Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 19: Difference between revisions

December 19

Category:Members of the Order of Bookfellows

Nominator’s rationale: We don’t have categorization by membership in a literary society and the Order of Bookfellows is not a particularly notable group (we don’t even have an article about it). I don’t think this is a defining characteristic of its members. Pichpich (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about emotions

Nominator’s rationale: Insanely vague WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Unless we’re talking about literal personifications of emotions like in Inside Out, almost anything can be interpreted as being “about emotions” and I am surprised it survived this long. I have checked the subcategories and this would apply to all of them besides Inside Out, the subcategories of Category:Songs about heartache and Category:Fiction about nightmares (since it is a subcategory of Category:Fiction about dreams). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WinstonDewey (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish Iranian people

• Nominator’s rationale Having a double demonym in a category name is very confusing. This category is meant for people who are Iranian by nationality and Kurdish by ethnicity, and so I think the in form makes this clear. It is related to the Kurds in Iran category, which is a category for topics, where this is a category for biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename agree with nom: the proposed name is clearer. Pichpich (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soviet people by ethnicity

• Nominator’s rationale Since many ethnic group names refer to a country, and some that do not refer to a recognized country are still sometimes used to refer to residents of a somewhat autonomous area, I think it is best in these categories where we are not defining people as residents of an area (Soviet Kurdish people are Kurdish people who lived in the Soviet Union, the area they lived in does not have to be in any way, shape, mean or form Kurdistan, the same applies for the others in this group, we do not care if these people lived in Moscow, or the most ethnically uniform area [I am not sure there were any areas of the Soviet Union that were majority Kurdish, at least if it is more than a few houses, but the point is there terms are all confusing). I think making all the categories use the target form will make it clear. I have already nominated most of the sibling categories. The two that have not been nominated are ones where we do not in modern times have a way to use these as designations of people from a particular area, and they are very widely used in double demonym categories. The issues are different enough there they should at least be in different nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic German people from the Russian Empire

Category:Tatar people of Russia

• Nominator’s rationale I think these Boo people [where people in an ethnicity] categories split by country are best named as Boo people in Foo. I think in is the most clear conjunction to use in this case and makes it most clear the relationship that we want to convey. These categories are meant to be limited to people who were nationals of the specified country who by ethnicity were of the named ethnicity. This form helps us avoid confusion with people of a place or other things that would not fit in the category with this form of the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serbs of Hungary

• Nominator’s rationale This category is meant to include people who were ethnically Serb people who lived in or live in Hungary and are nationals of the later country. I think the clearest way to express this is Boo people in Foo. That is the form many of our categories take, and we have been moving other relevant categories to that form. Especially in cases where Boo people is either the same form as a term used for a nationality or very close to such a form. I think that applies here and so it would be most clear if we called this category Serb people in Hungary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serbs of Croatia

Category:Landscape architects

• Nominator’s rationale These narrow 1 and 2 article categories do not help with navigation. We only have 22 by nationality landscape architect categories (we have 127 nationalities that have an architects category) so it is not like this is a fully developed tree. There are 12 articles directly at Category:Landscape architects, and I think they are for people from 12 different countries. All the articles here are already in other sub-cats of the nationality categories (mainly in architects by century sub-cats) so we do not need to merge them to Fooian architects categories. I think overall this move will improve the ability of people to navigate between articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UANA Water Polo Cup

Nominator’s rationale: The competition has been rebranded. Maiō T. (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coker University men’s soccer players

• Keep just like the many similar ones, doesn’t help to dismantle the full subcat system like we have in Category:College men’s soccer players in South Carolina or in most such categories. Fram (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now two articles, by the way. Much easier to add articles to existing cats than to recreate them once they reach an artificial threshold. Fram (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Two article is not enough to justify a category. It is just as easy to add article to categories by state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      … which was not my comparison. It is easier when you may simply create a cat if it fits in a tree and has an article (and afterwards add a 2nd, 3rd article to it) than if you have to put a new article somewhere in a different category and then have to check how many articles would fit the better category, and only then create it (and hope that no one objects to your count of which articles belong in it). Fram (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for now, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transnistria–United States relations

Nominator’s rationale: A non-existing diplomatic relation. Contains an eponymous article and 5+2 format, which is the multilateral format under which the U.S. and the EU act as observers (not even mediators) in negotiations about the Transnistrian conflict. That second article uselessly conflates the category to reach 2 articles, despite the fact that there isn’t any direct link between the two entities. No need to merge as the eponymous article is already in all eligible parents. Place Clichy (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Brazilian thought

Nominator’s rationale: Non-defining and vague. We don’t have a 20th-century thought tree. ^SMason_Garrison 05:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is somewhat vague, but, since many of these items concern areas outside of ”strict” philosophy (banking model of education pertains to pedagogy; cordial man, to sociology etc.), I found best to create a category that could encompass them while still fitting the broader ”Brazilian philosophy”, which, as of now, contains one philosophical movement, two institutions, and an article on a specific philosophical tradition.

