Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 5

April 5

Category:DreamWorks Animation animated films

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this case, DreamWorks Animation specifically only produces animated films, while DreamWorks Pictures produces live-action as well. Since all films from DreamWorks animation are animated, there is no ambiguity here and the word "animated" can be dropped from the title. RanDom 404 (talk) 23:26, 5 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:Hollyoaks navigational boxes

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 to Category:Soap opera navigational boxes and Category:Hollyoaks. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Hollyoaks as well. Only one page. RanDom 404 (talk) 23:26, 5 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:Lists of railway stations in Ireland

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 to all parents. These are Category:Lists of railway stations in Europe, Category:Railway stations in Ireland, Category:Irish railway-related lists, Category:Lists of buildings and structures in Ireland, and Category:Lists of buildings and structures in Northern Ireland. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent has three pages, so adding this would do. RanDom 404 (talk) 22:44, 5 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:750 mm gauge railways in the Cook Islands

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 to Category:750 mm gauge railways and Category:Railways in the Cook Islands. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Railways in the Cook Islands as well since only one page. RanDom 404 (talk) 22:44, 5 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:The Young and the Restless episodes

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 with no prejudice to recreation if the drafts mentioned by DaniloDaysOfOurLives become articles. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page. RanDom 404 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are currently several articles in the process of being created and hence by the end of the month there will be at least 3 pages there DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:49, 5 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:Desperate Housewives episodes

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. Category is diffused to several large subcategories at the season level, as observed by Marcocapelle. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page. RanDom 404 (talk) 22:27, 5 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:Lists of Doctors (2000 TV series) characters

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. A nomination of Category:Doctors (2000 TV series) lists might find consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in parent category, merging would populate it. RanDom 404 (talk) 22:26, 5 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.

Categories 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: rename to Fiction about X (as nominated). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, these are set categories containing articles about fictional works rather than topic categories containing articles about literature. This was a WP:C2C nomination at WP:CFDS and as such opposed by User:HandsomeFella. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all No objection to widening the scope per your suggestion, but it is "the opioid epidemic", a singular event. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on "the" (I went ahead and added it, please feel free to revert).
    That said, I think each of these may need to be pruned once renamed, as not all the entries are "about" the topic - which is presumably why we have this naming standard: to prevent category bloat of mere mentions. In the case of the opioid epidemic one, what is likely left after purging might be better just merged to the parent (about opiods). - jc37 23:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the rename target be Fiction about X or Works about X? Clear consensus for a rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:33, 5 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:International Player Pathway Program participants

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) 21:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Official name of the program is International Player Pathway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any second for deleting? -- Beland (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beland (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not seeing objections to renaming if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:29, 5 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:Relations of Russia and its former colonies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 14#Category:Relations of Russia and its former colonies


Category:Lists of events lists

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) 21:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: these are events in the very vague meaning of "anything that happened in history". This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of events lists holds lists of lists of events: containers of containers. The lists in the lists of events itemize events. Many of these events are not notable, and have no article. Thus Lists of murders contains List of journalists killed in Guatemala, which has many entries for killings that are not notable in the Wikipedia sense. It is not a list of historical events even if we assume that all events recorded in Wikipedia are historical. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 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) 21:06, 5 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:People from Africa (Roman province)

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 the "Roman Africa" names. Clear, unanimous support for a rename. No clear consensus on what the new name should be, so I am going with "Roman Africa" per WP:BARTENDER. It has some support from multiple people (P Aculeius and Marcocapelle), and is similar to "Roman North Africa". HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

  • Category:4th-century people of Africa (Roman province) (0) to Category:4th-century people of Roman North Africa
  • Category:5th-century people of Africa (Roman province) (0) to Category:4th-century people of Roman North Africa
  • Category:6th-century people of Africa (Roman province) (0) to Category:4th-century people of Roman North Africa
  • Category:Saints from Roman Africa (province) (0) to Category:Saints from Roman North Africa ("From" is important here to differentiate from saints venerated in North Africa.)

