Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 00:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC). Currently, there are 439 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

Opposed requests

Note: feel free to ping me if I've made any typos. This was a pretty big proposal, and I'm not immune from the occasional mistake or oversight. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

They have meanwhile been listed too, further above. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions

Shortcut

March 7

NEW NOMINATIONS

March 6

Category:Austrian oncologists

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

Also propose merging:

Category:1294 in military history

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Redundant category layer containing only a conflicts subcategory. Merge to match the behavior of surrounding years/decade categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1138 in art

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Not useful for navigation. The lone article in the decade category is already in Category:Decades of the 12th century in art, so deletion is fine. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian Films in the Public Domain

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. I'm not aware of any categories like this existing. If kept, rename to fix obvious MOS casing issues and add parent categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Samoa football template categories

Nominator's rationale: per Category:Soccer in American Samoa via Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_16#Category:Football_in_American_Samoa. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works set in dynastic periods

  • Nominator's rationale: rename, in principle the "Fiction" tree consists of "Works" and "Fictional elements" (e.g. "Fictional characters") but in practice the above categories only contain "Works". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Births by year 600 BC - 500

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, until about the year 500 the tree largely consists of 1- and 2-article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Close was contested, but there is consensus to merge categories up to 500 BC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legendary birds

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]

Category:The Apprentice contestants

Nominator's rationale: Just seems to be full of celebrities known for other things, which is not WP:DEFINING for them, and falls foul of WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 10:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the subcategories should be co-nominated (apart from the winners). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking at the Irish and the British ones and, for the most part, these do seem to actually be people who were made famous by their participation in the series. Not so much the Australian one, although there do seem to be a couple. On closer inspection, maybe we should purge of people who were already notable before their appearances (in all of the national variation subcategories), and certainly not include any Celebrity Apprentice participants? --woodensuperman 08:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said, I am really struggling to find any in the main category who aren't already notable for other things. --woodensuperman 08:52, 18 February 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) 01:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Robust purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People 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]

Category:Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

Nominator's rationale: rename, with ministries we usually add the country name in order to avoid ambiguity. It is almost a speedy WP:C2B. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, only article with the exact name Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:52, 24 February 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) 18:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avian humanoids

Nominator's rationale: clearer name and similar to parent Category:Mythological human–animal hybrids. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article is List of avian humanoids. And I am uncertain how we define hybrid in these cases. Dimadick (talk) 07:00, 26 February 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) 18:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars of Precolonial East Africa

Nominator's rationale: merge per actual content, the articles are all about Ethiopians. Note that the term "pre-colonial" is pretty meaningless in Ethiopia, apart from a brief occupation by Italy they were an independent country. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with the North African scholar articles, this is a reflection of my own restrictions moreso than the validity of the articles -- I am vastly more knowledgeable about Ethiopian history than Sudanese, Somali, Kenyan, or Tanzanian history, and I am the only person who has added articles to this category thus far. One would think that this limitation of a single user maintaining the category, would not invalidate the premise of the category. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all -- with all due respect, this category very clearly includes scholars from modern Somalia and Kenya. As such, renaming or merging the category with "Ethiopian Scholars" would be clearly inappropriate. I kindly request this proposal be dropped. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Scholars of precolonial East Africa (decapitalize "precolonial"). Either way, oppose merge as per HiddenHistoryPedia, the category now does include non-Ethiopian scholars. it's lio! | talk | work 12:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest by country templates

Nominator's rationale: Similar to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 21#Category:Eurovision Song Contest by country templates, current name is poorly structured linguistically and should be renamed to something more natural-sounding in English and match the title structure of the templates being categorised. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drag performers by nationality and populated place

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Only 2 subcategories. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military personnel by populated place in England by county

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers. Not useful for navigation. Not necessary to diffuse English military personnel by populated place in county. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German male actors / actresses by state and populated place

Nominator's rationale: The "by populated place in" is the only subcategory of C:Actresses/Male actors from STATE making these categories redundant and not useful for navigation. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete as nominated.14GTR (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male actors by nationality and populated place

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-3 subcategories. Redundant category layer. WP:NARROW. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 1#Nationality actresses by populated place. For the Mexican category, the subcategories are already categorized under Category:Mexican male actors by state, so an additional target is unnecessary. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated14GTR (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Bal Harbour, Florida

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Northern Wei people

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Afghan psychiatrists

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

Also nominating for merging:

