mic_none

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 18 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_18

< June 17
June 19 >

June 18

[edit]

Category:People on stamps

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 2#Category:People on stamps

Category:Brazilian politicians of African descent

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Afro-Brazilian people tree and children of Category:Politicians of African descent. --MikutoH talk! 22:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Shinshiro, Aichi

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Andy Roddick tennis matches

[edit]
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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article and unlikely get bigger. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People with multiple citizenship

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I believe this category might be Wikipedia:Overcategorization. I was going to go and add a bunch of articles to the category but there is an absurd amount of pages for people with multiple citizenship. Running this sparql query:
SELECT ?person ?personLabel ?citizenship1 ?citizenship2
WHERE {
  ?person wdt:P31 wd:Q5.
  ?person wdt:P27 ?citizenship1.
  ?person wdt:P27 ?citizenship2.
  FILTER(?citizenship1 != ?citizenship2)
}
LIMIT 50000

Shows there is at least 50,000 pages that could be put into the category. For most of these I don't think having multiple citizenship is a defining characteristic. The current articles in the category is a mixed bag of articles that have very little in common. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Real Book Song

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category has recently survived a CfD request as keep but it is deficient in several respects:
  1. It is not written in sentence case: (Real Book) is the name of a publication so capitalized
  2. Not every composition in the Real Book has words, so "song" is ambivalent
  3. Plural description is more appropriate for categories containing multiple members

@Graham87: Doug butler (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scottish deaths at the Battle of Falkirk

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Scottish pre-union military personnel killed in action. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to limit this to Scottish people. (I'm not opposed to deletion, but at the very least I think that category needs to be renamed) SMasonGarrison 02:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle and PatGallacher: added to nom SMasonGarrison 20:20, 10 June 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 03:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Physicians from Parkersburg, West Virginia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Also merge to Category:Physicians from West Virginia Also propose merging-

Categories with three or less entries.Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Physicians from Parkersburg, West Virginia now has four articles. What is the Wikipedia guidance on mandatory minimums for categories? — West Virginian (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Physicians from Charleston, West Virginia now has four articles. Any Wikipedia guidance you could provide regarding category mandatory minimums would be helpful. — West Virginian (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@West Virginian: Background: WP:NARROWCAT doesn't have any formal cutoff. And proposals to establish a numeric threshold for an earlier editing guideline never reached consensus, see here. The essay WP:MFN discusses the pros and cons of doing so at some length. Hope that ancient history helps!
Oh, and thanks you for populating 2 of the 4 nominated categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Appears to me to be an arbitrary distinction. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:23, 17 June 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 03:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of festivals by region

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory which isn't even exactly about regions anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:33, 3 June 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 03:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Philosophers by X subfield and Y nationality

