Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 26

April 26

Fiction by nationality

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: option C. Clear consensus for a change. A slight majority of participants prefer C to D—and those supporting D did not rebut the augments that C is more clear, so I find rough consensus for option C. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Fiction by nationality
  • Propose renaming Category:Comics by country
  • Propose renaming Category:Crime fiction by country
  • Propose renaming Category:Novellas by country
  • Propose renaming Category:Novels by country
  • Propose renaming Category:Plays by country
  • Propose renaming Category:Romantic fiction by nationality
  • Propose renaming Category:Short stories by country
  • Propose renaming Category:Speculative fiction by nationality
  • Option A: rename all to "by writer nationality"
  • Option B: rename all to "by nationality"
  • Option C: rename all to "by country of publication"
  • Option D: rename all to "by country"
Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency. Option A aligns with Category:Works by writer nationality and is clearer than option B. Option B and D occur often enough in the names of the nominated categories. Option C is again clearer than option D. My personal order of preference is A-C-B-D. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left a notification of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought we were categorizing by the nationality of the publishing company. What happens with the works of writers with multiple nationalities? For example the writer Felix Salten lost his Austrian citizenship in the late 1930s, and produced his later works as a permanent resident in Switzerland. Dimadick (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments needed on which option to pick.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - As noted, nationalities refer to a person, not a work of art. And the creators/authors of such works are already categorised by nationality. And publishers are also presumably categorised by country of incorporation. That said, what I would support, is categorising written works by published language. If no consensus to delete, weakly deferring to country of publication. - jc37 00:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. So, in this case, weakly support Option C, for now, and ruthlessly prune. That said, "by county of publisher" might be an option as well, to better address international publications. Not sure. But no matter the name, there are going to be issues to resolve. Imagine a Russian author writes a book in Polish and it's published in the USA. Or published in several countries in the EU. Or are translated into many languages. Or someone in 2025 writes a book in classical Latin, or using Anglo-Saxon Runes. Or a book written by an unknown author in ancient times, that was translated and "written" in the modern era. No copyright, so they can claim it as theirs. There are many more examples of such things. - jc37 06:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a problem with all book categories, then. A book can be published in different languages, by different companies, hell even different editions can have different authors. Do you suppose we delete book categories? We solved it by categorizing based on first publication. In the scenario you describe we would tag it as a work by that author, and American book and separately Polish language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus on which option to pick, but there is clear consensus that a change is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 26 April 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:German historical fencers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Category:German historical fencers

Category:Pokémon with regional variants

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. Regional variants are tangential to their notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since regional variants are tied directly to the notability of many species, meaning this would be helpful for people looking for information on the importance of these creatures. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: In your mentioned instance, it would have to be Category:Regional variant Pokémon species to be defining. However, there are too few to populate this hypothetical category. This particular one is non-defining, since it's only Pokémon with regional variants, with no guarantee that said Pokémon's notability is predicated on the variant, not articles about the variants. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm If I may ask, would "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having" not apply here? Admittedly not too familiar with category defining rationales so do let me know if this is not the case or not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say so - does every source that mentions Charizard say it has a Mega evolution unless the discussion calls for it? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need to be discussed in every source, or just be widely discussed in a majority? I don't believe the criterion specifies that from what I remember. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not kept, contents are already likely in Category:Pokémon species by generation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would consider this a fairly significant trait. The argument can be made that, for example, Charizard is not always discussed for its fire abilities, and yet, we accept it as normal to put it in that category. I would also contend that, with the exception of Mr. Mime, every article about a Pokémon with a regional variant benefited significantly from coverage of said regional variant in terms of notability. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a Pokemon fan anymore but this seems fairly defining. Pokemon is big enough that it isn't fancrufty and there are a solid handful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:56, 27 April 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.

History of Sri Lanka in fiction

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. The subcategories are already part of Category:History of Sri Lanka on film. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather oppose for navigation reasons. Also please note that the bottom cat contains 1C +1 P. -Mushy Yank. 21:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:28, 26 April 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:English expatriates in the Habsburg Netherlands

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Category:English expatriates in the Habsburg Netherlands

Category:American historians by populated place

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Category:American historians by populated place

Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality to article List of historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality
Nominator's rationale: "ambiguous or disputed" seems incompatible with WP:DEFINING. fgnievinski (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, truly can't believe this conversation has happened 3, now 4 times. Rylee Amelia (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this is the third time in a year that this category is nominated. Better procedure is nominating this at WP:DRV, but do not have high expectations that this category will be deleted after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Marcocapelle and Trystan. See Wikipedia:6MONTHS, an essay containing recommendations that are generally considered reasonable. Inviting @Fgnievinski: the nominator to kindly withdraw.-Mushy Yank. 23:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid opposers are confusing defining with verifiable and also with neutral (re: due weight). the present characteristic is not mentioned in the lead of most articles, therefore falling under WP:NONDEF. lastly, WP:EGRS/S emphasizes the need for self-identification about gender and sexual orientation, which is definitely not the case here. fgnievinski (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere does it say that for something to be defining it has to be in the lead. Outside of a minority of explicitly gay activists the fact that someone is gay is almost never mentioned in the lead - so unless we want to delete all the sexuality categories, keep, obviously. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NONDEF (an editing guideline) does suggestif the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (regardless of whether it is currently mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining. But that is generally met here. The category scope note says to apply it when the article containssignificant reliable sourcing indicating the presence of ambiguity or dispute regarding the individual's sexuality. That generally takes the form of a well-sourced subsection, and sometimes an entire spun-off sub-article. That section should generally be summarized in the lead along with the rest of the article. A lead of Edward II of England that did not mention his relationship would Gaveston would be significantly deficient. Where there is an entire sub-article, like Sexuality of James VI and I or Sexuality of Frederick the Great, it is obviously defining for that sub-article's topic.--Trystan (talk) 12:47, 29 April 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:Patent legislation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Category:Patent legislation

Category:OTI Festival presenters

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_15#Category:Nationaal_Songfestival_presenters, I suggest deleting this category per WP:PERFCAT. Grk1011 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 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:Maywood (band) songs

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry (which is itself a redirect), making this category wholly redundant. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 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:Funerals in Vatican City

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Deaths and funerals of popes. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, and do the same with the subcategory Category:State funerals in Vatican City for the same reason. Nothing about its sole article seems to refer to it as a "state funeral", and I'm not sure it would qualify as such, nor what would make it qualify when no others do. All that and being a category for just one article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:19, 27 April 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:Czech alchemists

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: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, the term "Czech" became usual in the 19th century and this category is about the 16th century. Or possibly delete the category, the articles are in Category:16th-century writers from Bohemia and Category:16th-century alchemists anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 26 April 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:1st-century texts in Latin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Category:1st-century texts in Latin

Category:Lý dynasty in fiction

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Category:Lý dynasty in fiction

Children's books set in ancient history and Middle Ages

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Children's books set in ancient history and Middle Ages

Category:New Zealand academics lacking usual sources

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This maintenance category doesn't seem to be used, and doesn't seem to have a template connected to it SMasonGarrison 04:27, 26 April 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:Carniolan literary historians

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. There's only one person in here. Matija Čop is described as Slovene (hence the merge target) SMasonGarrison 03:49, 26 April 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:1965 establishments the Republic of in Dahomey

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: rename to Category:1965 establishments in the Republic of Dahomey. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:1965 establishments the Republic of in Dahomey to Category:1965 establishments the Republic of Dahomey
Nominator's rationale: grammar edit - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:46, 26 April 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.

Countries in fiction

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) BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
XXXX in fiction and Culture of XXX is not the same topic. So Oppose. If it has for now one subcat, how is it redundant? -Mushy Yank. 17:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing that target too. Too large (Much too large!!!). /Works about XXX/(as you suggest for some countries) COULD have been better (but then update your nomination, please) As for redundancy, not sure. Because the layer allows to navigate more clearly between Category:Works about Europe by country and Category:Europe in fiction by country and helps the reader in a more systematic way. I would leave it the way it is per WP:Categorization: "And subcategories should be categorised under the most specific parent categories possible." (emphasis not mine)-Mushy Yank. 22:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mushy Yank's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Mushy Yank. Oppose merge, leaving as is does not harm anything. Nayyn (talk) 06:54, 26 April 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:Generals of the Army of Duchy of Warsaw

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: no consensus. A rename nomination might find consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category, upmerge for now. Only Jan Henryk Dąbrowski is in it SMasonGarrison 03:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Piortrus's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agree with @Prokonsul Piotrus. Just because it is under populated is not a good enough rationale for removal if the category reliable. oppose nomination Nayyn (talk) 06:57, 26 April 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:West Coast Gold Rush in fiction

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge for now, only two articles in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles (for now) is enough for a category. Having less precise categories when you can have neutral/defining/verifiable precise ones is not only unnecessary, it is detrimental to the project. Have you done a WP:BEFORE and checked no other fiction works could be contained in the category? -Mushy Yank. 17:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, Oppose. -Mushy Yank. 22:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a third page to the category :D -Mushy Yank. 23:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mushy Yank's population?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agree with @Mushy Yank, oppose nomination Nayyn (talk) 06:58, 26 April 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:Bobsledders by populated place in the United States

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just one entry. Also merge to Category:Bobsledders by populated place. Lost in Quebec (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems reasonable SMasonGarrison 04:32, 26 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_26&oldid=1288647332"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 26, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.