I will not oppose the merging, but I think we should try to find a better solution. Laptss (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Circular line (New Taipei Metro)

Nominator’s rationale: Per the requested move discussion. Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 05:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lawsuits against the Devil

Nominator’s rationale: The category has 1 article that actually fits the category and 3 fictional stories that are not lawsuits against the devil. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film controversies

Nominator’s rationale: In an attempt to WP:DIFFUSE this category and its plethora of related subcats, I am proposing that this category be split up because it presently covers two scopes: matters of controversies related to films and films themselves which have endured said controversies. I have seen this category be added to many film articles when there is remotely a hint of controversial material present, but the category description indicates it is only for articles covering the controversies themselves. Sentiments for such a split and scope clarity were echoed in this 2020 CfD, for which the closer said “There also appears to be consensus that articles about the films themselves should not be placed in this category.” The goal of this proposal is to enact that consensus and avoid confusion regarding this category’s scope, and for this to also apply to the subcategories as warranted. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’m not sure I quite understand this. Is the goal to differentiate between controversy that ensues over a film after it has been released and controversy that occurs during the production of a film? If not, perhaps examples could be provided? In my experience well-meaning editors are sometimes quick to label a film as “controversial” in cases where it isn’t merited. If I’ve understood the intention of the split correctly, I might suggest that instead of “Film-related controversies”, which is a bit ambiguous to me, the new category instead be titled something like, “Film production controversies”. DonIago (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this way. Instead Purge all articles about films and limit this to articles about actual controversies. It is not really defining to a film that it was the subject of “controversy”. In this day and age someone somewhere will take a combative view about every film. Deciding that dome of these make the film itself “controversial” is just a matter of arbitrary decisions. There is no easy why to decide if a film itself is controversial. What we can know is if an article or redirect is aboym7t rhe controversy itself. So that is what the category should do, group articles on actual controversy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I suggested having a separate films-specific category rather than purging this category yet again is because of the vast number of editors who reinsert this category into film articles with controversial material discussed. It is admittedly difficult to keep enforcing this without an alternative method, which led me to believe this could be a viable compromise. The 2020 discussion also had consensus amongst participants to purge these film articles and some were, but they keep creeping back into this category tenfold. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I could see how the title “Film controversies” doesn’t make it clear that the category isn’t meant to be applied to film articles. Per my above comment, I wonder whether “Film-related controversies” would be less ambiguous. DonIago (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not really defining to a film that it was the subject of “controversy”

  WP:DEFINING characteristics are ones that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. “Defined by having been the subject of controversy” certainly reflects reality for a plethora of films, and reflects the content presented in as much articles. Though, I also don’t love these categories because as Trailblazer alluded to, it is difficult to keep the categories obvious and contained to those articles that fit. “Controversies” is unfortunately too vague and, as you mentioned, translates to any “combative view about every film” in the news cycle typical of today. For that reason, I much prefer the subcategories that are more specific about the nature of said controversy (Category:Censored films, Category:Obscenity controversies in film, Category:Films involved in plagiarism controversies). Perhaps it should be purged and made into a container category? That being said, haven’t there been CfDs that voted to keep categories that included articles that are not entirely about the actual controveries? Your comment here would seem to suggest we delete all such controversy categories. That seems like a higher issue for which higher consensus is needed. Οἶδα (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • • I am saying we remove all articles on films from a category about controversy. I really think we should categorize films by things that are defining to them. Controversies are not. Some films only become controversial decades after they were created. Others were involved in controversies shortly after release but no one things much of the issue now. If the controversy is notable we can have an article on it and categorize it as such. I do not think we should be directly placing films themselves in a category like this at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Controversies about films to clarify the scope of the category and purge articles about films, in line with the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support: This makes sense to me. DonIago (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support this seems to address the relevant concern. WinstonDewey (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Controversies about films and purge films per suggestion of MArcocapelle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Egyptian criminals

Nominator’s rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated category. I’ve been unable to find anyone else to populate the category. https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=41476706 ^SMason_Garrison 00:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]