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of Nominations
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCLOCATION, not a useful distinguishing trait for philosophy subspecialities, because philosophy is internationally collaborative Psychastes (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Ethicists and Category:Logicians and the associated subcategories have been deliberately excluded because those can be considered an "occupation" in addition to a subfield of philosophy. Psychastes (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suspect that these were created to "split" categories that had become too large. However, I wish that the editors who made these would exercise more discretion doing this in the future, because in this scenario, splitting the category by such a trivial distinction has only made it *more* difficult to determine which pages need diffusion to a category that actually tells us anything useful. Psychastes (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Virtually all of these parent categories also need to be purged, as a result of a persistent vandal who spent the last seven years adding a bunch of ridiculous, inaccurate, and vague categories to philosopher articles. Most of them probably won't be overpopulated when the disruptive WP:OVERCAT is fully purged. I am nominating these all now because I *will* likely inadvertently empty several of them cleaning up this mess. Psychastes (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A dual merge to subcategories of Category:Philosophers by nationality is also almost certainly a bad idea, because the vast majority of these pages are also categorized by Category:Philosophers by nationality and century Psychastes (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Location is defining in its own right" is not the only legitimate grounds for location subcategories — even WP:OCLOCATION explicitly states that location can be used to diffuse an overly-large parent category. These category trees each have thousands of articles across each set of siblings — but that's far, far too large to be useful as one single undifferentiated megacategory, which is precisely why they're diffused by nationality.
    Additionally, OCLOCATION doesn't even preclude subcategorizing things by nationality in the first place — it only speaks to whether Category:American political philosophers would need to be subbed out for state or city, such as "Political philosophers from Missouri" or "Political philosophers from Chicago", and says absolutely nothing whatsoever to tamp down the legitimacy of the basic country level of categorization, so it doesn't even suggest what the nominator is claiming it suggests in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reconsider, this is genuinely making it more difficult to actually categorize these philosophers correctly. there is no meaningful distinction between an "australian" and an "american" and a "british" philosopher of mind, having them all siloed by country just makes the encyclopedia harder to use. Psychastes (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not making anything more difficult at all. It makes the category system easier to navigate and maintain when the categories are small and manageable rather than being unbrowsably massive. And nationality is a useful grouping when it comes to this: for instance, I can absolutely be looking specifically for Canadian political philosophers, and thus need to find George Grant and John Ralston Saul and Charles Taylor and Naomi Klein and George Woodcock, without needing to be distracted by Hannah Arendt or Edmund Burke or W.E.B. DuBois, because I can absolutely have a need to specifically research Canadian political literature rather than the entire worldwide history of political thought. If and when I do need to see other political philosophers from other countries, I can easily navigate my way to that other country's category — but I can absolutely have a need to research and delve into one specific country's literary and intellectual tradition on its own, which I can't do if all political philosophers are grouped together into one unbrowsably massive megacategory instead of country-specific subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please see my comment about WP:OVERCAT - none of these categories have "thousands" of articles diffused across them to begin with, and most of the categorizations are spurious, but I don't think a single one crosses 1000 even ignoring that. Psychastes (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly don't misquote me. I didn't say that any one of these categories has over a thousand articles in it individually — I said that the trees have over a thousand articles under them collectively. If you upmerged all of the "political philosophers" categories here to Category:Political philosophers without differentiation, for instance, then that category would have over a thousand articles in it, because the number of articles collectively filed across all of the subcategories adds up to over a thousand articles — the fact that the country-level categories exist to subdivide the parent category is the reason why the categories are individually smaller, not any sort of contradiction to what I said. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also it strains credulity to suggest that anyone using the encyclopedia cares about whether a political philosopher is specifically from Missouri, please do not make categories like this Psychastes (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely what OCLOCATION says, because it's what OCLOCATION is about. That's precisely the point I was trying to make: that OCLOCATION militates against that, and does not militate against this. OCLOCATION says we shouldn't subdivide a country-level category into state-level or city-level categories willy-nilly, and does not say that we can't subdivide anything into country-level categories in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is not fully international per se, it is very well imaginable that e.g. French or German philosophers know much better what is written in their own language and build further on that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 4 June 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 02:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The differenciation might be less significant today in the West, but having Dugin as a Russian political philosopher or any of the Enlightenment guys listed as French, German or English is quite important given these people respective political contexts at the time: they did not philosoph out of a vacuum. Superboilles (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cui Jian

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Minimal content to have an eponymous category; subcats sufficiently link to and from one another. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more content to this category. SKBNK (talk) 09:53, 6 June 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 02:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this category already has sufficient content. SKBNK (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Clio Award winners

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC, WP:OCAWARD and, for the parent category, WP:NARROWCAT
The Clio Awards are an advertising industry award and might be defining for articles actually about specific TV commercials or other advertising campaigns. The problem is that this category is a jumble of different types of articles with varying associations to the topic including major companies that sponsor commercials (Volkswagen & Quaker Oats Company), a product that the commercials advertise (Alka-Seltzer), various people in a variety of professions involved with creating commercials (director Meiert Avis, voice over artist Alan Bleviss, actress Rosemary Rice, graphic designer Georg Olden, agency executive Stan Freberg), advertising agencies (FCB, McCann), and just three actual commercials (Little Mikey, Aaron Burr advertisment, Cat Herders). No objection to recreating a more narrow category for that last group after a clear list is created in the main article.
Without the subcategory, the parent will only have 2 articles with little growth potential. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 2 June 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 02:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:São Paulo

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following most recent consensus: Wikipedia:Categories for_discussion/Log/2018_January 15#Category:Rio_de Janeiro. Last one was from 2016. Ninixed (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anticonvulsant stubs

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 2#Category:Anticonvulsant stubs

Proslavery activists

[edit]
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: purge to activists only. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option A
Nominator's rationale: rename aligning with the category description on the category pages. Most people in these categories were not an activist.
Option B: delete all per WP:OPINIONCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 2 June 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 02:55, 18 June 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.


