Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 24: Difference between revisions

By /

Line 295: Line 295:

==== Category:Dutch people by populated place and occupation ====

==== Category:Dutch people by populated place and occupation ====

<div class=”boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk” style=”background-color:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;”>

:”The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style=”color:red”>”’Please do not modify it.”'</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.”

:”The result of the discussion was:” ”’merge”’ [[:Category:Dutch people by province, populated place and occupation]] to [[:Dutch people by populated place and occupation]].<!– Template:Cfd top –> <small>([[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions|non-admin closure]])</small> – 🌻 [[User:Hilst|Hilst]] ([[User talk:Hilst|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hilst|contribs]]) 12:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

:* ”’Propose deleting”’ {{lc|Dutch people by populated place and occupation}}

:* ”’Propose deleting”’ {{lc|Dutch people by populated place and occupation}}

:”’Nominator’s rationale:”’ redundant category layer. delete for now [[User:Smasongarrison|<sup>S</sup>Mason<sub>Garrison</sub>]] 02:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

:”’Nominator’s rationale:”’ redundant category layer. delete for now [[User:Smasongarrison|<sup>S</sup>Mason<sub>Garrison</sub>]] 02:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Line 301: Line 305:

:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”><span style=”color: #FF6600;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”'</span><br />”’Relisting comment:”’ Thoughts on alt proposals?<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style=”font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:10.5pt”>[[User:Bunnypranav|<span style=”color:#2D78BE”>~/Bunny</span><span style=”color:#2c5282″>pranav</span>]]:&lt;[[User talk:Bunnypranav|<span style=”color:#2D78BE”>ping</span>]]&gt;</span> 15:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)</small><!– from Template:XfD relist –></div>

:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”><span style=”color: #FF6600;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”'</span><br />”’Relisting comment:”’ Thoughts on alt proposals?<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style=”font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:10.5pt”>[[User:Bunnypranav|<span style=”color:#2D78BE”>~/Bunny</span><span style=”color:#2c5282″>pranav</span>]]:&lt;[[User talk:Bunnypranav|<span style=”color:#2D78BE”>ping</span>]]&gt;</span> 15:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)</small><!– from Template:XfD relist –></div>

* ”’Alt Merge”’ per Marco. — [[User:Justus Nussbaum|Just N.]] ([[User talk:Justus Nussbaum|talk]]) 21:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

* ”’Alt Merge”’ per Marco. — [[User:Justus Nussbaum|Just N.]] ([[User talk:Justus Nussbaum|talk]]) 21:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

—-

:”The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style=”color:red”>”’Please do not modify it.”'</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.”</div>

==== Category:American people killed in the Israel-Palestine conflict ====

==== Category:American people killed in the Israel-Palestine conflict ====

October 24

Category:International boxing competitions hosted in West Berlin

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: Single-entry category. It’s come to my attention that the creator is pushing that West Berlin was a separate country due to its incomplete links to West Germany so should have a complete set of categories for all possible subjects (even though West Germany itself does not have – so I cannot even suggest merging to Category:International boxing competitions hosted by West Germany because there isn’t one). Crowsus (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:International athletics competitions hosted in West Berlin

Nominator’s rationale: There are no other sport-specific categories of this level for any city, much less a city sector which no longer exists due to the political situation. The single entry can be listed in West Germany (there may well other eligible articles but the creator did not bother to find any). ‘Hosted in’ is also malformed terminology. Crowsus (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: West Berlin was not a city. It was not part of West Germany, and it was an international subject on its own right. The rationale only reflects that the nominator does not know well the history of West Berlin and/or Berlin and/or West Germany. Porposing Furthermore, it had major political/sports implications, with athletes and sides from Eastern Europe refuse to take part in events hosted in West Berlin, if organized by a West German federation.
This would be as illogical as saying that Free Territory of Trieste was just a city or that the Saar Protectorate was just a province of West Germany (the latter was even affiliated to FIFA). This is just deleting history because of ignorance.SFBB (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it’s a real shame that Hertha BSC never got to compete in the Bundesliga for 40 years and had to play in the West Berlin Championship, and that the 1974 FIFA World Cup hosted by West Germany never had any matches in West Berlin. Crowsus (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very solid argument. Liechtenstein and Monaco also do not exist, because FC Vaduz and AS Monaco compete in the Swiss and the French lgeague, respectively.