Propose split of Category:People of Roman North Africa from Category:People from Africa (Roman province) (0).

Nominator's rationale: As previously discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 17#Category:3rd century in Africa (Roman province), there was no Roman province of Africa after about 300 CE. Most of the contents of these categories are after that date. I'm following the parent category's name of Category:Roman North Africa, although Roman Africa would be a viable option, akin to the Category:4th century in Roman Africa naming scheme. Daask (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' What is being considered as "Africa" here? If it isn't the Roman province, then using the term "Roman Africa" could be construed to be anything on the continent of Africa, and not just the region of the province. Thus the proposed name is highly ambiguous. Roman Libya and Roman Africa also engender confusion, as Rome called the continent Libya (Ancient Libya]), and there was also provinces called Libya, and our article on Roman Africa is not the same scope as the categories being proposed to be renamed -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @65.92.246.77: Good question. I'll repeat the relevant remarks from the prior discussion:
    I was imagining Category:Roman North Africa as the parent category, and not using any political unit emic to the period, since these changed too frequently for categorization purposes. Daask (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, Diocese of Africa exists 314-439 CE, Praetorian prefecture of Africa exists 534–591 CE, Exarchate of Africa exists 591–698 CE. Daask (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, this would include Roman Egypt? In this case I think it would be better to call it "Roman North Africa", to dispense with terms that may be confused with entities that existed called "Africa" under Roman rule. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename using "Diocese of Africa" per article title Diocese of Africa. Note that Egypt has never been part of Africa during the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using "Roman Africa". It's as good a choice as "North Africa", since the Romans wouldn't have used that terminology, and readers who don't know that Egypt was never included in Roman Africa won't distinguish Egypt from "North Africa" either; thus there is no advantage to "North Africa". The alternative proposal, "Diocese of Africa", would be inaccurate for at least half the period covered, and add a potential layer of confusion due to the use of "Diocese" as an ecclesiastical designation. P Aculeius (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have to be clear what we mean here. Is it Roman people from Africa (including people from Egypt) or is it people from a specific place under Roman control?★Trekker (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be very confusing to expand Roman Africa to Roman Egypt while Romans did not. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe anybody suggested doing so. "Roman Africa" doesn't normally include Egypt, though "North Africa" usually does, which is why "Roman North Africa" might be confusing. There's a simple way to address this, though it won't necessarily eliminate all mistakes: mention on the category page that "Roman Africa" excludes Egypt, which was a separate province at all periods of Roman history. That won't prevent editors from mistakenly including persons from Egypt, but it will provide guidance for anyone who checks the category first, and for pruning it when people are mistakenly included. P Aculeius (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not seeing consensus on rename target, but clear consensus for a rename. I will also tag the categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus on rename target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Marcocapelle: I appreciate your interest in having our categories reflect Roman political structures. However, I think Roman political structures changed too much over the centuries for them to be usable in a X by century scheme. We could try for precise categories like Category:People of Libya Inferior (Roman province), but I'm not confident that we know precise dates and borders of all of these provinces, so I'm doubtful that would work either. Also, that would likely result in some very small categories that are poorly linked together. Besides Egypt, I don't think the land of Cyrenaica was ever part of a Roman polity by the name of "Africa". Other parts sometimes were joined in a unit named Africa and sometimes weren't. Also important to note is that the Exarchate of Africa included plenty of territory that was not on the continent of Africa. Contra P Aculeius, the conclusion of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 17#Category:3rd century in Africa (Roman province) was support for my proposal of a scope including the entire continent of Africa, including Egypt, which continues to be my proposal here. I just don't see a better option. Daask (talk) 21:01, 7 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:Airstrikes by perpetrator

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 21#Category:Airstrikes by perpetrator

Campbell's Soup Company

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 20#Campbell's Soup Company

Category:Sport in Rotuma

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROW. Only 1 article. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:23, 5 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.

Youth Olympic venues navigational boxes

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge in spirit of WP:C2F. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:53, 5 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.


