Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 4: Difference between revisions

By /

Line 297: Line 297:

* ”’Keep”’ This isuseful and follows the general convention of putting the pre-union parts of the Britain into a hierarchy. Seems to be a confusion about the contents of the category by the raiser. It’s for people from Britain who were taken into slavery not all of whom became former slaves. User seems not be grasp the difference between nationality/origin categories of people and categories about countries [[User:Kingbird1|Kingbird1]] ([[User talk:Kingbird1|talk]])

* ”’Keep”’ This isuseful and follows the general convention of putting the pre-union parts of the Britain into a hierarchy. Seems to be a confusion about the contents of the category by the raiser. It’s for people from Britain who were taken into slavery not all of whom became former slaves. User seems not be grasp the difference between nationality/origin categories of people and categories about countries [[User:Kingbird1|Kingbird1]] ([[User talk:Kingbird1|talk]])

** This category is not for “people from Britain taken into slavery”. This is not how we categorize slaves. We categorize slaves by where they were when they were slaves. That is why we have [[:Category:Slaves in Europe]]; [[:Category:Slaves in Asia]] etc. It is also why the Slaves categories are under slavery in Foo categories. We sort Slaves by where they were when thry were slaves.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 07:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

** This category is not for “people from Britain taken into slavery”. This is not how we categorize slaves. We categorize slaves by where they were when they were slaves. That is why we have [[:Category:Slaves in Europe]]; [[:Category:Slaves in Asia]] etc. It is also why the Slaves categories are under slavery in Foo categories. We sort Slaves by where they were when thry were slaves.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 07:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

*”’Comment”’ one of the parents of this category is [[:Category:Slavery in the United Kingdom]] indicating that this is meant to cover peiple who were slaves in the United Kingdom (however slavery has never existed as a legal thing in the United Kingdom). If we wanted categories for nationals of a country who were slaves elsewhere we would want to name them in a way that makes these clear. [[:Category:British expatriate slaves]] might work. Most people in [[:Category:British former slaves]] are British nationals who were only British nationals after they were slaves. These people in most cases only even come to Britain after the end of their term of slavery. My big objection to the expatriate slaves scheme is that there are lots of slaves where we do not know where they were from originally. We have some articles that say the subject was either born in Africa or the Caribbean. We also need to build such a scheme using the countries that existed at the time the people lived. I think it is just easier to categorize people by where they were held as slaves. The last thing we want though is to have a category that mixes people from elsewhere who were held as slaves in a place and people from a place who were held as slaves elsewhere.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 07:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

==== Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines theatre directors ====

==== Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines theatre directors ====

February 4

Category:Vase sports trophies

Nominator’s rationale: Non-defining and trivial. A random collection of sporting trophies defined only by their vase shape. Bcp67 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scientists from Malibu, California

Nominator’s rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 20:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clergy from Malibu, California

Nominator’s rationale: Underpopulated category. Delete for now. I’ve already added the relevant parent categories for Helen Parsons Smith SMasonGarrison 20:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military history of the German Empire

Nominator’s rationale: Since the German Empire no longer exists there is no distinction between history and not-history. And these categories form a loop with each other.* Pppery * it has begun… 19:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1941 disestablishments in the Territory of Papua

Nominator’s rationale: Category newly created for just one thing, in a polity that doesn’t otherwise have any similar categories for any other year. As always, navigation of Wikipedia is not aided by obsessively sifting everything down into the narrowest possible microcategories of just one thing — this would be fine if there were several things to file here, and/or sibling categories for other years, but is not needed for just one thing. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prominent individuals mentioned in the Epstein files

Category:People from Idaho by populated place and occupation

Nominator’s rationale: Upmerge for now. redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 12:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jeff Satur

Nominator’s rationale: Not enough articles to pass WP:OCEPON. —woodensuperman 12:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List templates with deprecated parameters

Nominator’s rationale: This is more inline with the other categories in Category:Deprecated parameters. Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jews

Nominator’s rationale: WP:COPSEP applies here, and I don’t want to just leave the talk page here by moving it improperly. Arctic Circle System (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Riff languages

