Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 8

May 8

Category:IFL National Championship MVPs

Nominator's rationale: The "IFL National Championship MVP" and IFL MVP awards aren't even notable enough for standalone articles, so they're not defining for these players. As a result, the two container IFL "trophies and awards" cats listed above will also need deleted. The IFL National Championship list also only has one article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spiritism

Nominator's rationale: The word Spiritism is capitalised as a shorthand for a specific view formulated by Pierre Kardec; the main article is disambiguated in Wikipedia to Kardecist spiritism. IMHO the capitalised Spiritism is suitable for Wikipedia categories, but harmonising the inconsistent subcat was opposed at the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • My thinking was that such precision is unnecessary, and the simple capitalised proper noun Spiritism works fine for categories. Kardecist spiritism says that it's also known as Spiritism. However, I see from its talk page that Kardecist spiritism failed a RM last year to move it back to Spiritism. Spiritism in Latin America, which is disambiguated to Espiritismo, is a syncretist practice that originated with Kardec's ideas but is now wider. If we end up going to that level of precision, then Category:Telenovelas about spiritism should probably be renamed instead to Category:Telenovelas about Espiritismo. Several of the articles on films do specifically mention Kardec, so Category:Films about Kardecist spiritism would be a viable category, but the films should probably then be split to Category:Films about Epiritismo. Perhaps the latter should be a parent of Kardecist, otherwise several articles would belong in both. Some other films that are not Latin American would have to be purged and might fit better in Category:Films about spirituality.
In conclusion, attempting precision in these categories looks viable, but I'm not convinced that it would he helpful. I'd still rather retain the looser category names to cover Kardecist and more syncretist ideas. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oak Ridge High School (El Dorado Hills, California)

Nominator's rationale: I'm assuming it was an oversight that "alumni" was left out of the title of this category. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High Integrity Programming Language

Nominator's rationale: Frap (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jerzy Popiełuszko

Nominator's rationale: This category seems unnecessary that it may lead to overcategorization. Typically, blessed or saints in Catholicism, especially since 1800s do not need to have eponymous categories, or that they typically aren't the founding fathers, along with not being publicly known to the world. Inajd0101 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, since John Bosco article has probably more than 10 articles associated with him, he doesn't have an eponymous category. Plus, I feel like this category should be deleted. Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages with obsolete Vega 1.0 graphs

Nominator's rationale: The category is in the category of automatically populated by MediaWiki, but I can't seem to find this category in an insource search. Gonnym (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holiday lists

Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping scope. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anthropomorphic horses

Nominator's rationale: I looked through random 30% of the pages in category. None of them says that the ghorse there is anthrophomorphis, and what is more none of them look like anthropomorphic. Here there are anthropomorphic horses. On the other hand all of them see to be Category:Talking animals. Meaning that this categorization is pure speculation of a wikipedian and it must be dismantled into category:Fiction about talking animals. p.s. there even no horse-headed egyptian god to justify the category. --Altenmann >talk 22:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is keeping and pruning an acceptable alternative?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:15, 29 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) 02:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American radicals

Nominator's rationale: The term "radical" has a specific relation to classical radicalism. In the United States, that ideology was represented by the Radical Republicans, which already has Category:Radical Republicans contained within this one. Instead, the three political figures whose articles are tagged with this category are only united as Progressive Era reformers despite huge differences in their views. For example, Eugene V. Debs is tagged with Category:American anti-capitalists, while Henry George has Category:American anti-communists. With poor defining characteristics, this category can be vaguely labeled onto anyone involved in far-left or far-right politics and should be deleted accordingly for using "radical" as a subjective descriptor. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose. Deleting the category would isolate the child category Category:Radical Republicans. Your concern seems to be equally applicable to the parent category Category:Radicals and sibling categories, like British radicals, German radicals etc. SMasonGarrison 02:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input as the category creator! To clarify, if deleted, I would want Category:Radical Republicans to be a direct child of Category:Radicals rather than orphaned. The header text of Category:Radicals clarifying that "radicalism does not refer here to the American English sense of the term as a left or right-wing 'radical', but to the contrary to the political tradition of Radicalism" highlights why a category for American radicals is uniquely confusing, especially when the country's distinctly radical politicians already have their own category. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at several threads on Talk:Classical radicalism, it seems there is currently no consensus as to what the name of the page should be. So until that is squared away, it's difficult to decide what the name of the related categories should be. It would appear that Category:Radicals is an ambiguous name as-is, and probably needs some sort of modifying word or parenthetical. And until that is resolved, I'm not sure we can address this subcat as to whether it is appropriate categorisation or not. - jc37 06:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean support (with re-parenting of the subcategory), it looks as if it is not a defining characteristic of the three articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's comment? Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment to reparent the subcategory and prune the three articles?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:49, 29 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) 02:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defectors to the Free Syrian Army

Nominator's rationale: Most defector categories are about defection from one nation to another. I'm not sure that this applies is what is happening with Syrian members of one military force joining another. SMasonGarrison 12:52, 29 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) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battle of the Blades participants