Archery at the European Games navigational boxes

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge in spirit of WP:C2F. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:46, 5 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.

2015 European Games event navigational boxes

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. ✗plicit 13:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per actual content and reparent to Category:2015 European Games templates, etc. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contents are sidebars, not navboxes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:07, 13 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:Topps All-Star Rookie Rosters

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Triple merge; only two articles and unlikely to grow. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:59, 5 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:Luis Aparicio Award winners

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD. There are a lot of MLB/Baseball related awards but not all should have categories IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:51, 5 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 house of Courtenay

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. ✗plicit 13:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per nom. Being honest, I can't tell the distinction between the "1st" and the "House of Courtenay". As far as I can tell, its the same family/relation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:04, 23 March 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) 18:48, 5 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:Tyla (South African singer)

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was going to submit a speedy rename request per C2D before realizing that this was requested 5 months ago but was opposed at Category talk:Tyla (South African singer) on the grounds of "Tyla" being too ambiguous. I disagree with this assertion because the main subject article has no disambiguation required and there is nothing at the non-existent Tyla cat. Considering no formal CfD was initiated from that original discussion, I am starting this now. People looking for a cat about Tyla would not be surprised to find articles only for the singer mononymously known as Tyla. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all I can say is that I was the one who requested the move/rename 5 months ago. dxneo (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, too ambiguous. After renaming, people may well add articles of other Tylas to this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even when Tyla is the primary topic of the singer predominantly known by this name? That's why Tyla (disambiguation) exists, and if any other Tylas from that DAB warranted a cat of their own, I'm pretty sure they would be properly disambiguated. That logic just does not add up to me. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • People can add articles to categories without looking at the main article or even without looking at the category page, so disambiguators are more important for categories than for articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose, but reasonably, most editors would likely do their due diligence first. We cannot and should not preemptively take inaction just because some people could assume something that is incorrect. I find it hard to believe someone would genuinely want to add this cat thinking it would be for anyone with this name. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Saying people might add other articles to the cat is not really valid reason, because there are lots of Chris Browns and we do not see that happening. Beside, we will keep our eyes on the cat to make sure that simple mistake does not happen. dxneo (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:55, 23 March 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) 18:47, 5 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:Lists of days

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 to Category:Lists of observances. Consensus for a merge; and I am WP:BARTENDERing this to the option with majority support. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Lists of observances. Comments on the double merger would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:44, 5 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:High school honor societies

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Agreement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities see

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities#Another_Higher_Honor_Society_Level_and_rearrangement? Naraht (talk) 17:51, 5 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:People from Halmstad by occupation

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Layer not needed. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:37, 5 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.

Dams in Samoa

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article (and a redirect to that same article). Not useful for navigation. WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:28, 5 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:Lists of Indiian people by state or union territory

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: speedy rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Typo in "Indian" SerChevalerie (talk) 17:08, 5 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.


Lists of companies of Samoa

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROW. Only 1 article, which is already in subcategories of the other parent categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:01, 5 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:Lists of synagogues in British Overseas Territories

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 13#Category:Lists of synagogues in British Overseas Territories

9th century BC in Italy

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. There was no consensus on how to categorize pre–Italian Republic items for things that happened within its present-day boundaries. However, the tree contains only one article, the Etruscan civilization, so WP:OCYEAR applies. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:9th century BC in Italy (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:9th-century BC establishments in Italy (0)
Nominator's rationale: The Etruscan civilization existed prior to the existence of Italy. While it was on the Italian peninsula, Italy was not a country at this time. The article is already in Category:States and territories established in the 9th century BC, so merging is not needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on how centuries prior to modern Italy should be categorized.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Dimadick's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:31, 5 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:Premature events

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) 22:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: From Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_15#Events_by_chronology: a combination of unrelated topics with similar names. Most existing contents are on medical conditions, and should be moved to other categories such as Category:Pediatrics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:29, 5 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:Canadian federal deputy ministers

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. ✗plicit 13:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similarly, I don't see why this distinction for "federal" is needed or defining. SMasonGarrison 21:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They serve different governments. It's like saying that there shouldn't be separate categories for American federal senators and state senators. Atchom (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:00, 24 March 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) 16:26, 5 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.