Category:Comedy clubs in Israel

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Imjin War in fiction

Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, in principle the "Fiction" tree consists of "Works" and "Fictional elements" (e.g. "Fictional characters") but in practice the above categories only contain "Works". Marcocapelle (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction set in 11th-century Liao dynasty

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Napier-Bentley

Nominator's rationale: Pointless cat with only a single entry, fails WP:SMALLCAT Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


March 5

Category:Colombian neurologists

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

Also nominating for merge:

LibStar (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1778 ballets

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. – Fayenatic London 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian territories

Nominator's rationale: After the categories were renamed from "Foo in the State of Palestine" to "Foo in Palestine," I would like to question the rationale behind distinguishing "Foo in Palestine" (2013–present) from "Foo in the Palestinian territories" (1994–2012). I believe it no longer makes sense to maintain a separate category tree for the "former country" of the Palestinian territories. We already have a separate category tree for articles related to the Palestinian National Authority, which I do not propose changing. If my proposal is accepted, the template Template:Cathead modern history of Palestine (region) should also be updated accordingly. Hassan697 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I was not in favor of renaming State of Palestine, but that happened anyway so then Palestine may just as well be expanded to include the Palestinian territories period. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local museums in Rutland

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian Empire regicides

Nominator's rationale: Same format as other people categories. Mellk (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spin-offs

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, opposed Speedy nomination. The alternative suggestion is Category:Spinoffs (media) following the main article Spinoff (media). The subcats have already been speedily renamed, just dropping the hyphen, not adding "(media)". – Fayenatic London 09:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at Speedy page
They have meanwhile been listed too, further above. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture by millennium

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Merging to the Millennium parent is not needed, the subcategory is already under the Establishments subcategory of that millennium. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


March 4

Category:National Football League families

Nominator's rationale: Sports families should be categories by the sport and not league. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League > NFL

Nominator's rationale: Per WT:NFL consensus. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comedians by nationality and populated place

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-3 subcategories. Redundant category layers. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American comedians by state and populated place

Nominator's rationale: The Category:Comedians from STATE categories only have the "by populated place" subcategory making these categories redundant. (A few states are an exception with a "by county" tree). Most only have 1-3 subcategories anyways. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painters from Tournai

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. Merge per WP:OCLOCATION/WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French painters by populated place

Nominator's rationale: The "Painters from place" categories have just 1-2 articles each. Merge per WP:OCLOCATION. If consensus is to merge those, then the parent Category:French painters by populated place will only have 1 subcategory, so merge as a redundant category layer. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I will populate these, but has any research been done before this nom? We even have an article on the Lyon School of painting. For Marseille, one could have looked at List of people from Marseille#Painters and again decided that the cat needs populating with the 15 or so entries there with an article, not deleting. As for Strasbourg, List of people from Strasbourg has 18 hits for the word "painter" so it seems as once again this can easily be populated. I hope not too many other similar cats have been deleted before I noticed this here... Fram (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, we now have categories with 55, 54, and 26 entries. Perhaps don't look at what's now in a category, but look at the potential a category has first. Fram (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian painters by populated place

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Only 2 subcategories. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Argentine artists by populated place

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Only 2 subcategories. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Desert Festivals

Nominator's rationale: Category for a shared characteristic that isn't particularly defining of the contents. This is "headed" by a disambiguation page that just says "Desert festival generically refere [sic] to festivals located in a desert" before listing the same small handful of festivals that have been categorized here, and not by an article that defines or contextualizes "desert festival" as a thing -- and by and large, these are festivals that merely happen to be held in desert locations rather than festivals about deserts per se. In the same way that film festivals are about films and music festivals are about music and flower festivals are about flowers, festivals are defined by what they're about, not by what type of landscape they happen to take place in. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historiography of the military history of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Less wordy and more straight to the point. XTheBedrockX (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mrs. South Africa

Nominator's rationale: Only contains the main article and a non-free image. Pichpich (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French thoracic surgeons

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:French surgeons.

Also nominating:

Category:International Player Pathway Program participants

Nominator's rationale: Official name of the program is International Player Pathway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction set in the Roman Empire

Category:Transport by decade

Nominator's rationale: delete/manually merge, redundant category layer with mostly only one subcategory each. The transport infrastructure and ships subcategories can be excluded from the merge since the content is already deeper down under the decade and transport in century categories.