And also the FIFA World Cup is an excellent argument, as East Germany aimed at boycotting the World Cup precisely because of fact that games were being hosted in West Berlin (see here a good discussion). Further football tournaments hosted by West Germany avoided West Berlin, precisely because of that issue (e.g. Euro 88). SFBB (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not only not absurd, but the reality. West Germany’s laws had as much validity in West Berlin as Italian or Dutch ones, and inhabitants of West Berlin had as many rights to send representatives to Bonn as they had to send representatives to Rome or The Hague. The only true thing is that West Berlin was integrated into the economic space of West Germany, in the very same way that Monaco was integrated into France’s or Liechtenstein with Switzerland (that being said, Bonn granted West Berlin some representatives without voting rights and the Senate of West Berlin consistently passed laws mimicking the laws passed by West Germany). SFBB (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we really have 3 options here: continue with West Berlin as part of West Germany (seems inaccurate) / create lots of very narrow trees specific to West Berlin (seems )ike overkill / Have West Berlin things within the categories for West Germany but with a prominent banner with something along the lines of “includes [events] in West Berlin which was administered separately from the Federal Republic of Germany” which would draw attention to the situation for interested readers and also indicate that the site is aware of it, which should perhaps have been the case before now. I would certainly prefer the third option. Crowsus (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that creating a full tree would be an overkill (for instance, there was no “People from West Berlin” as there was no West Berlin nationality), but I’m pretty I’m pretty much sure, separate categories are required when the situation indeed had practical implications, for instance sport events, which faced (threats of) boycotts by the East or had to be organized be different federations/associations (not the West German ones, even though in most cases we’re just talking about phantoms). That’s a very important nuance and it should not be neglected. It also helps understanding why events organized by West Germany almost never included West Berlin.
Anyways, as I mentioned in your TP, I think this is a case fro a broader RfC. SFBB (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works based on Nineteen Eighty-Four

Nominator’s rationale: The scope of this category and its subcategories using the phrase “based on” is vague. Are these categories for “adaptions of” Nineteen Eighty-Four or is “based on” inclusive of media that depict themes and elements taken from the novel that are reported as “inspired by”? I’d appreciate consensus to clarify.
For example in discussion with @IzzySwag: I was thinking “based on” is inclusive of media that depicts narrative parallels to the novel such as The Protomen, which many sources say is Nineteen Eighty-Four inspired (or Orwellian) and includes many of the same elements such as thoughtcrime, its depiction of heroes, and surveillance through screens, but does not name-drop any of the names or phrases from the novel.
Also, Category:Music based on Nineteen Eighty-Four says in the description “Music inspired by George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four or its adaptations” which is causing further confusion. Pingnova (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women spies

Category:College field hockey venues

Category:Manufacturing companies of East Germany

Skydivers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: Merge for now as single-entry categories. All 4 biographies are already otherwise categorised by nationality e.g. as aviators. – Fayenatic London 19:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Types of orbit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: Underpopulated category created by DinosaursLoveExistence. Either merge to parent, or populate based on entries in List of orbits. The list, being ordered by various classifications, would remain a lot more useful than an category sorted alphabetically. I think it is probably more useful to keep the various orbits categorised amongst other orbit-related topics, rather than to filter out articles that are about a type of orbit, so I recommend merging. – Fayenatic London 19:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Concrete degradation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: Another category created by DinosaursLoveExistence, which only has 3 articles, and I can’t find any more to populate it better. Upmerge to both parents. – Fayenatic London 19:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roof construction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: Two small categories which were split from their parents by DinosaursLoveExistence before being banned for this pattern of work. I don’t think the other parent Category:Construction should be a merge target. – Fayenatic London 19:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of forestry education

Category:Underwater diving installations

Category:Actors from Gelderland by populated place

Category:People from Amstelveen by occupation

Category:Consuls

Category:Tennis players from Gironde

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: No real use for this which is the only Tennis players category for any of the regions of France. Bordeaux subcat is fine as there are other populated places, but creating this layer for 3 additional articles when there are no siblings is unnecessary. Crowsus (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tichon Hadash high school alumni