Footballers by populated place in England by county

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers. The nominated categories are the only subcategory of the county parent (e.g. Category:Footballers from Bedfordshire). Not useful to have a "by populated place" container category in county category. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated.14GTR (talk) 16:06, 6 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.

Sportspeople educated at St Bede's College, Manchester

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 20#Sportspeople educated at St Bede's College, Manchester

Nominator's rationale: They are part of the same family, but otherwise rather different and each have their own main category. There is no apparent reason to combine the two into a single category. This would also apply to any combined subcategories, or if the ensuing category would be too small, the contents would be upmerged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming? (I originally closed this as split; reopening per request on my talk page.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American economists by populated place

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: duel upmerge for now. only one category in here SMasonGarrison 13:34, 5 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:4th millennium

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 14#Category:4th millennium

Category:Philosophers of love

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 14#Category:Philosophers of love

Category:Parthian Empire 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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge for now, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. The article just happens to be about the Roman–Parthian Wars, hence the merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 5 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:Argentina in fiction by 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: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per actual content, it is all about works. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it makes sense. Thanks! --Fadesga (talk) 16:29, 5 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:Films based on children's literature

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging is not needed, the subcategory is already in all relevant trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 5 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:Masked actors

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Iconic role" seems completely subjective. Non-defining as actors take on new roles all the time. Bloody boogers (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category. If there are no further comments, we are all set to process the nomination :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:27, 5 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:Canadian socialists of Ukrainian descent

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) 22:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Triple intersection of nationality, descent, and political identity. User:Namiba 17:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The IP appears to suggest a manual merge; is that the best way forward?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:26, 5 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:Creature actors

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. The list of pages at time of closing is here, in case anyone wishes to listify. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Random and subjective category. Bloody boogers (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PREFCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, seems to categorize actors for playing non-human-like characters although the description is unclear. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll tag the category. If there are no further comments we are all set to process the nomination :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:22, 5 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:Interactive narrative

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 to delete; no consensus to do CFD-endorsed purging. As always, editors are permitted to make individual edits to pages if they feel doing so would improve Wikipedia, including removing categories. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a weird category that apparently mostly contains chatbots out of all things. Even though I know that's what this category is trying to do, this does not look like a "category for games or books where the plot is determined by the user." at all! QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:16, 5 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:Canons of Sandomierz

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 Category:Canons of Sandomierz and merge Category:Clergy from Sandomierz to Category:People from Sandomierz. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers. WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the updated nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:15, 5 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:Former forts

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) 21:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an underpopulated category that, if populated (after a lot of work), would be huge and unwieldy, even if the (in fact ambiguous) qualifier "completely demolished" is kept. I suggest populating "Military installations closed in [year or appropriate time frame]" as sufficient, or an alternative, as the case may be. btw I think the subcategory "Former star forts" is distinctive enough for keeping, though each should be cross-categorized in "Military installations closed in [year or appropriate time frame]". Doprendek (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:09, 5 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:Plant characters

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: split. between Category:Fictional plants and Category:Anthropomorphic plants. Clear consensus for a change; this had plurality support (and was not that different from a simple merge to Category:Fictional plants). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Plant characters into Category:Anthropomorphic plants
Reason: These categories both seem to cover the exact same concept of anthropomorphized plant characters as far as I can see. I think most of us can agree that one of them is redundant to the other. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on merge direction
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split? I will tag Category:Anthropomorphic plants to allow for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:08, 5 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:F0 and F1 tornadoes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 14#Category:F0 and F1 tornadoes

Category:Kadokawa Dwango

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As of 2019, the company has simply rebranded back to Kadokawa.VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Kadokawa Dwango; if there are no further comments we are all set to merge :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:02, 5 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.