Television series about serial killers categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The television series contained within Category:Television series about fictional serial killers outnumber the series contained in the main Television series about serial killers category, evidencing that there are more television series about fictional serial killers than real ones. The shows in question are not defined by being about fictional serial killers. It would be more helpful, per WP:NONDEFINING, to diffuse the category in the inverse direction. As such I propose that the articles contained in Category:Television series about serial killers be recategorized to Category:Television series about real serial killers, while Category:Television series about fictional serial killers should be moved to Category:Television series about serial killers, and then Category:Television series about real serial killers should be made a subcategory of Category:Television series about serial killers.
Additionally, this would be consistent with the convention used within Category:Serial killer films, which has Category:Films about real serial killers as a subcategory.
See also the related nomination for Category:Works about fictional serial killers. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:18, 2 June 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 02:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Motile cells

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Motile is a synonym of "having movement". 174.138.213.2 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 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 02:50, 18 June 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.

Executioners by nationality

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one of two articles in each of these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 31 May 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 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Early colonists in America

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, "early" is quite vague and in practice this category has been populated with 17th-century people, which makes the two categories coincide in purpose. One may wonder if the name of the target is well chosen, but let's leave that for a different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 31 May 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 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lampriformes stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Ray-finned fish stubs. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Lampriformes; there are only 30 mainspace articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Four categories are being proposed for merger into the parent category. Any one of them would be fine, but any combination of two would trip the parent over 200 articles in the category. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 1 June 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 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Galaxiidae stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Galaxiidae; there are only 38 articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Four categories are being proposed for merger into the parent category. Any one of them would be fine, but any combination of two would trip the parent over 200 articles in the category. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 1 June 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 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Osmeriformes stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Ray-finned fish stubs. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Osmeriformes, as there are only 26 articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Four categories are being proposed for merger into the parent category. Any one of them would be fine, but any combination of two would trip the parent over 200 articles in the category. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 1 June 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 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Synbranchiformes stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Synbranchiformes; there are less than 60 mainspace articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Four categories are being proposed for merger into the parent category. Any one of them would be fine, but any combination of two would trip the parent over 200 articles in the category. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 1 June 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 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chaetodontidae stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Chaetodontidae; there are less than 60 mainspace articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:40, 31 May 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 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are plenty of stubs in the cat. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Batrachoidiformes stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Batrachoididae, as there are less than 60 articles in this category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:40, 31 May 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 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tilapiini stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Tilapiini; there are less than 60 mainspace articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:51, 31 May 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 02:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alkene stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 01:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Alkenes; there are less than 60 articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 22:05, 31 May 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 02:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish-American gangs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Jewish-American organized crime groups. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Functionally the same as Category:Jewish-American organized crime, which is associated with the topic's main article Jewish-American organized crime and includes coverage of gangs (including subcat Category: Jewish American gangsters]] Longhornsg (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not change Looking at the gang parent categories and the organized crime parent categories finds they are different in general, and the Jewish categories are no different than the rest of ethnic categories here. Looking at the child categories and articles here just confirms this. No special treatment is warranted here. Hmains (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is "special treatment"? How are the two categories different? Longhornsg (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the special treatment is that it would then fit into the current gang parent category: Category:European-American gangs and its parents. This is about gangs and it belongs into the gangs category tree. Thanks Hmains (talk) 00:03, 31 May 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 02:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Athletes by country subdivision

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Competitors in athletics by country subdivision. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded one-item category * Pppery * it has begun... 01:25, 30 May 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 02:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam weapons

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to parent categories * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Created by an editor indiscriminately creating categories to make a point. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The LTTE is known for building a large number of indigenous weapons and munitions. There are already several articles and the protentional for more. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to WP:UPMERGE.--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 14:31, 30 May 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 02:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Karnali Province politician stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This stub category has less than 60 mainspace articles - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 22:17, 28 May 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 02:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judaic studies

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. I will list the subcategories for WP:C2C processing. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match the main article Jewish studies. Jewish studies, not Judaic studies, is the preferred academic name for this field, see for example UCL Institute of Jewish Studies, British Association for Jewish Studies, AAJR uses "Jewish studies", Association for Jewish Studies, World Congress of Jewish Studies. Longhornsg (talk) 08:38, 27 May 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 02:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Struthio

[edit]
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: forward merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have no idea what is the difference between struthio and ostriches and which way to merge, but now the categorization is absolutely random. --Altenmann >talk 09:36, 27 May 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 02:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 4#Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand