Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 30: Difference between revisions

Nominator’s rationale: There is no article 2025-2026 Minnesota crisis (if there were, it would imply this concept is generally used and understood in reliable sources). And the word “crisis” seems imprecise and could refer to other things besides those listed in this category. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not related to this exact CFD, but related to the topic: Is it appropriate to put people in event categories? For example, I see Kristi Noem and Tim Walz in Category:Operation Metro Surge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: C.D. Everest redirects to Club Deportivo Everest. Global Sports Archive says Club Deportivo Everest is the current name. Please note that Club Deportivo Everest footballers redirects back to C.D. Everest footballers. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: FK Jedinstvo Užice redirects to FK Jedinstvo Putevi. 90minut uses FK Jedinstvo Putevi as the current name. Please note that FK Jedinstvo Putevi players redirects back to FK Jedinstvo Užice players. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Highly overlapping category and Category:Latvia (interwar period) doesn’t exist ^SMason_Garrison 21:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Recreated. Restoring existing change Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_8#Category:Generals_of_the_Russian_Empire ^SMason_Garrison 21:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The military people served as generals for is defining. Being in the service of the military of the Russian Empire is the defining thing for these people. Beyond this many of these people were not Russian at all and would not have so identified. They were Finnish or other non-Russian identifies. The Russian Empire also had generals who identified as German most of whom came from various states. In War and Peace it is said there was an ethnic Russian who had asked to be made an honorary German so he could be advanced to a higher standing in the military. There are a lot of people who served in the military of the Russian Empire who were not Russian. We should not merge the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This case was already settled as highly overlapping. ^SMason_Garrison 21:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you not see the problem here is that you recreated a recent case? @Marcocapelle and @Thepharoah17 pinging the previous participants. ^SMason_Garrison 21:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In the last discussion no one even discussed whether it was appropriate to call Georgians, Armenians, Ukrainians, and other non-Russian subjects of the Russian Empire Russia. Also no one explained why it was OK to call as Russian nationals of other countries who only came to the Russian Empire to serve in the military. Some of whom came immediately to serve as generals. I think all these factors mean that we should have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Alt Merge The earlier discussion focused on the practical issue that there was not enough content to justify the category, rather than a conceptual objection, so I don’t see a procedural problem that it was recreated. But I do have a conceptual concern for this discussion about this inherently being WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:Imperial Russian Army generals and subcats. – RevelationDirect (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Should the merge target instead be Category:Imperial Russian Army generals and its subcategories? – RevelationDirect (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think it would be better to merge that here. I think it would be much easier if all former country general Category used geberals of [country name] as the category name. This would make it much easier to easily know what the category will be called and will make the nature of the country connection more evident to readers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt merge to Category:Imperial Russian Army generals, duplicate scope. Possibly with redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: delete, to begin with, the category should be renamed per WP:C2D, but when that happens WP:C2F applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has a sub-subcategory Category:Ankeng light rail stations now.–迴廊彼端 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: delete, only one article in this category and the whole tree of Category:Deaflympic golfers contains only two articles (this article included). This is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. They’re already in other Indian golfer categories, so there’s no need to merge. ^SMason_Garrison 16:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: There is no company or subway system called Los Angeles Underground Rapid Transit. The B and D lines of the Los Angeles Metro Rail are located underground but are not otherwise independent. Place Clichy (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Category containing only a single list article and a redirect. Not helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Category containing only a single list article and a redirect, not helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Follow-up to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 22 § Category:Kun bokator at the SEA Games. Categories with articles about just one edition are not useful for navigation when better-populated parents exist. Place Clichy (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Please review List of places in Charles City County, Virginia to see if it is better than the current system.

Empty category currently. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | 🙂 | he/him | 12:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to strike this, but am not sure how. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | 🙂 | he/him | 12:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Please review List of places in Charles City County, Virginia to see if it is better than the current system.

Empty category currently. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | 🙂 | he/him | 12:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to strike this, but am not sure how. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | 🙂 | he/him | 12:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ‘keep’ this now has 23 or so articles or sections of articles and provides navigation via the category structure to reach them. Lists and categories complement each other for navigation purposes; one does not replace the other. Hmains (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Please review List of places in Charles City County, Virginia to see if it is better than the current system.

Empty category currently. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | 🙂 | he/him | 12:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to strike this, but am not sure how. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | 🙂 | he/him | 12:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Spurious category largely overlapping with Category:Punjabi language. Gotitbro (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not really understand this nomination. Hindko and Saraiki language are not a dialect of Punjabi language, are they? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate. Please excuse the long-winded reply. The reason for this is because Saraiki and Hindko are considered languages separate to the Punjabi language, but these three combined (along with Pothwari) are known as ‘Punjabic languages’ (or often referred to as Lahnda, meaning ‘Western’), these are part of Category:Greater Punjabi languages and dialects. People often intertwine Punjabic languages with Punjabi [language] dialects. Category:Punjabi dialects should only be used for dialects within the Punjabi language, such as Majhi dialect, Malwai dialect, Puadhi dialect, Doabi dialect, Gujrat dialect and what-not. etc. Articles should only be part of one category, but not both. There are also some Punjabi dialects like Jhangvi & Shahpuri [?] that are closely related to Punjabi (Western) varieties like Saraiki, but should be part of Category:Punjabi dialects, unless otherwise debated.