Template:Guangzhou-geo-stub

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only three transclusions, none of which link to mainspace articles. OpalYosutebito (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; created in 2012 and never used, apparently. Her Pegship (?) 21:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your Pegship this one was db-author'd in 2012, then recreated by yourself in 2023! Redirect to {{Guangzhou-stub}}? – Fayenatic London 23:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(slaps self with trout) Oy vey. Yes, that sounds reasonable. Her Pegship (?) 02:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Fayenatic London's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:00, 5 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:Kadokawa Daiei Studio films

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The films produced and/or distributed by Kadokawa as a whole are currently credited simply under the Kadokawa name, the Kadokawa Daiei Studio company mainly controls the studio facilities for Kadokawa's film and TV production divisions. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category. If there are no further comments in a week, we are all set to rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:54, 5 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:Slavery of Native Americans

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 21#Category:Slavery of Native Americans

Category:Barbadian jazz musicians by instrument

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 both. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 00:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also merge Category:Barbadian jazz trumpeters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:51, 5 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:Video games with tile-based graphics

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 in its current form. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Months ago, I removed all pages from Category:Tile-based video games even though the two categories clearly were meant to have two distinct purposes, not the same. Consider using the Wayback Machine to see what I removed from Category:Tile-based video games, and what used to be in this category (tile based vg category was supposed to be for video games that simulate the table games of the same type, I think) Also, I kind of hard to understand what exactly you mean by "Tile-based graphics". IN FACT this category's looks like a mess of different things that are not related. Anyway, the whole tile-based games thing isn't really defining in the end because it could refer to so many different things, wouldn't Plants vs. Zombies count as one? Nothing special. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not seeing objections to deletion. If you do object, please speak up :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was still the pre-Windows95 era, I might disagree with you. Tile-based games were a very clear sub-type of video games. But at this point - especially since modern enthusiastic editors seem to have this confused with tile games of other kinds - I suppose this could probably be a list. But since an article already exists, I think we're fine there.
    So anyway, to be clear for the closer, I would "prefer" to see this repopulated/pruned, and probably renamed for clarity, but in reality, WP:TNT is probably more appropriate here, so not opposing deletion. - jc37 20:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    People! I am not asking for categories to be deleted or for its purpose to be changed in anyway, I am going to restore all of the original pages in both categories. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already re-populated both categories with the pages they had originally before any of my edits related to both categories. Also Category:Tile-based video games is an almost completely different concept from Category:Video games with tile-based graphics because the other category (the one I mentioned first) is for video games similar to a tile-based game such as dominos, not for games with "Tile-based graphics" which I can see not everyone has the same interpretation for. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:07, 16 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:20th-century Alaska Natives

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) 21:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: my instinct was speedy via parent is Alaska Native people; but 21st-century Native Americans is the other parent SMasonGarrison 04:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename We name categories by ethnicity or nationality as "X people", and the Native American ones should be renamed as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 5 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:Legendary birds

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 Category:Legendary birds; merge Category:Mythological birds to Category:Birds in mythology. Clear consensus for a change, so I am going with the "least change" option per WP:BARTENDER. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories nest into each other, but have no clear distinction. Mythological is more inline with other similar categories such as Category:Mythological mammals. But there are other categories that confuse the Legendary/Mythical distinction. There are a lot of other similar examples, but I'm not very experienced with this and wanted to start small. RaidRexx (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I understand it is that mythological refers to an (extinct) religion. There is Greek mythology, Germanic mythology, Indian mythology, all revolving around deities and spirits and their interaction witb human people. Legendary is non-religious. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my most preliminary amateur research, the broadest term would be Folklore as both Myth and Legend pages list them as genres of folklore. Related to your statement the wikis for myth and legend say:
    --Myths consist primarily of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, often endorsed by religious and secular authorities.
    --Legends consist of a narrative featuring human actions, believed or perceived to have taken place in human history, distinguished from myths in that they concern human beings as the main characters and do not necessarily have supernatural origins, and sometimes in that they have some sort of historical basis whereas myths generally do not.
    Ultimately I don't think the distinction between these three would serve any practical purpose for the sake of categories as its such a blurry undefined line and maintaining clean distinctions between the two would be too tedious. I feel like the most concise option would Folkloric birds, but that's not as common a term as myth or legend. The most inclusive and easily understood would by Mythological, legendary, and folkloric birds, but that becomes too wordy and unwieldly. Finally Category: Birds in mythology is a separate even broader scope category, and wouldn't serve the same purpose the current categories. RaidRexx (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion linked by Marcocapelle was closed as "rename to Category:Mythological corvids".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree (unfortunately) that Mythological, legendary, and folkloric birds is an option. It would be better to have a simpler term that encompasses all of those, which also leaves open the creation of three subcategories if there was ever a need for any of them. Mythological could be ok, but some might think we were saying that legends and folklore are subsumed in myth, which they're not. This problem must come up in several areas, including the one Marcocapelle linked to, so a consistent solution would be good. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support merging either way, however I'm personally not sure whether "Legendary" or "Mythological" would be better for the final category name. Also, something should be done about the Legendary/Mythological mammals categories too. AHI-3000 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Instead of writing the same paragraphs (again) about the issues concerning creatures of fiction, folklore, legend, and myth, I'll just say that I think we should probably have an overall discussion about legendary and mythological creatures (and persons and entities). I think this is a case where doing piecemeal noms doesn't work. - jc37 22:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see where you're coming from. There should probably be a discussion about folkloric/legendary/mythological characters and creatures as a whole, and consolidating all of these redundant subcategories together. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this has been open so long, and both categories have apparently been tagged, here's what I would support: Keep Category:Legendary birds, and Merge Category:Mythological birds to Category:Birds in mythology. I would not oppose Merging both to Category:Legendary birds in mythology. Whatever the result, I think pruning may be appropriate. I still think we should talk about the trees, but I guess we can start here. Please relist to see if we can find a consensus. - jc37 20:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's most recent suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:01, 5 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:17th-century German etchers

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 to Category:Xth-century etchers, Category:Xth-century German engravers, and Category:German etchers. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 00:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Responses to Fram's and Aidan's points?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:56, 5 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:Indian film critics associations

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated categories, that I couldn't populate SMasonGarrison 03:45, 5 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.