Nominator's rationale: These people are already notable celebrities or professionals, so clear violation of WP:PERFCAT for appearing on a TV series. --woodensuperman 07:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the base category, upmerge the season-specific subcategories back to it. Nearly all reality shows consist entirely of people who have other notability claims besides having been on a reality show — people don't get articles because they appeared on an Idol or Got Talent series, they get articles if and when they go on to parlay their time on a reality show into a stronger notability claim, like getting over WP:NMUSIC with their post-Idol recordings. So nobody is ever notable because they were on a reality show in and of itself — all "reality show participants" categories always consist of people who have other notability claims above and beyond the reality show, because the people wouldn't even have articles at all if appearing on a reality show was the sum total of their notability claim in and of itself.
    We have established a consensus against subcategorizing reality show categories by individual season, so I can't justify a keep argument on the season subcategories — but for the base category, the nominator hasn't demonstrated that this would be subject to different considerations than other reality show contestant categories like Category:Got Talent contestants, Category:Big Brother (franchise) contestants or Category:The Apprentice contestants, which all also consist entirely of people who have other notability claims besides competing on a reality show per se. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference with the examples you give like Big Brother is that these people came to prominence through their appearance on that show and we have tended to make an exception to WP:PERFCAT for them. However, participants in celebrity reality shows are not afforded that exception and are routinely deleted. This is more akin to Celebrity Big Brother, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 21#Category:Celebrity Big Brother (UK) contestants and many, many more examples. --woodensuperman 20:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus favors removal of the subcategories; should the parent category be deleted, too?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Angel games

Nominator's rationale: Angel (company) can't be used as it leads to a dab page. Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Zxcvbnm's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from Portuguese India to British India

Nominator's rationale: narrow category. both are former countries, and notably we don't have Emigrants from Portuguese India SMasonGarrison 12:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Babylon 5 stubs

Nominator's rationale: This stub category is extremely small; there are only two other articles in it - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 16:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Carrie Dobro shouldn't even be in it per WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 17:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag {{Babylon5-stub}}; thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghan hematologists

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Afghan physicians.

Also nominating for merge:

Category:Doctors of Divinity

Nominator's rationale: I don't think having a specific degree is defining by itself. I'd love some other opinions because I view it analogous to categorizing psychologists by whether they have a Ph.D., Psy.D, Ed.D., or ScD. (There are differences, but they aren't defining from a wikipedia standpoint) SMasonGarrison 01:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now) – if you want the category to be renamed, Smasongarrison, we do really need to see the new name. You are right that it should be a defining characteristic, and there was no consensus on that in the previous discussion. Regards, Moonraker (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about the prevision CFD. I think even something like Doctors of Divinity (people) or People with Doctorates of Divinity. because for me, when I first found it, I thought they are all about doctorates of divitity rather than people who have degrees in it. SMasonGarrison 20:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Category:American women civilians in World War II

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories and narrow intersection, we don't have an American civilians of WW2 category. SMasonGarrison 01:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, category distinguishes between those who served in the military and those who contributed as civilians. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:08, 29 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) 01:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FieldMarine do you have suggestions on alternative renames? Because the challenge I have is that there's not a American civilians of WW2 parent category, so it doesn't make sense to me that we'd have an intersection just for women. SMasonGarrison 20:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Category:American civilians in World War II. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Roman military historiography

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only the ancient Greek and ancient Roman subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: only some of the subcategory "military books in Latin" belong to antiquity; several date from the ninth century or later. I suppose that partially-matching categories can be subcategories of multiple parents; but in any case "Latin" and "Roman" are not the same thing. I don't know whether this should make a difference to this nomination, since a majority of the category's contents does consist of Roman works from the fifth century or earlier, and thus would belong under the proposed title. P Aculeius (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on P Aculeius's comment? I do not see it as an objection, so if anyone does object, please speak up :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State funerals in Vatican City

Nominator's rationale: There is no difference with Category:Funerals in Vatican City. Normal funerals would take place in Italy, and none of the pope-related articles are treated as state funerals. (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of priest and religious men and women working in the Vatican complex and I don't think you could consider funerals for any of them to be "state funerals". I don't know who would fund them, I assume if the individual belongs to a religious order, that group would pay for a funeral. I think, no matter what country it is, "state funerals" are held for current or former leaders or for a very few number of people that are considered very important by the current leadership of a country. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's and Liz's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Funerals in Vatican City was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 26#Category:Funerals in Vatican City.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with an account on Archive of Our Own

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the more common naming convention in Category:Wikipedians by website. Alternately delete since it's not clear how this category aids collaboration. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator) but Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use Archive of Our Own so that it is broader and more inclusive of editors who use the website to interact in ways that do not necessarily involve contributing stories or creating an account. I don't see any issues with the category existing, personally. Fan fiction and fandom are broad topics with much legitimate coverage on the encyclopedia, and given AO3's position of significance as a major platform for fandom communities of all stripes, I think it is fair to have a category available for users to indicate their interest in the website and topics related to it. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on silviaASH's suggested name?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_8&oldid=1289559222"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 8, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.