Category:Hypothetical processes

Nominator's rationale: I think this is a more accurate and inclusive description of its contents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums produced by Jörgen Elofsson

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't have a sufficient number of credits in either album to be defining. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


English male actors by county and populated place

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers. Only 1-3 subcategories each. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish male actors by council area and populated place

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Only 1 subcategory each. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


March 3

Category:College fraternity members

Nominator's rationale: Non defining tree. These are associations. SMasonGarrison 23:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, categories group together strong associations and defining backgrounds of individuals between biographical articles. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships of the Isle of Wight Railway

Nominator's rationale: Only one page. RanDom 404 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Technology & Engineering Emmy Awards

Nominator's rationale: To match Technology and Engineering Emmy Awards. Fuddle (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Van de Werve

Nominator's rationale: Per House van de Werve per C2D. This is a followup to this unsuccessful nomination, but here the artlcle name and the suggested new target match. Mike Selinker (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spoelberch

Nominator's rationale: To match article House of Spoelberch per C2D. This is a followup to this unsuccessful nomination, where, in this case, the article matches the suggested category name. Mike Selinker (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Africa (Roman province)

Propose renaming

Propose split of Category:People of Roman North Africa from Category:People from Africa (Roman province) (8).

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 fo 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]

  • 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]


March 2

Category:People from Moura, Queensland

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lighthouses in Albania

Nominator's rationale: Contains just 1 list article. Merge in spirit of WP:C2F. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theatres by year of completion (16/17th centuries)

Nominator's rationale: Mostly isolated categories. 1-3 articles each. Not useful for navigation. WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a category with early theatres is useful, but all these subcategories by decade and year are not; the items in them could be copied to the parent category before merging the subcategories with the more general buildings categories by year --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see above, there are 2 merge targets. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a good proposal. Thank you. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Torrijos family

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, Fabio Lozano Torrijos. Page said he had notable descendants, but I checked the alleged source and it said nothing of the sort. There is a "see also" to a notable grandson Juan Lozano Ramírez, but there is already the Category:Lozano family so this is somewhat of a duplicate, unless it is established that the Torrijos line was notable of itself. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I saw on Spanish Wikipedia a Torrijos family category with seven pages, but the very long page on Fabio Lozano Torrijos in Spanish doesn't link to a single relative with the Torrijos surname, so I don't know if all those seven people were relatives anyway. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Márquez family

Nominator's rationale: Page serves no purpose as it just has one page. I read the article on Francia Márquez and found no suggestion that she is part of a political dynasty. Her parents were humble workers and the only mention of her children is that they fled paramilitary threats with her in 2014. No mention of siblings. Her partner Yerney Pinillo has a page, but that only tells us that a couple exists, not that a political family exists. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mina family

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:BLPCAT by implying relation between people for having the same surname and skin colour - something I don't recommend trying in real life. Reading the articles, all I could find was that Yerry Mina and Juan José Mina are definitely brothers. Davinson Sánchez has Mina as his surname, but despite being another elite international player, playing right next to Yerry, there doesn't seem to be any sources saying he is related to Yerry - not on Wikipedia, and not on other sources I can see. [2] Francia Márquez has Mina as a second surname, and despite being the first black and second woman vice president of Colombia, nobody thought of writing some soft news saying how she's related to famous footballers? The Mauricio Mina page is poor, he's definitely not a brother of Yerry as they only have one surname in common, but no sources are saying they're related. All we definitely have is that two people are related, which is probably not warranting of a category. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial buildings by country

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eintracht Frankfurt (women) players

Nominator's rationale: Same club, with a merger and rebrand. No need for two categories. My suggestion is for players of Eintracht (the current entity) to be moved to the older, larger 1. FFC category which would then be renamed, but the other way round would work too. Crowsus (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beni Alfons

Nominator's rationale: merge, duplicate categories, Beni Alfons was the Arab name of the Astur-Leonese dynasty. If this goes ahead then the subcategory can presumably be renamed speedily. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @Mike Selinker, Gryffindor, and DrKay: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentary film editors

Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining intersection of characteristics. Editing a documentary film doesn't really draw on different skills, or use different tools, than editing a narrative fiction film does -- so the vast majority of film editors work on both fiction and documentary films over the course of their careers, rather than "specializing" exclusively in documentaries. Most of the people filed here have both documentary and fiction films on their résumés (see e.g. Eugenio Alabiso), and the much smaller number whose editing credits were exclusively on documentaries were also directors and/or producers of those documentaries, who were simply doing the editing on their own films in lieu of hiring an outside editor.
So there just isn't a cleanly categorizable distinction here, because editing documentary films isn't the crux of their notability: everybody here either worked on both documentary and non-documentary films over the course of their careers, or was a director and/or producer of documentary films, and none of them were "documentary film editing specialists" per se.
Note that everybody in the base category is already in an appropriate "Country film editors" category (I've already checked all of them to ensure that), so I've just tagged that as a delete since no upmerging is needed -- but I've tagged the Indian subcategory as a merge to Category:Indian film editors instead of a straight delete, so that those people don't get stranded out of the more important nationality category. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 06:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with GLAAD

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by association. The people categorized here were not all associated with GLAAD in the same way -- some were presidents, some were staffers, some were board members -- so they cannot simply be generically categorized as "associated with". Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 06:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:General Service Areas in Nova Scotia

Nominator's rationale: The term "General Service Area" is obsolite, and replaced with term "community". The category itself was technically replaced with "Category:Communities in Nova Scotia, but articles were not moved over. I believe it would be better to merge it with it, and maybe later let people move articles into appropriate subcategories. Also, the category already have addonation in its description that it "should no longer be used". Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note So, while making this discussion, I thouth there was a "Category:Communities in Nova Scotia". However, there is only "Category:Communities in Nova Scotia by county". Which I think is the reason why articles were not move over, since it would require lot's of manual work. But I think, it would still be better to create this category, and move there articles from Category:General Service Areas in Nova Scotia, to remove this obsolite category altogher for now. And maybe somebody will want to move all the articles manually to subcategories in the future.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any actual votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 06:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Yes, it's fine Artemis Andromeda (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economists from New York City

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between place of birth and later occupation. New York City is the only place we have done this for economists. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you drill down deep enough category wise, Economists would go in Scientists from New York City or Brooklyn because they are social scientists. Secondly, the category is well populated. Because these professionals have rarely been categorized at the town level, there is Economists from Shanghai, does that mean it shouldn't be done if there are enough to categorize that way?Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point about social scientists. Although it is an equally trivial intersection between place of birth and later occupation, these categories are not nominated now. I changed the merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any responses to Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 06:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Banned organizations by the National Security Act (South Korea)

Nominator's rationale: Gramatically natural, and the choice of preposition is because the subject is a law, not an organization. Compare Category:People sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act and Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burn survivors

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination per Special:GoToComment/c-Jc37-20250221034400-HouseBlaster-20250221032900. Pinging @Jc37: to make a substantive nomination and @Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison: for their thoughts. This follows Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 8#Category:Fictional burn survivors. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Being a burn survivor is defining under EGRS. I see the previous CFD as being indifferent between fiction about burn survivors and fictional burn survivors. I think it's a reasonable question to consider, but I think it falls under WP:EGRSD SMasonGarrison 04:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we set aside that all types of burn sources are different and probably should not be categorised together, there's also the question of: If it's "defining", at what point do we decide that it's defining. If you burn your finger on a candle flame, you are a "burn survivor". And I'm not intending to trivialise this at all. Where's the demarcation? Burns over 3/4s of the body? Did the burn cause the need for skin grafting or perhaps amputation? How about burns that are not life-threatening at all, but merely seen to be disfiguring? That could be anything from what some might call a beauty mark, all the way to needing plastic surgery to resolve. And we haven't even talked about things like sunburns or frostbite. In other words, I'm looking at WP:ARBITRARYCAT, and wondering: where do we draw the line? That's the issue with just saying burn. It covers a wide swath of things, and can differ greatly in source, size, intensity, severity, damage amount, and damage effect. So, as I noted above, if kept, this needs a rename for clarity. Because the current name is just simply too broad, to the point of essentially being all-inclusive of everyone on Earth. - jc37 22:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sports venues completed in years of the 17th century

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. 1-2 articles per year. Not useful for navigation through at least the end of the 17th century. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. But also nominate the Events venues by year and decade in its entirety. There are never more than 3 subcategories in any of them (music venues, sports venues and theaters) and these subcategories are also directly listed under parent Buildings and structures in year/decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexamines

Nominator's rationale: "Mexamine" is an obscure old Russian name for 5-methoxytryptamine that isn't widely used. "5-Methoxytryptamine" is much more readily known and easily interpretable. Accordingly, "5-methoxytryptamine" has more than 20 times as many hits in Google Scholar as "mexamine". AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 00:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per parent compound article 5-Methoxytryptamine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