Nominator’s rationale: Riff languages was deleted recently due to dubious sourcing. This should probably be deleted as well. Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of Boumerdès

Nominator’s rationale: Both categories contain only the one same article (Ali Bouyahiaoui), which is already in Category:Boumerdès. Mclay1 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Good articles in need of review

Nominator’s rationale: I’m proposing a rename of this category so that it better fits its scope, as “Good article review” can now mean quite a few things. See also this discussion. JHD0919 (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People murdered in the 1790s

(Added from #More people murdered categories * Pppery * it has begun… 21:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

  • Nominator’s rationale I think this is much more of a neutral name. There are far too many cases that it is borderline. One is People killed in areas that had been involved in Native American/Euro-Anerican conflicts. How do we parse murders from war condition killings? Another is in rebellions, are those killings war deaths, executions or murders? Some with executions by mobs? How about slaves killing the person who is legally their owner? These would normally be treated as murder by the existing government, but the owner killing the slave would not be? How about cases ruled self defence? The person is still dead and was still killed by another. I think it is much more clear if we group all cases of people killed together instead of trying to break out murders from other killings when the lines between them are often so close. I started here to basically see if this is a reasonable merge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to the ambiguity of whether the criteria for murder are based on the laws then or the laws now (as the nominator touched upon) Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. But this requires a mass nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the existing tree. Instead of merge, the existing category should be renamed. It would be much easier ot manage on the back end instead of mass creating. SMasonGarrison 05:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia pages using merged-from template without oldid

Nominator’s rationale: Not sure if this category is needed. At Template:Merged-from, there is a date parameter instead of an oldid parameter. I added the oldid here for Talk:Frederick Taylor Gates to see if this error category would go away. The oldid does not show up and the error category remains. Should the oldid parameter be added to Template:Merged-from or should this error category be deleted? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a template generated by Module:Copied; it does not make sense to delete a category that would be programattically recreated. If the template lacks the parameter, we should add it there. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenBlacker: What purpose does the category serve for users of that module? – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates where an oldid parameter should be added, to enable appropriate attribution; see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Cretan War from the Republic of Venice

Category:French military personnel of the Thirty Years War

In general, these propositions put too much focus on political entities, which vary greatly throughout time. On the other hand, nationality is a defining characteristic that can almost always be established with certainty according to reliable sources. A general comment on the category structure is that its logic is, as the same time, historic and geographic; this naturally sometimes leads to apparent conflicts because a place or a person was associated with a different country at the time of events than in the present, but attempting to solve these natural inconsistencies brings more problems than it solves. E.g. having a hard-line notion of nationality, by restricting it to present-day states rather than what reliable sources call an individual, is a bad idea. If someone is called German according to reliable sources, then we should called them that, even in the times of the Holy Roman Empire. Place Clichy (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise I am dropping the motion on the German issue. The issue here is not if these people are “German” but that the served Hesse-Kassel, the Imperial Army of the Holy Roman Empire, the Electorate of Saxony, etc. The defining thing about military personnel in a war is what military they serve under. However I guess we can keep the German category. However for both France and Sweden this is the people serving in the military of those countries. Which in both cases is so close to all the notable people of those countries who served in the war I fldo not think two categories are justified. However the number of people from areas clearly in Germany who joined both Armies, as well as Swiss mercenaries, defectors from the Imperial Army who went to the other side, and soldiers who served both France and Sweden are so high I believe we are justified in renaming the categories. I do not care if we use in or of but would note the military killed in x war uses in, so there is prevent for in so I think if we do not want to use of here it would very justified. If we insisted on of we would get Military personnel of the Republic of Venice of the War of the Spanish Succession which has 4 uses of of. The more I reflect on it the more I like it but I know some would say that is too many used of the word of. I am not sure the Republic of Venice participated in that war either. There are wars where the overlap is such that 2 categories are justified. There are enough notable Americans who served for the French military in Workd War I that both American and French categories can be split by those who were nationals of that country and those who were in that countries military.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already voted above. Just want to add that in certain occupations one primarily represents a country while one’s nationality does not matter so much. Politicians, ambassadors and military are such occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organized crime groups in Afghanistan

