appropriately incorporate the language of the UCoC into them and ensure the local policy doesn't conflict with it, as the proposal has shown that there may need to be a point to update them to incorporate these baseline minimum expectations so that such questions are clearer for the future, either directly, on the guideline talk page or via WP:RfC. As I pointed out at the DRV - per WP:POLCON this apparent conflict (which was seconded by other users basically the CfD should be paused - As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence.
Also as several editors here and at the DRV pointed out, the nomination may be closed procedurally as a WP:TRAINWRECK that isn’t reasonably actionable (aside from the policy point raised). Raladic (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per Raladic and SportingFlyer. I am changing my vote after the (reversed) NAC and the subsequent development of this discussion. I am of a mind to agree that this nomination has become a WP:TRAINWRECK, and the ambiguity of whether or not there's an issue with the UCoC needs to be more widely discussed, and that is beyond the scope of this deletion discussion. The discussion should be closed while the community discusses and finds a consensus on whether or not the user category policy is in breach of the UCoC and if it needs reforms, with no prejudice against renominating the subcategories individually for case-by-case consideration. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per nom--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 28

[edit]

Category:Username changing and usurpation templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Changing implies usurpation. Additionally, Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations was closed down by community consensus, and all relevant templates have been deleted (see the various discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 19). Thus, rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Market towns in Moldavia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, trivial intersection between history and geography. The places in the category were once in the principality of Moldavia but currently in Romania, Moldova and Ukraine (and already categorized as such). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Spain

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge/re-parent, all of this belongs in the tree of Category:People from New Spain. Before the 19th century there was no distinction between Mexican, Costa Rican and Nicaraguan people. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that I created Category:Captaincy General of Guatemala without removing articles from any current country categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1520s treaties

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are too few items to require breaking down by year - the decade should suffice. – numbermaniac 08:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judaeo-Italian languages

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The former implies a closer linguistic relationship between Italian and the other Jewish languages of Italy than there actually is. The latter is much less ambiguous. Arctic Circle System (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Debutantes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT and WP:NOT
A debutante is a high status girl or young woman, maybe 18, who has a coming out during the social season at a formal ball. I'm sure this dance seemed important at the time and covering who went and what dress they wore would make sense in a school yearbook or society page. But our encyclopedia covers notable women like Mary Pickford (who lived to be 49 and served as Member of Parliament) and Vera Wang (who is now 75 and is Vera Freaking Wang). Many other women in these categories were known primarily for being socialites, where this feels like one day of that broader role. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the categories for Debutantes of le Bal de debutantes and Debutantes of the International Debutante Ball are categorizing people based on membership to a deb society, not nationality, and therefore, if merged, should not be merged to French socialites and Socialites from Manhattan, as both balls are international events including women from all over the world. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added a manual merge to the French one to avoid miscategorizing people; the intent is to merge to whichever socialite category applies. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stabbing survivors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT and WP:NOT
Being stabbed to death seems defining, but this feels more like a personal medical history than anything encyclopedic. I'm struggling to imagine the Wikipedia reader that would want an easy navigational pathway between Louis XV (assassination attempt), Ian Watkins (prison shanking), Brad Young (street mugging), Andre Gray (gang fight), Anton Du Beke (child abuse), Lucky Luciano (police brutality?), Adele Morales (domestic violence), and John Finch (drunken fight over theatre tickets). - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


June 27

[edit]

Category:Judaeo-Spanish languages

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The former implies a closer linguistic relationship with Judaeo-Spanish and the other Jewish languages of Spain (at least as proposed by Paul Wexler, who isn't a reliable source, but that's out of scope for this discussion) than there actually is. The latter is much less ambiguous. Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judaeo-French languages

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The former implies a closer linguistic relationship with Zarphatic/Judeo-French and the other Jewish languages of France than there actually is. The latter is much less ambiguous. Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leaders of the Commonwealth Liberal Party

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Too small of a category. The party existed from 1909 to 1917, and only had 2 leaders. – numbermaniac 13:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in Monterey, California

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Wiki article Monterey Bay Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in the Chico–Redding market

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Wiki article Shasta Cascade; don't want to use Nielsen market name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in Dera Ismail Khan District

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, this recently created 2-article category does not aid navigation in parent Category:Villages in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Gjs238 (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1510s treaties

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A total of 6 pages in these categories - splitting by year is not needed. – numbermaniac 07:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1500s (decade) treaties

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these only have 1 or 2 pages. It's not necessary to split them by year - treaties by decade should suffice here. Law categories are also proposed as merging the treaty category would make them unnecessary as well. – numbermaniac 07:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fijian women medical doctors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry, also merge with Category:Fijian women scientists and Category:Women physicians. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rugby league players from Byron Bay

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry, also merge with Category:Sportspeople from Byron Bay. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rugby league players from Campsie, New South Wales

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Campsie, New South Wales is actually a suburb of the Canterbury-Bankstown area of Sydney. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Argentine sports physicians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry, also merge with Category:Argentine physicians and Category:Argentine people in sports.

Also nominating for merge:

Romanian military personnel

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, as Romania is anachronistic. Wallachia and Moldavia merged to Romania in the 19th century and military personnel is typically categorized by country they are serving rather than by ethnicity or language. The Wallachian subcategories are perfectly fine in that respect. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How does this work given that there's a parent category Category:18th-century Romanian people? I think having these by century cateogries is still helpful for navigation. SMasonGarrison 00:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Similar arguments might apply to historically early members of Category:Romanian women by century --Northernhenge (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 05:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Character pop

[edit]
Nominator's Rationale: Character pop is not a very descriptive title, and the code in template:infobox comics character which populates this category checks only that it's not in other namespaces (this would have to also mean the editing of the template)User:D Kirlston - talk 02:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 05:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of YIVO

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category would be more broad and include any related articles that may not have to do with history. At the moment it's mostly people. Qualiesin (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 05:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male chefs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Would appear to fail WP:OCEGRS. I am not sure being a male chef is defining. If merged, this would also necessitate the merge of all "Male chefs by nationality" subcategories into their respective "Chefs by nationality" parent categories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding the subcats
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 05:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Papua New Guinean women ecologists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should either upmerge this category or repurpose it because there is no ungendered category. SMasonGarrison 03:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stanford University in fiction

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. SMasonGarrison 02:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alabama amendments

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think consistency among categories seen in Category:Ballot measures in the United States by state should come first, despite the fact that yes, all ballot measures in Alabama are amendments. Moving would be more consistent and I think is a clearer name for navigation Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Korean buskers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only single page after over a decade, seems unlikely there'll be more. Pretty niche category grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:27, 27 June 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1267842097"