Whether the latter should be a category or not can be debated but the categories should be cleaned up, but not merged or overlapping.

TL;DR – The best way to explain this would be the Scots language vs the English language, both of which are part of Category:Anglic languages, but Category:Dialects of English still exists for the English language (while Scottish English would be categorised under Dialects of English). نعم البدل (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Not a defining characteristic of these people. Fram (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was the only such event of its kind, so to represent one’s country there was at least something of an honour. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, each received the event’s Commemorative Medal. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s comparable to many of the same people attending the wedding or funeral of kings and heirs presumptive, or other such events. It would make a good list probably as the event is obviously notable, but not a good category as the event was for these people just a minor thing in their lives. Fram (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bring a guest at an event is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet there are lists recording the guests at royal weddings, coronations and funerals. ~2026-66949-5 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it is not a defining event for any individual person. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Whilst true, this was the only time such an event took place. Furthermore, each guest was awarded the Commemorative Medal for the event. Could the category be retitled so as to acknowledge this award? S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    While attendance at the 2,500-year celebration may not be defining in the biographical sense for most individuals, this category functions less as a biographical classifier and more as a navigational grouping for a historically unique, finite diplomatic event. Per WP:CAT, categories may serve readers seeking to explore a topic collectively, and the Persepolis celebration is routinely treated in reliable sources as a singular moment of international ceremonial convergence rather than a routine social function. That said, if consensus is that individual attendance fails WP:DEFINING across the set, a list-based treatment may be more appropriate than a people category. S1r Gawa1n 2004 (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DervotNum4 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete akin to WP:PERFCAT. – RevelationDirect (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: merge, only two articles which already link to each other directly. Move main article Associated Pulp and Paper Mills to parent Category:Companies based in Burnie. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Upmerge for now. Redundant category layer ^SMason_Garrison 04:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: This entire tree contains one person. The category creator has already been advised about the need to be more intentional about category creation. ^SMason_Garrison 04:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Upmerge single-article category, not helpful for navigation. I’m not sure “specialty badges” is a term used in the British military anyway. Mclay1 (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: All of the articles in this category (except the US one that contains content not about laws) simply duplicate the criminalization category (which is more broad than criminalization of sex acts). Any other legislation that might be deemed “anti-LGBT” would be better categorized under Category:LGBT-related legislation. (t · c) buIdhe 03:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the category maker, my idea was similar to below that Anti-LGBT laws covers more then criminalization of homosexuality. I can agree to keep the criminalization of homosexuality articles just in that cat, and upmerge relevant ones from the UK /USA articles. But anti LGBT covers all the anti-trans bills and laws present in the past and in more recent waves of transphobia, plus it covers more general LGBT community stuff and not just homosexuality, such as the Hungary pride parade ban, etc. May i Suggest: Upmerge the USA and UK ones with actual law related things into the criminalization of homosexuality category if linked to that, remove the criminalization of homosexuality articles from the anti-lgbtq one, and then add/modify to include non-criminal of homosexuality ones into the anti-lgbtq one (like the anti-trans ones, etc). I can do those edits while i contine on my edits for this category in general (like sorting into appropriate country categories, moving articles/categories out that dont deal specifically with law/legislation) HighlandFacts (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HighlandFacts How to deal with laws that had both positive and negative impacts on LGBT rights, or those where it’s disputed if it’s antiLGBt or not?

I don’t think that laws can be separated entirely into “pro” and “anti” LGBT without FV, OR and VER issues. For example two articles in the category chosen at random (2022 Hungarian LGBTQ in education referendum, Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code) don’t claim that the law in question is anti-LGBT. (t · c) buIdhe 16:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is quite obvious that we do not need them both, but the title Category:Anti-LGBTQ law seems preferable as more accurate. If it isn’t about law then it does not belong in the tree of Category:LGBT-related legislation altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Marcocapelle, Criminalization is explicitly about laws (my comment is to indicate that it can include things like making it illegal to publicly identify as gay), and it’s more precise. Additionally, anti LGBT is not a good category because some laws have simultaneously expanded and reduced rights for LGBT people, not to mention potential pov issues if there is a dispute whether the law is anti LGBT or not. (t · c) buIdhe 14:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping two parallel categories, as suggested by User:HighlandFacts, does not sound like a very good idea to me, because of the large overlap between the two categories. But they have a good point that anti-transgender law and anti-LGBTQ law in general are better covered by the new title than by the old. Reverse merge for that reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Put into a subcategory relation: All articles in Category:Criminalization of homosexuality fit into Category:Anti-LGBTQ law, but the reverse is not universally true. The analog applies for in the United Kingdom. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 22:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No opinion on the nomination other than, if the UK category is renamed, it should be Criminalisation per standard British English used in UK category names. Mclay1 (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose to collapsing Anti-LGBTQ legistion to just homosexuality. There’s not reason to erase BTQ from tree. ^SMason_Garrison 04:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, things like Bathroom bill are correctly placed in Category:Anti-LGBTQ law and don’t belong in the proposed target. Fram (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as Proposed This seems like a reasonable and broader parent category; it’s OK if a subcategory has more articles than are directly in the parent category. But no objection to boldly creating the proposed categories as subcats, noting the spelling correction by Mclay1. – RevelationDirect (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]