Nominator’s rationale: First, There are several Tichon Hadash high schools. Second, we do not categorize by high schools. (or do we? Does not seem right to me.) Third, the creator is adding bios with no ref to THHS —Altenmann >talk 18:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the creator of this category. and this is my rationale:
First, categorizing by high schools is common practice, and I believe it is meaningful – high school is a defining period in many people’s lives. If the intention is to remove all categories by high schools in every country, that would require opening a new and broader policy discussion. I doubt there would be consensus for such a radical change.
Second, this category refers to Tichon Hadash High School in Tel Aviv, which is by far the most well-known school of that name in Israel. When “Tichon Hadash” is mentioned in Israel without any qualifier, it is clearly understood to refer to this school — as reflected in the title of its Hebrew Wikipedia article This high school is one of the older and more prestigious in the country. Its alumni include a Nobel Prize laureate, several Israeli ministers and Knesset members, notable writers, musicians, an NBA player, and many academics. That said, I’m open to renaming the category to “Tichon Hadash High School in Tel Aviv alumni” for clarity.
Finally, I will review the categorized articles and add references where they are missing. EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 18:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename per RevelationDirect. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch people by populated place and occupation

Category:American people killed in the Israel-Palestine conflict

Category:Canadian women by role

Category:Governors of Maldives Monetary Authority

Category:1993 in Hohhot

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: Single-entry category within single-entry year in Hohhot-structure. The article text doesn’t really expand on the year 1993 as foundation year but the category is sufficiently categorised in both 1993 establishments and Hohhot categories. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Churches of Göreme

Nominator’s rationale: Purge redirects ad merge. Only contains 2 actual articles. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:4th-century churches by country

Nominator’s rationale: Isolated categories, only containing Turkey. These were built for one article Balatlar Church, a Roman bath converted to a church in 4th or 5th century. I have added other content into Category:4th-century churches in Turkey, otherwise I would have nominated that one also. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Venice people by century

Years in the Kingdom of Hanover

Nominator’s rationale: merge, lots of missing years, and mostly one, or else two or three articles in each of these categories. This is not helpful for navigation. See also WP:OCYEAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People cremated at Golders Green Crematorium

Category:Austrian music YouTubers

Category:T-pop singers

Nominator’s rationale: Merge and disambiguate. T-pop is ambiguous. It is not only mentioned in the lead of Thai pop music but also that of Hokkien pop (Taiwanese pop). Editors have also listed Turkish pop music and pop music of Tatarstan at the disambiguation page T-pop. – Fayenatic London 14:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I change the category name to resolve the confusion? วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Respondent’s alternate suggestion seems redundant and out of line with the subject article’s name (C2D). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think there are two issues to consider here:
    • Regarding ambiguity, going by usage in the English-speaking online world, it would seem that the Thai meaning is the primary topic for T-pop nowadays. A Google News search turns up plenty of results from major media outlets that all mention T-pop in the Thai context, and none about Taiwan or Turkey. See for example The Economist[1], The Korea Herald[2][3], Nikkei Asia[4][5][6], Reuters[7], South China Morning Post[8], Rolling Stone[9] and Music Week[10]. The disambiguation page should probably be moved to T-pop (disambiguation) and T-pop redirected to the Thai pop music article instead.
    • As for the redundancy concern, I understand that some people consider T-pop as a specific development in Thai pop music, one that was popularised in the 2010s, with strong influences from South Korea and Japan. This seems to be the distinction the category creator was trying to make. The problem is that there isn’t a readily agreed definition of T-pop, and use of the term varies widely. While some do use T-pop only to refer to the past decade or so, there are others who use it to retroactively (and anachronistically) refer to everything since the 1980/1990s. This terminology issue is something that should be covered in the Thai pop music article, but I’m having trouble finding sources that actually directly talk about it, which probably makes it more difficult to sustain as a category. —Paul_012 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archipelagoes and islands of Venezuela by state

Nominator’s rationale: We don’t have a parent tree for Category:Archipelagoes and islands, and grouping such entities is usually a bad idea. This should be renamed and categorized under Category:Archipelagoes of Venezuela; any islands (not archipelagoes) there can to Category:Islands of Venezuela (with no prejudice to creation of Category:Islands of Venezuela by state). Alternatively we could rename this category to the Islands of V. by state – I don’t have a preference. Children subcategories will need to be fixed too (I don’t know how to add them to this nom, sadly). Note that the name of this category likely comes from es wiki, but the interwikis there seem to be for islands (ex. es:Categoría:Archipiélagos e islas por país is iwikid to our Category:Islands by country (but bad naming on es wiki is not our problem… feel free to report it there if you speak es). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croatian Anglican theologians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge keeping in mind the alt suggested by Place Clichy (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: underpopulated categories Upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 02:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Law enforcement agencies of the Dutch East Indies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 1#Category:Law enforcement agencies of the Dutch East Indies

Category:Peace treaties of Prussia

Category:Ottawa Intrepid

Nominator’s rationale: Does not help navigation. User:Namiba 14:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is a category really merited for a defunct team which contains so little content?–User:Namiba 14:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

…yes. It has the exact same content as current teams (probably more than some). Why is the fact it is defunct relevant? GiantSnowman 08:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant that it is defunct because it means that is highly unlikely that new content will be added. Terry Fox Stadium is a multi-purpose stadium which only hosted for a few seasons, not a purpose-built stadium. As WP:EPON states, “Eponymous categories should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist.”–User:Namiba 15:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you’re fully correct. World War 2 was in the past so nobody writes about it any more, do they? 2 subcats, 2 articles, and 1 image is sufficient – more than many current clubs have for their categories! GiantSnowman 19:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From recent similar deletion discussions it seems the consensus is one eponymous article, one players category and one managers category is enough directly related articles. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guerrilla filmmaking

Nominator’s rationale: I created this category based on the existing article. I think it should be renamed to “Guerrilla-style films” since articles tagged are only films. Filmforme (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An entire category for filmmaking in the style of Ed Wood (as defined in the main article)?: “ultra-low micro budgets, skeleton crews, and limited props”. Frankly, there is little difference in concept with the Z movie and Wood has hundreds of imitators. Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I think that guerilla filmmaking and Z movie are covering the same topic in different terms. Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! The existing category wording is by far the best describing the essential difference to conventional filmmakings. The proposed wording “Guerrilla-style films” could easily be interpreted as related to political/arts guerilla movements. — Just N. (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

$WORK aliens and $WORK alien species

Nominator’s rationale: Most other extraterrestrial life-related categories avoid the term alien because it is ambiguous with Alien (law). I’m not sure if we should uniformly include and races across all the fictional species categories, but I do so here to match Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species and races. The comics ones also have “extraterrestrial superheroes/supervillains” subcategories as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a Star Trek one, although its associated species subcategory does not require renaming since all fictional species in Star Trek are extraterrestrial. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support all besides Stargate, which should be dual merged to its parent categories as a WP:NARROWCAT.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia administrators who have had a close reverted

Category:Governments of Italy by region

Category:Beaches of the Algarve

Nominator’s rationale: As Algarve and Faro District cover the same area, these topics already subdivided by district (see Category:Categories by district of Portugal) are overlapping (islands and rivers are subcategories of geography). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge, as the two cover the same area we do not need pairs of categories. Do leave a REDIRECT though. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to “Algarve” as the higher subdivision with one district. The top category should be merged as well for this reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regions and districts have no geographical connection to each other – some districts are in two regions. I understand it as the districts are still considered the first-level subdivision. I’m more inclined to abolish the whole region tree in that case because it, to a large extent, only groups the districts. Region may also mean both administrative region and NUTS statistical region, which doesn’t seem to align fully. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving human-related categories to Faro District as there is a complete tree of districts in Portugal for these subjects – which is not the case for all its regions, but move nature-related categories to Algarve which is a long-defined geographical area so would be a better option, since it is available, than grouping those topics under a modern political division. Leaving redirects at each should prevent the recreation of overlaps. Crowsus (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian activists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: do we really need to categorize activists/business by their continent? All three of these were made by the same new user. SMasonGarrison 05:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there aren’t any articles directly in them, so then the Category:Activists by nationality tree suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When it comes to the activists tree, we do have subcategories under that for Category:Anarchists by continent, Category:Anti-racism activists by continent and Category:Environmentalists by continent, all of which have existed for much longer than the ones listed here — so I’m not at all clear on why it would be more valuable to retain continent-level trees for certain specific subtypes of activists but not a continent-level tree for activists in general. I’m not entirely convinced that those are needed either, but I don’t see that there’s more of a case for those than there would be for these — we should either keep these and finish populating out the tree, or put the continent-level anarchists, anti-racism activists and environmentalists categories up for CFD too.
    And as for businesspeople, we have had Category:Asian businesspeople and Category:European businesspeople since 2014, and Category:African businesspeople since 2017, so I’m also not at all clear on why the continent level would be appropriate for those continents and inappropriate only for North America. So again, we need to either keep North America, or put the sibling categories for Africa, Asia and Europe up for deletion too.
    Creator’s certainly not doing things effectively — in addition to the Asian and North American activists categories listed here, they also left incompletely populated redlinks behind for Africa, Europe, Oceania and South America, and completely missed even filing most North American countries in the North American categories here (spoiler alert: the Caribbean and Central America are part of North America too) — but these do all seem to be logical new parts of not fully-developed category trees that we’ve already had for years, so they need to be either kept or considered for deletion in tandem with their existing siblings rather than being singled out for special treatment different from their existing siblings. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not keen on the racial/national/geographic ambiguity inherent in any of these titles. Eg, Rishi Sunak might be an “Asian” businessman to some people, or even an “Asian” activist, but no one would consider Arthur Hesketh Groom an Asian golfer. Although, the problem arises purely because of grammar; activists *in* Asia etc, would resolve the issue….but I think the “in” issue has been well discussed before. Regards, —Goldsztajn (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there’s not a particularly good reason to divide these people by continent, and grouping Koreans, Indians, etc. regardless of their geography is unhelpful — especially when the two overlap, e.g. Japanese activists who are native Americans. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Just N. (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mass media in Bautzen