Nominator’s rationale: Category containing only a single article, which is a redirect and not about a specific organised crime group, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think it would be a major omission. The article tells about the role that Afghanistan plays as the source country of heroin, but it is not about Pakistani mafia active in Afghanistan per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organized crime groups in Azerbaijan

Nominator’s rationale: Category containing only a single article, which is about the “general term for organized criminal gangs that consist of ethnic Azerbaijanis”, not a specific organised crime group. AusLondonder (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian generals by dynasty

  • The history of the territory of what is currently Iran is complex. In antiquity there were large empires based in Iran but covering much more territory. In the Middle Ages it was mostly ruled by Arabs, Turks and Mongols, but not exclusively. One might argue that Iran as we now understand it emerged in 1501. Only after 1501 we have articles like Safavid Iran and Afsharid Iran. So arguably some of these dynasties are of former countries (before 1501) and some are of Iran (after 1501). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patrol vessels

Nominator’s rationale: Redundant categories. Patrol boat reads: “A patrol boat (also referred to as a patrol craft, patrol ship, or patrol vessel) is…” Gjs238 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I’ve tagged patrol boats for a reverse merge. Stronger consensus on merge direction might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Hungarian lithographers

Catrgory:19th-century Mexican engravers

Oops, thanks. (Overwrote earlier !vote since the underline/italics made it unreadable.) – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century Kenyan people

  • Nominator’s rationale Something that is somewhat like Krnya begins in about 1888 with the start of the British Kenya colony, but it is not until 1895 and the East African Protectorare we really can date the formation of Kenya. There is no place called Kenya before that, and the politics that exist do not in any way correspond to the modern nation. All 3 articles here are on people from the Sultanate of Pate, which was one of several Swahili coastal sultanates. So even though this does not come close to encompassing all people who lived in what us now Kenya during the 18th-century the target will group the 3 articles in a category that is using terminology that would apply in their lifetime. We should not categorize pre-colonial people by countries that were created in the colonial era with little if any regard to the political realities that existed before the countries were created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Request: I am neutral, but please leave a redirect. SMasonGarrison 23:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or probably even better to Category:Sultans of Pate. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Explorers of the United States

  • Nominator’s rationale For way too many articles in this category this in an anachronistic category. For some others it is too narrow breaking up their exploring in ways that do not make sense. The United States comes into being starting in 1776, so anyone exploring before that date does not belong there. However it does not reach its contiguous mainland boundaries until the mid-1850s. Weather areas are or are not in the United States is a hard to parse question in the period from 1783-1850 or so any maybe a little after due to the nature f de facto independent Native American control in some areas, as well as de facto British control of non-native areas in what is now Michigan and Wisconsin from 1783-1796. By their nature Explorers often cross existing boundaries. They cross boundaries that will not exist for years, decades or centuries even more. There are far too many cases of Explorers crossing boundaries for this to make sense, and to put Spanish Explorers exploring in the northern reaches of New Spain in here because of political and military decisions made decades later, among others does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. These categories are defining. Why is this not bundled with the other nominations? SMasonGarrison 23:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not bundled because the issues here are unique to the United States and its history. The issue is that there is no coherent way to define this. How would we define it. Would we limit it to people who explored within the then recognized boundaries of the United States. I have explained why that even is hard. I do not think we can use the current boundaries of the United States. Especially since this would lead to Mexicans exploring within the theme recognized boundaries of Mexico being classed as Explorers of the United States which I think would not be a justified way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But the point you are raising is the same about de facto limits. SMasonGarrison 18:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept I think we should limit it to exploring done within the de facto limits of the United States from 1776 to the present. I do not think this is actually a very useful set for Explorers and so do not think this is a useful category to have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. In many cases, the U.S. did not exist yet. We have been specific about this in European kingdoms et al, no reaason not to do this here as well. – jc37 20:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per nom and considering that subcategories are currently being discussed to be renamed to regional categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, seen how the notion of explorers is nowadays very much challenged, one could argue to get rid of all modern designations and merge every explorer category to just Explorers of Africa, Explorers of Antarctica, Explorers of Asia, Explorers of Europe, Explorers of North America Explorers of Oceania, and Explorers of South America. Place Clichy (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Andhra Pradesh MLAs 1957–1962