People of Azuchi–Momoyama-period Japan

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:People of the Azuchi–Momoyama period, Category:Buddhists of the Azuchi–Momoyama period, and Category:Clergy of the Azuchi–Momoyama period, respectively. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose keeping Category:People of Azuchi–Momoyama-period Japan
  • Propose renaming Category:Azuchi–Momoyama period Buddhists to Category:Buddhists of Azuchi–Momoyama-period Japan
  • Propose renaming Category:Azuchi–Momoyama period Buddhist clergy to Category:Buddhist clergy of Azuchi–Momoyama-period Japan
Nominator's rationale: MOS:SUFFIXDASH says "Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen". That guideline therefore requires two dashes in the adjective "Azuchi–Momoyama–period". But IMHO the parent looks fine with a dash and a hyphen. We have a precedent to vary SUFFIXDASH for categories where "-related lists" follows a compound name, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_20#MOS:SUFFIXDASH_moves. I think we should follow that precedent for categories ending "-period Japan", i.e. keep the hyphen rather than use a dash there. – Fayenatic London 12:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A notice of this discussion has been posted at WT:MOS#SUFFIXDASH and categories. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing 2&3, and 1 is wrong - I think the nominator has made an error. While it is true that MOS tells us "Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen", it does not apply to categories. That same subsection also tells us "the principle is not extended when compounding other words in category names, e.g., Category:Tennis-related lists and Category:Table tennis-related lists both use hyphens." MOS also tells us that "The form of category names follows the corresponding main articles." So category names should always correspond to main articles, and then follow normal English rules. Based on MOS the "Azuchi–Momoyama period" is what we should be using per WikiMOS and precedent. Categories are not handled the same as standard prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fyunck(click): Sorry, I don't understand. If 1 is wrong, what do you think it should be – Category:Azuchi–Momoyama period people? Having a space before "period" would not match siblings for people of other eras within its parent Category:Japanese people by period. You seem to be opposing all hyphens before "period" in category names. To take a shorter example, "Edo period" is a noun, but within the phrase "Edo-period Japan" the words "Edo-period" are hyphenated because they are a compound adjective. That is a normal English rule. So Category:Edo period has no hyphen, as "Edo" is the adjective specifying the period; but in Category:Edo-period sites, "Edo-period" is the compound adjective specifying the sites. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fayenatic london: Per our own MOS, categories match our articles. The article is Azuchi–Momoyama period so why are we adding a hyphen at all? Are you saying that more precisely defining it by adding Japan we have to add a hyphen? That period is only in Japan. If anything it would be be "Azuchi–Momoyama period, Japan"... or "Azuchi–Momoyama period in Japan." Perhaps even more appropriately "Japanese Azuchi–Momoyama period." But I didn't write the Wiki MOS on this situation. It says categories follow the article title. And when I search with Google I find this and this and this where no one hyphens "period". We have several of these category errors that get fixed from time to time. I see them and usually ignore them as not being worth the bother of change... sort of if it aint broke don't fix it. But here we have someone trying to change things from good to bad it seems to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with both. The category name as it stands deserves a dash, this is a plain grammar issue. Fyunck is arguing for a different format of the name, which is very reasonable too, but that would apply to the whole category tree. So I think the latter should be dealt with in a separate group nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Fayenatic london's most recent suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will ping previous participants to see if they are okay with FL's proposal. Thoughts on what to do with Category:Azuchi–Momoyama period Buddhist clergy would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not near my main computer at the moment. Quickly, while I still feel I’m correct in my assessment, I’m fine with FLs proposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support FL's proposal and Macrocapelle's Category:Clergy of the Azuchi–Momoyama period. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:43, 5 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:Hebrew-language names

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: implement Altenmann's plan. Subcategories like Category:Modern names of Hebrew origin may be discussed in a follow-up nomination. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It looks like there is something multiwrong with this category.
Done with subcats.
Final suggestion: What's in a Name?
  • Support. Articles about Hebrew-language names are of course ok to have in this category, but articles about any other Jewish topics are not. The fact that an article or subcategory has a Hebrew-language name is not relevant. We are categorizing content, not page names. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which of the options should we go with?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 5 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:Memorials to Rosa Parks

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 and purge. The content that needs to be purged can be picked out at WP:CFDWM. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Monuments and memorials by person and Category:Monuments and memorials to American women --Another Believer (Talk) 03:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:59, 5 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:Kokborok-language film stubs

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two articles in this category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? I will tag the template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OpalYosutebito: pinging for your thoughts. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds alright to me. I was initially considering merging, but so far your reasoning has somewhat changed my mind... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:13, 5 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:Memorials to Harriet Tubman

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 and purge. Whether anything needs to be purged is irrelevant to the actual discussion, and can be handled at WP:CFDWM. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Monuments and memorials by person and Category:Monuments and memorials to American women --Another Believer (Talk) 03:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:50, 5 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:Memorials to Diana, Princess of Wales

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 and purge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Monuments and memorials by person and Category:Monuments and memorials to British women --Another Believer (Talk) 03:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:49, 5 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:Māori and Pacific Island scientists

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:New Zealand Māori scientists and purge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think that this should be renamed per c2c New Zealand Māori people by occupation, but I'm not sure that it's clear cut. SMasonGarrison 01:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename? Split? Something else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:44, 5 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:Lists of political office-holders by province or territory in Canada

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 20#Category:Lists of political office-holders by province or territory in Canada

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_5&oldid=1286652280"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 5, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.