Category:Storer College buildings

Category:Guamanian YouTubers

Category:DillonGoo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: Unhelpful for navigation. This category only contains the epon page and 3 redirects. SMasonGarrison 03:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Max (streaming service) original programming

Nominator’s rationale: Does it really matter what HBO Max was called when these shows were released? We currently have one category for shows released 2020–2023 and 2025 onwards and another category for shows released when the name was different between 2023 to 2025. Obviously the articles can specify the name of the platform at the time, but having two categories is not helpful for navigation. Mclay1 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and my rationale in my prior (failed on a technicality) nomination. We should not be giving so much credence to a two-year slight name change over a technicality. It is still the same service and was never a successor, as I have seen some articles call it. Unlike other categories for subjects with long-term name usage before a notable name change (Category:20th Century Fox films versus Category:20th Century Studios films), this rebranding was purely that, a brief period of a name change that did not alter the substance of the platform other than providing a lack of brand recognition. Arguments have been made in prior RM discussions for the main article that “HBO Max” was and has always been the more commonly recognizable name of this topic, and the category should be easily recognizable and findable for editors and readers alike. This is just a tiresome case of semantics getting the better of seamless navigation and simplicity. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 03:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree and that’s why HBO Max and Category:HBO Max are the names of the article and category. We don’t have separate articles and categories for the service when it had a different name. Mclay1 (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rock music groups from Pennsylvania

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: More concise, consistent with most subcategories – MW(t•c) 15:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ogres in film

Nominator’s rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. Alternatively, merge to Category:Ogres in popular culture as a WP:NARROWCAT due to the lack of defining category members besides Shrek. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom WinstonDewey (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated monster movies

Nominator’s rationale: Fails WP:CROSSCAT. I am not proposing a merge because most of the subcategories and articles do not belong in this category anyway. Despite AHI-3000’s apparent belief otherwise, a film being about a monster does not imply something is a “monster movie”, which is a specific genre about an attack by a typically villainous and hostile monster. If there is anything that does belong in it and isn’t already in one of its subcategories, it should be selectively merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated films about legendary creatures

Nominator’s rationale: Fails WP:CROSSCAT and should be merged to all parent categories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian government

Nominator’s rationale: Follow-up of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Category:Palestine governments. Hassan697 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is meanwhile consensus that “Palestine” categories are for the State of Palestine and do not include Mandatory Palestine. I was not too enthousiastic about that change but it is the current status. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in principle. However not all the current content belongs in the target: while the All-Palestine Government indeed intended to be a government of the Palestinian people in what would later become the present-day State of Palestine, albeit an Egyptian puppet one, and therefore in my opinion belongs in the target, West Bank Governorate is not a state government and should be purged. It is already down below somewhere Category:Government of Palestine, probably through several channels. There was probably other content before, maybe PLO or PNA related, but these two items are all that is left. Place Clichy (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Annapolis, Maryland sport stubs