March 1

Category:Wu (region)

Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing a “Wu region”, not in the Chinese language, nor in the Chinese cultural conception of regions. What this article and category is referring to is probably the Jiangnan region of eastern China. SigillumVert (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actors by populated place in Germany by state

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers. 1-3 subcategories each. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palnadu district geography stubs

Nominator's rationale: There is only one transclusion in this stub category. Should it (and/or the template) be deleted? OpalYosutebito (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actors by populated place in Wales by county

Nominator's rationale: 1-2 subcategories each. Redundant category layer. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actresses by populated place in Scotland by council area

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 subcategory each. Redundant category layer. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actors by populated place in Northern Ireland by county

Nominator's rationale: 1-2 subcategories each. Redundant category layer. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actresses by populated place in England by county

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer. Only 1-3 subcategories. WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality actresses by populated place

Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-3 subcategories. Redundant category layer. WP:NARROW. For the Mexican category, the subcategories are already categorized under Category:Mexican actresses by state so an additional target is not needed –Aidan721 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International sports competitions by populated place

Nominator's rationale: The defining part of the internationality of its sibling, Category:International sports competitions by country, that there is one host country for the event is not met in this group of categories. They also attract competitions that not match the definition of the parent, to be "for competitions between national teams or representatives, not competitions simply involving individuals from different countries."
It would need some manual overlook as not all Category:International sports competitions in Belgrade fits in Category:International sports competitions hosted by Serbia et cetera. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malmö venues

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCVENUE. All Category:Concerts at Malmö Arena are tours. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Fort Liberty, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME, and because the vast majority of these entries are incorrect. First, the relevant facts: The overwhelmingly common historical name for the location is Fort Bragg, as it currently is named and was known for 101 years, from 1922 to 2023. For a brief period from 2023-2025, it was controversially renamed to Fort Liberty by the Biden Administration. Last week, on 14 February 2025, it was formally renamed back to Fort Bragg (though technically, referring to a different namesake). So the current category is pointing to neither the common name nor the official name, but an significantly lesser-used, no-longer-accurate alternative name that was only applicable for less than 5% of the installation's history. Notably, this also means that the vast majority of these entries are not actually "People from Fort Liberty, North Carolina" -- unless they're two years old (spoiler: they're not), they were "People from Fort Bragg, North Carolina" at the relevant time in every case that I spotchecked. I previously had moved the category as this was not expected to be a controversial move; and was partway through manually moving the entries to verify there were no legitimate entrants from someone "from" Fort Liberty during the relevant two year period; however this was reverted by @Timrollpickering: before I completed it, and thus here we are. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 09:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as an effective duplicate category. We do not have a separate category under Category:Sri Lankan people for after its 1948 independence but before the country was renamed from Ceylon in 1972. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 16:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timrollpickering: given that we're only here because you reverted my initial move, and the given the lack of input after a couple of weeks, would you have any objection to me simply re-instating the move? It's clearly not controversial if nobody seems to care at this point and it should be quite obvious that the existing category is incorrectly named. Otherwise I fear this may just get relisted over and over again without attention. (Note: that would have the same effect as a Rename or Merge outcome here). ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Stardust Promotion artists

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for former artists by label. Traditionally, music acts are categorized as an artist for whatever label they've been associated without concern of it being in the past or not. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not generally helpful to be current. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 16:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Apartment buildings in Poland by populated place

Nominator's rationale: This should be renamed because there's no parent category, and there's no need to have a redudant category layer SMasonGarrison 16:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1392 establishments in Korea

Nominator's rationale: Category with just two articles in it, for a country which does not otherwise have any categories at the year level prior to 1855. This itself was not previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 26#Years and decades in Korea up to 1800 as it didn't exist at that time (it's a new creation within the past two days) -- but the use of the preformatted {{EstcatCountry}} autogenerated a redlinked Category:1390s establishments in Korea parent that did get deleted in that discussion, and thus cannot legitimately be recreated.
Technically this is also an anachronism, as the country was not called "Korea" yet in 1392, but that's also applicable to the target -- but that would have to be handled with a separate renaming discussion, since the same problem also applies to several other sibling categories. But at the very least, it doesn't aid navigation at all to have a year-specific category here for just two things, if the same country's century-level category isn't nearly large enough to diffuse by individual year in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 28#Category:Former commanderies of China in Korea.
To my understanding, "Korea" is being used as the name for the region/culture and not the name of a country; this goes for basically all the Korea-related categories I think. Think of things like Category:1st century in Korea; there were numerous independent states and statelets in Korea at the time, with very liquid and porous borders, yet we use the single term "Korea" as a region that encompasses them. seefooddiet (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the reason I made a category for specifically 1392 is because that's the year that Joseon was founded, and we know for sure that numerous important things in Korea were founded during that year. I just only added two because it's only been a day that the category's been up; I was planning on adding more later. If you'd like, I can add more things to the category. But I'll hold back for now; if there are other reasons that this category shouldn't exist maybe it's not worth keeping. seefooddiet (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic sports players by year