Nominator’s rationale: The 1957 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly was product of two elections, the 1955 Andhra State Legislative Assembly election and the 1957 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election. The 1957 election was only held in the constituencies previously part of the Hyderabad State, whilst for the other constituencies (the constituencies previously part of Madras State, that constituted the Andhra State, maintained the legislators elected in 1955 until 1962). Soman (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alternatively, Category:Andhra State MLAs 1955–1957 can be created as a redirect to Category:Andhra Pradesh MLAs 1957–1962 (or its subcategory if more than one of the relevant MLA articles are created). Andhra Pradesh (1956–2014) (and therefore its Legislative Assembly) did not exist in 1955, which would make Category:Andhra Pradesh MLAs 1955–1962 a misnomer and lead to confusion. –MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle I agree with Johnpacklambert but, as a full tree by term exists right now, that is not very relevant for this particular discussion. It was initially just Andhra State instead of Andhra Pradesh, so MPGuy2824’s alternative proposal is more accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. This was the same term of office. Opponents of categories of legislators by term categories sometimes split legislators categories by century to avoid overcrowding and introduce the notion of chronology. Clearly being actually elected to an office (at a certain election for a certain term) is more defining for legislators than surviving from one century into the next. Place Clichy (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communalism

Nominator’s rationale: This was originally created in 2004 by Altenmann with scope defined by the page Communalism, see [1]: social movements & theories expressed in communal living. In 2022 that title was disambiguated at Communalism, and the expanded original article was moved to Communalism (Bookchin) and then redirected to a section in Murray Bookchin, by Czar. The category should not remain at an ambiguous name.
Czar also created the redirect Libertarian communalism pointing to the same section, and this may be a suitable target name for this category. Commons:Category:Communalism is currently identified in its infobox by the same phrase, but that came about only indirectly through this bot edit at Wikidata [2] thanks to Multichill.
Or ALT-1: Split to Category:Utopian movements, Category:Communitarianism or subcats of them, since there is no lead article, and the original scope of the category (e.g. Amana Colonies) predated Bookchin’s thoughts.
There are linked categories in other-language Wikipedias,[3] but these are more sparsely populated, and I did not find any better ideas there. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthodox bishops of the Cossack Hetmanate

Nominator’s rationale: delete, these were bishops of the Metropolis of Kiev, Galicia and all Rus’ (1620–1686) and already categorised as such. It is unclear whether they were Cossacks. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, they were not Cossacks. Cossack Hetmanate is the name of the country in the Wikipedia. Not all citizen of the country were Cossacks. The mentioned bishops were citizens of the Cossack Hetmanate. The Metropolis of Kiev, Galicia and all Rus’ is a title, not a country. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, we have a category like Category:Polish bishops, which includes all the bishops from Poland. Ukraine during the 17th-18th centuries was known as the Cossack Hetmanate. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aerial bombing operations and battles

Nominator’s rationale: The content of this category seems to be bombing, not aerial battle (which doesn’t have an article, is just a redirect, and there is no Category:Aerial battles – although maybe there should be). Anyway, grouping topics like this is a bad ideas, bombing and aerial battles need to be split. This only affects, fortunatley, one subcategory (Category:Aerial bombing operations and battles of World War II which should be renamed to Category:Aerial bombing operations of World War II). Again, majority of the articles in these categories seem to be about bombing (and yes, I am aware there were often aerial battles between fighters and escorts, but these are generally not the primary topic here). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab slaves and freedmen