Nominator’s rationale: Strange and needless sub which contains almost exclusively Navy Midshipmen football team articles. User:Namiba 20:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponyms in mathematics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s rationale: Not defining. A huge number of topics in mathematics are named after mathematicians; it is not a distinguishing characteristic of these topics. This and the subhierarchy under it were created in 2023 by an editor who was subsequently blocked for creating spurious categories, DinosaursLoveExistence (talk · contribs), and has been recently populated by 185.100.88.213 (talk · contribs), whose contributions appear to be primarily or only adding to categories created by the blocked editor. The parent category, Category:Eponyms, has text warning against this exact type of category: “Since many medical conditions, sports moves, bridge and chess techniques, buildings, prizes, and other things have been named after people, these are not included in this category, as categorization on the basis of having been named for a person is considered to be overcategorization based on trivial aspects of the article.” —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Eponyms in mathematics” might be a valid encyclopedic topic on its own. What if the category, and the subcategories, were turned into a list article instead? MEN KISSING (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources to make an article on the topic of eponymous naming in mathematics, it could be in Category:Eponyms; it would not need its own subcategory. So I don’t think the potential existence of such an article says much about the category question. As for listifying the category: this is maybe half the articles in the mathematics hierarchy, far too many to make a manageable list. We do have a subcategory Category:Lists of things named after mathematicians that I believe remains valid and should be moved to the parent category rather than deleted with the rest of this hierarchy. The lists in that subcategory correspond to individual mathematicians (a small number of famous ones) and the things named for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think Eponyms in mathematics category should be deleted, but the subcategory Category:Lists of things named after mathematicians should be kept as it is useful to show the types of things that a mathematician worked on that were notable. EulerianTrail (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has never studied physics or engineering then. You come across eponymous quantities often. The category for dimensionless numbers of fluid dynamics has 17 versions in other languages? It is nothing more than that. The category helps people find these equations.
As for ‘not defining’, it is defining as an eponym, 100%. But it is a sub category of eponyms. To have one category, alone, for all eponyms is too broad, to find anything. You would spend all day trying to find that eponym. There are over 250 in the Eponyms in Mathematics category, including the sub-categories. That does not appear to be ‘only a few’, which someone here has claimed? 185.100.88.213 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Half of all mathematics is eponymous. Not defining/useful for navigation. Certainly not with the few dozen articles listed. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per nomination. Far too many eponyms in mathematics, and the parent category makes clear that this is about the process of creating eponyms, making this subcategory unfit. Gramix13 (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Just N. (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lesbian trade unionists

Nominator’s rationale: Is there a reason we’re limited this to lesbian trade unionists instead of all LGBTQ people? SMasonGarrison 01:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Category:LGBTQ trade unionists is a great idea, but there is no need to merge this populated category into it. Moreover, there is already Category:Lesbians by occupation and merging this would remove those in this category from it.–User:Namiba 12:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am seeing some lukewarm opposition to the nomination. Thoughts on just creating a new parent category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Textile industry of the Republic of Ireland

Nominator’s rationale: 1 P, O C. Upmerge for now. Although the target category is island-wide and the nominee specifically about the Republic, there is a lot of overlap with Category:Textile companies of Ireland, in which Magee of Donegal is one of 5 textile companies in the Republic, and only 1 is based in Northern Ireland. There is no need for a subdivision between Republic and Northern Ireland for just 6 articles. NLeeuw (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Category:Textile companies is a subcategory of Category:Textile industry, Category:Textile industry of the Republic of Ireland, who would only host Category:Textile companies of the Republic of Ireland and where the subcategory would also be accessible trough Category:Textile companies of Ireland, can be deleted. Also, from the guideline, a good number of these (not all), needs to be reparented. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that Ireland is actually the name of the country (not Republic of Ireland), and that many users, in good faith and with perfect knowledge of the political situation, will place country-related content in categories named just Ireland. I tend to think that’s fine in most cases, because the spontaneous understanding of things by users is what should guide us. Several decades ago, edit war-prone editors since then banned attempted to sort this perceived mess by trying to differentiate “Ireland” and “Republic of Ireland” in categories. Let’s face the hard truth: it never fully worked, and never will. I suggest to relax this approach and consider it need-only: when there is really too much content for a single category, or when a topic strongly needs to avoid ambiguity, and of course in the very few contexts such as international football where RoI is actually used, then Republic is useful, but otherwise it really isn’t. In the present case, seen the volume and the scope of the categories, this logic leads me to support merging to Category:Textile industry of Ireland. Place Clichy (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Azerbaijani civil engineers

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top