Nominator's rationale: There are currently 964 categories under Category:Summer Olympics competitors by sport and year. The first level of this category contains 49 sub categories, all of which follow the naming scheme of "Olympic (adjective for player) by year". Every single sub category of these 49 sub categories, of which there are 915, follows the naming scheme of "(Adjust for player) at the (year) Summer Olympics", though the sailors category specifically has 177 sub categories that split it up by event but still follow this naming scheme (such as Sailors at the 1964 Summer Olympics – Flying Dutchman).
There are currently 293 categories under Category:Winter Olympics competitors by sport and year. The first level of this category contains 17 sub categories, all of which follow the naming scheme of "Olympic (what you call a person who participates in the sport) by year". Every single sub category of these 49 sub categories, of which there are 276, follows the naming scheme of "(what you call a person who participates in the sport) at the (year) Winter Olympics".
The only exceptions are figure skating and ice hockey, which were briefly / originally featured at the Summer Games. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 15:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bereshit (parashah)

Nominator's rationale: rename such that it is also understandable to Christian and other readers what the category is about (WP:NPOV). Note that the far amount of the content of the category is about the content of the Book of Genesis, not about Jewish liturgy. Please keep a redirect though. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP because these categories are about the way the Weekly Torah portion is called in Judaism, the way they are understood from within the framework in Judaism, and not in Christianity or by any other religion. It in fact helps other religions understand Judaism and its Torah. Christianity, nor any other religion, does not have a "weekly" Torah portion. Thus, this category, like it says at the top of the categories page's, the main article/s for this/these categories is Bereshit (parashah), Noach, Lech-Lecha etc, etc. In addition this category's name has withstood the test of time since 2014, so not sure why now all of a sudden there is this urge to water down and make meaningless these very accurate Weekly Torah portions' names? What next, to change the reality of Judaism's Weekly Torah portions so that Christians and Muslims can "understand" them by making them generic? No one is suggesting that Christian and Islamic divisions of their scriptures be renamed so that Jews and members of other religions can relate to them, so why pick on Judaism's way of categorization? The nominator is requested to drop this nomination that seemingly is being done out of a lack of knowledge as to how the Torah is named and sub-divided by Judaism for thousands of years. IZAK (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? Your nomination will change information about important facts about Judaism and will deprive readers and users of understanding how Judaism names and clasifies the Weekly Torah portions. You make no sense. It is like suggesting that "flat Earth" theories determine the way that astronomy views the solar system. This is also not about "liturgy" which is about prayers, rather the Weekly Torah portions are about the naming system that is assigned to the organized weekly Torah (Bible) readings that is practiced by Jews according to Judaism and not according to atheism or Christianity or any other belief system. Your suggestion in effect destroys something about Judaism. IZAK (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it would only destroy something if I would propose to delete the article, which obviously I am not going to do. Bible content is not unique to Judaism, it is available to all mankind. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organ builders of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: We also have Category:British pipe organ builders. At present the former is mostly used for companies, and the latter is mostly used for people. However, there is some overlap. The one for companies should be renamed to make this clear (it is a subcategory of Category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom), and miscategorised members should be recategorised. cagliost (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Hayward, California, by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just one entry.