  • Nomimator’s rationale The category has 2 articles. One white slavery is a very broad topic that covers a lot of things, many outside the Arab world. The other includes not only Arab but also Turkic states including those in Iran and India in the range of things covered by the topic articles. With the existence of slave categories by continent I do not think we need Egyptian slaves and Slaves in Morocco here, and Mamluks covers people in Turkic, Iranian and states in India, so is far broader than Arab coylunties or the Arab world. I do not think we need this category at all. If we were to keep it we woukd want to rename it because its header says ut is gor slaves in thd Arab world without regard to their ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British slaves

  • How else would we group the six subcategories? This seems like a useful container. Also, slavery was abolished after the start of the United Kingdom, so it’s quite likely there were some slaves (even after it was legal) in the UK, though I don’t know how many would be likely to have Wikipedia articles. Mclay1 (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see a number of the subcategories are in CfD. We should wait till the outcomes have been implemented before discussing this one. Mclay1 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think we need to group the sub-categories at all. Half of them are from when Great Britain was not united and I do not think they need to be grouped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      It’s still accurate to refer to people from Great Britain as British before the Kingdom of Great Britain existed. It’s a convenient way of categorising them. It would be unexpected for readers to not have them connected in some way. Mclay1 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      why not? It matched the convention for other British categories. Pretty much all the categories in Wiki match this convention. It just makes finding stuff easier Kingbird1 (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Slaves in Europe and purge the British Empire subcategory. Within Europe there is very little content. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isuseful and follows the general convention of putting the pre-union parts of the Britain into a hierarchy. Seems to be a confusion about the contents of the category by the raiser. It’s for people from Britain who were taken into slavery not all of whom became former slaves. User seems not be grasp the difference between nationality/origin categories of people and categories about countries Kingbird1 (talk)
  • Comment one of the parents of this category is Category:Slavery in the United Kingdom indicating that this is meant to cover peiple who were slaves in the United Kingdom (however slavery has never existed as a legal thing in the United Kingdom). If we wanted categories for nationals of a country who were slaves elsewhere we would want to name them in a way that makes these clear. Category:British expatriate slaves might work. Most people in Category:British former slaves are British nationals who were only British nationals after they were slaves. These people in most cases only even come to Britain after the end of their term of slavery. My big objection to the expatriate slaves scheme is that there are lots of slaves where we do not know where they were from originally. We have some articles that say the subject was either born in Africa or the Caribbean. We also need to build such a scheme using the countries that existed at the time the people lived. I think it is just easier to categorize people by where they were held as slaves. The last thing we want though is to have a category that mixes people from elsewhere who were held as slaves in a place and people from a place who were held as slaves elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines theatre directors

Nominator’s rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Azerbaijani language dialects

Nominator’s rationale: Consistency with similar categories, i.e. Category:Turkish dialects and Category:Spanish dialects. Arctic Circle System (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think we should use language in all cases. Spanish and Turkish both mainly are used to refer to nationals of Spain and nationals of Turkey. Both current names could be misunderstood to refer to dialects spoken by nationals of those countries without regard to if they are part of that language. Azerbaijani can mean the language, or nationals of Azerbaijan, or people who are Azerbsijani by ethnicity (the later sometimes called Azeri people, but our article currently calls them Azerbaijani). The later live in Iran as well as Azerbaijan, and during the Russian Empire and Soviet era also lived very heavily in other parts of those countries especially what are now Armenia and Georgia. It is quite probablyle there is some dialectical form of the Russian language, Farsi, Armenian language and Georgian language that at some point was used for some purposes heavily by people who were Azerbaijani by ethnicity. I think leaving the current name would be best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports competitors by sport

Nominator’s rationale: Previously, these categories had different scopes, with “sportspeople” being for any people in sport. But now we have Category:People in sports by sport for that, and sportspeople refers only to players, so now these categories are the same. Mclay1 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

Nominator’s rationale: Being involved in a single legal case is not WP:CATDEF. The general affair would be, but we do not have an article on that, and this is not a category for that. The general affair is the subject of media but not the legal case specifically. Even if it was on that I don’t think we have enough articles for which this is actually defining. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

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

Scroll to Top