Also nominating-

All subcategories with 4 or less entries.Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6th-century BC deaths by year

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly 1- or 2-article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. This is a discussion parallel to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_22#Births_by_year_600_BC_-_500, @Aidan721 and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to that discussion. If this goes ahead then I will also nominate the 6th-century BC year categories, so that we will have a consistent beginning at 500 BC of years and deaths and, dependent on the outcome of the other discussion, of births. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass shootings involving body armor

Nominator's rationale: Newly created category without a clear and/or useful purpose. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7kk (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli pedologists

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge this underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 02:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical sites in Nigeria

Nominator's rationale: Unless I'm missing something, the two categories have the same scope. Should be a subcategory of Category:Historic sites by country. Pichpich (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The categories can be merged. When I searched for a category for historical sites in Nigeria, I couldn’t find one, so I created a new one. At the time, I wasn’t aware of the existing category. I didn’t intend to duplicate it. Thank you for pointing it out. Ridzaina (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


February 28

Category:Hercule Poirot (film series)

Nominator's rationale: Scope duplictates existing category: Films based on Hercule Poirot books Northernhenge (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)

Category:Former commanderies of China in Korea

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure; is clarifying "former" needed for this? There are no commanderies of China in Korea rn. seefooddiet (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former election commissions

Nominator's rationale: Not sure if this is the best move, but it matches formatting of other Category:Defunct government agencies by type seefooddiet (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fairfield Stags basketball venues

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT User:Namiba 19:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music videographies

Nominator's rationale: The term videography is being misused in this case as the term is specific to work done by a videographer, and does not mean a list of videos or films (that use is a neologism original to wikipedia which should be edited out as unverifiable). Further, many of the individuals have entertainment credits in work other than video (such as computer games, discographies, acting credits for entertainers who do that as well as music, etc.) on these pages so the cat should reflect that by expanding the scope to all media to reflect the content across the lists. 4meter4 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I created this category it was for articles like Michael Jackson videography, which are still named that. I don't think "performances by entertainer in media" is a very helpful, clear, or easy to use term. "Media" is way too broad a term and confusing. At least use something like "on screen" or similar. "Videography" is at least easy for a reader to understand what it is.★Trekker (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Such an undertaking would have been well served being discussed first before wholesale name changes to articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except the term "videography" does not mean a list of videos. Its use in that way is unique to wikipedia and is an unverifiable neologism not supported in sources outside of the encyclopedia. Per WP:NEO, the MJ article needs to be renamed, and the term videography needs to be removed when being used to refer to a video list in all articles across the encyclopedia as that is WP:OR. We can't just make up new definitions to words because it is convenient to do so. Additionally, most of these articles have media credits in a variety of media all on one page (TV, Film, music videos, streaming platforms, radio, computer games, etc.) and in multiple areas of creative contribution in over half of the cases (music performance credits, acting credits, dancing/choreography credits, directing credits, writing credits, producing credits, etc.) 4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this feels like a subject that maybe needs a broader discussion with several Wikipedia projects and input from many editors.★Trekker (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This impacts a lot of articles. I think a decision here to change the wording will need to result in a much bigger RfC.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, aligning with the article names, but "lists" instead of "list", and maybe drop "by entertainer". If this isn't clear as a category name then the article titles are equally unclear, so better change those to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is a much wider discussion as it also involves articles as well as categories. I'm fine with renaming, but what do we rename it to? Does such a categorization/classification (list of videos) even exist outside of Wikipedia? Perhaps the articles could be renamed to "list of videos by X", but what do we call the category? Video list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a requested move linked lower down at this page for Madonna videography and similar articles. Also, you didn't sign this comment, like the other one you made in the same edit. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Australian artists

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Up-merge for now. 4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not small. It contains six items which is enough. The same about other nominated categories. Eurohunter (talk) 13:39, 12 February 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) 07:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Canadian artists

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Up-merge for now. 4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 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) 07:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of American artists

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category of Category:American filmographies.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not against a rename but oppose the proposed merger. The content of the category have articles recently renamed from "Foo videography" to "List of performances by Foo in media". Then there's the whole scheme Category:Videographies by artist nationality, with each subcat being nominated individually. A consolidated request to rename along the lines of "Lists of performances by American artists in media" might be in order. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. I'm not sure how to technically go about doing bundled nominations.4meter4 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename which categories, to what? A list would be helpful for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of YouTubers

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be up-merged; although I don't think these are technically videographies. 4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 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) 23:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with a merge as long as we do not leave a redirect and the category is deleted.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Marcocapelle's recommendation to merge. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Greek artists

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be up-merged. 4meter4 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Japanese artists

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be upmerged. 4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Lebanese artists

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be up-merged for now, 4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Swedish artists

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be up-merged for now. 4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The small-cat nominations in this group should have been bundled.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Puerto Rican artists

Nominator's rationale: Small cat; should be up-merged to Category:Videographies for now 4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies of Filipino artists

Nominator's rationale: Small cat. Should be up-merged for now. 4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videographies

Nominator's rationale: Videography is a technical term for the work done by a videographer. The cats here are not being used in this way; but are trying to turn "videography" into a word that means a list of videos as an original twist on the terms filmography/discography. This is a made up neologism that is far as I can tell is unique to who ever created these cats on wikipedia (there are also a bunch of articles titled with the term, and they should all be renamed). I've never seen "videography" used in this way anywhere else. Note I don't know how to bundle nom the sub cats, but all of these should be deleted. Likewise there are a bunch of article titles using this word that need renaming.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting alongside some of the other discussions which attracted little participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the Category:Music videographies, a point was raised that the issue needs discussion input from relevant WikiProjects, which I will do. Likely all of the nominations should have been bundled as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following WikiProjects have been notified: Film, Television, YouTube, Albums, and Songs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additionally, an RM has been opened at Talk:Madonna_videography#Requested_move_28_February_2025 about the page moves. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artists by populated place in Cambridgeshire

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. Apparently this is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_22#English_artists_by_populated_place, which I closed as merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate levels that are all sparsely populated. Recommended by Marcocapelle (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_20#Category:Artists_by_populated_place_in_England_by_county. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:19, 28 February 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.

British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Nominator's rationale: split (or if the split already exists then delete, or if there is no content for either British Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies then rename), these are two entirely unrelated topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, although open to constructive discussion. These categories are useful for putting together content for the British Overseas, in a similar fashion than for Overseas France, the Dutch Caribbean or the insular areas of the United States. All of the previous also gather territories with different legal statuses, sometimes very different. These territories are both (A) under British sovereignty and (B) not part of the United Kingdom proper, so I'd say they are not unrelated. When sorting content by country/dependent territory, the parent sovereignty is probably worth considering at least as much as the individual legal status of the territory, and is therefore a more efficient and defining way to categorize content. Place Clichy (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'd be surprised if I wasn't the creator of at least one of these categories, and I did not receive any notification about this discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree with Place Clichy's comments. These are not "entirely unrelated topics" and I don't understand the benefit of splitting them. Also, I did create one these categories and I'm pretty sure I didn't get any notification. DB1729talk 03:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warner Bros. Cartoons directors

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 15:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nonsensical rationale. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it nonsensical? This is exactly what WP:PERFCAT is for. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16#TV directors by series as precedent. --woodensuperman 15:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warner Bros. Cartoons music composers

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 15:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nonsensical rationale. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it nonsensical? This is exactly what WP:PERFCAT is for. See this discussion regarding crew. --woodensuperman 15:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:I Can See Your Voice contestants

Nominator's rationale: These people are already well known. This is nothing more than a WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 13:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "I can see your voice: Kandidat Marius Bear stürmt die Charts". RTL (in German). Mediengruppe RTL Deutschland. 24 August 2020. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  2. ^ Lee Adams, William (8 March 2022). "Boys do cry! Marius Bear will sing for Switzerland at Eurovision 2022". Wiwibloggs. After returning home to Switzerland in 2020, Bear attracted a great deal of attention when he appeared on the TV show I Can See Your Voice.
Saisønisse (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arab descent

Nominator's rationale: Small categories. In all these cases, the "nationality descent" categories are already present and are more suitable than "ethnic descent." Note that I did not nominate the general Category:People of Arab descent. Hassan697 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short stories set in the Middle Ages

Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly only 1 or 2 articles per century, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tang dynasty short stories

Nominator's rationale: merge, for consistency, until the 12th century the tree of short stories by century of setting mostly contains only 1 or 2 articles per century (see discussion above) which is not helpful for navigation. The 8th century is merely an accidental exception. The articles in these categories happen to be all set in China during the Tang dynasty, hence these particular merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warner Bros. Cartoons voice actors

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 10:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nonsensical rationale. Dimadick (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it nonsensical? Acting in a series of Warner Brothers Cartoons is absolutely textbook WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 15:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inverse Phase albums

Nominator's rationale: Both entries are redirects to the band. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seminole freedmen

Nominator's rationale: delete, only one article of which this is not even a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavery of Native Americans

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories SMasonGarrison 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi alumni

Nominator's rationale: Recently created 1-article category, categorized to itself. Gjs238 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths by firearm in Norfolk Island

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry, also merge with Category:Deaths by firearm in Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of unclosed discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

For older closed and unclosed discussions, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days.

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CFDALL
No tags for this post.