Select Page

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 28

< April 27
April 29 >

April 28

Category:Fisting

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer of categorization with no clear benefit. The subcategory Category:Fisting subculture is a subcat of Category:Fetish subculture and I think this makes sense even if we delete Category:Fisting. Pichpich (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pichpich, I agree with deleting Category:Fisting and retaining Category:Fisting subculture. I created Category:Fisting first, and then created Category:Fisting subculture second after realizing it is a more consistent naming convention (per similar categories such as Category:Leather subculture and Category:Fetish subculture). My apologies. OiYoiYoink (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical groups from San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles County

Nominator's rationale: I'd like to rename this category to the broader scope of "Los Angeles County", then reverse merge by having the renamed category serve as a parent to Category:Musical groups from Los Angeles and a sister to Category:Musicians from Los Angeles County, California. This category can be further populated by additional diffusion of Category:Musical groups from California and corrections to those articles for groups from LA County that were added the category for groups from the city of Los Angeles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
  • OPTION A
  • OPTION B
Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency. Option A is consistent with the wider tree: Category:Ancient history, Category:Ancient history by country. Option B is consistent specifically with Category:Classical antiquity which is not part of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. Some of the category names proposed under "Option A" are problematic because of the wording: history is literally the record of events that occurred in the past. History is not the past itself, and modern art/literature/other things that happen to use the past as a setting are not part of the history of the period in which they are set. I realize that people will understand what "X in ancient history" means, and that some people use "ancient history" loosely so that it means "antiquity", but that's sloppy—and a bit slangy: "ancient history" is sometimes used to refer dismissively to anything not sufficiently contemporary from someone's subjective point of view; "antiquity" is not. While I don't think we need to police the contents of articles to keep out imperfect phrasing, we should avoid it in category and article titles. P Aculeius (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PlayStation 4-only games

Nominator's rationale: Like with Category:Sega 32X-only games and Category:PlayStation VR2-only games, PSVR exclusives should have their own category, just for consistency's sake. PSVR is a game console accessory with its own library, just like PSVR2 and Sega 32X. There are definitely enough PSVR games to justify its own category. Jursha (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Angel games

Nominator's rationale: Angel (company) can't be used as it leads to a dab page. Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab cheeses

Nominator's rationale: Middle Eastern is a regional category. However, since all of the articles are already placed in Category: Middle Eastern cheeses or its subcategories, deletion may be a more appropriate course of action. Hassan697 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abrahamization

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. The term 'abrahamization' or its variation 'abrahamisation' appears to be relatively obscure and recent in English-language scholarly literature, possibly a loan word from French. All it seems to refer to is to make something or someone more like one of the Abrahamic religions as opposed to a lack thereof, but that's it. The rare examples I can find on Google Scholar and Google Books speak of the 'abrahamiz/sation' of elements of "Hindu festivals" or "the Arab religion", which are rather abstract notions and claims. The subcategories suggest that it's just Category:Christianization + Category:Islamization + Category:Judaization (itself also a recently created category with just 2 items in it), so an umbrella term for proselytisation to any of these three Abrahamic religions? That's something else. There is no "main article" for this term. Abrahamization just redirects to Abrahamic religions, where the term is not used either, let alone explained. This does not aid navigation at all. I recommend deleting the category for now, and to WP:WTAF, if any could be written, because so far it seems different people mean different things with it. NLeeuw (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TBD (TV network) affiliates

Nominator's rationale: Name change 4/28/2025 Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with events

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, the category currently mixes up people associated with things happened in the past, and people associated with organized events. It is basically an example of WP:SHAREDNAME. Purge Category:Event participants and Category:Event planners (that belong to organized events) and keep the remainder e.g. as "historical events". We can then also put it as a subcategory under Category:History. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volleyball players from Nagoya

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Also merge to Category:Volleyball players from Aichi Prefecture. Also nominating for merging-

All categories with 3 or less entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guerilla artists

Nominator's rationale: Spelling guerrilla with one r is now "obsolete" and "a misspelling" according to wikt:guerilla. The article for Guerrilla art already has the correct spelling, and is a member of Category:Guerilla artists, so there's an inconsistency here. Other non-warfare articles using the term (such as Guerrilla marketing) also have the correct spelling, so there's no real precedent for keeping these two category titles as they are. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBTQ themes in Greek mythology

Nominator's rationale: purge biographies and biographical subcategories, LGBTQ theme is not a defining characteristic of them. There is already a list of homosexual lovers in Greek mythology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I find the characteristic fairly defining for those articles, especially in context of studies about LGBT and Ancient Greece. Also, the list is an article, not a category, so its existence does not make the category superfluous.
Deiadameian (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locations in Indo-European mythology

Nominator's rationale: merge, these are relatively unrelated bodies of mythology. We do not have a Category:Indo-European mythology either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates in Ontario provincial election categories

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplication of the word Ontario. It is already obvious that Ontario-specific parties would be the ones contesting Ontario provincial elections. RedBlueGreen93 03:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (of kept, in view of Marcocapelle's comment below). We have the name of the party and the name of an event. And not at all obvious. The change may inadvertently suggest to look up whether Green Party (Austria) took part in these elections (an absurd example, of course, to make a point). --Altenmann >talk 04:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se, but if a person who has been a non-winning election candidate (and thus can't be categorized as a member of the legislature) does have preexisting notability for other reasons in order to actually get an article on those other grounds, then we do categorize them as candidates — mainly because if we don't, then they tend to get added to (and thereby clutter up and overpopulate) the general "[Party] politicians" parent categories, so we do need them to be grouped separately from the parent category. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the categories were tagged; I will do so. Discussion on Altenmann's and Marcocapelle's points would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medieval scripts

Nominator's rationale: WP:DUPCAT. This is an unnecessarily nested category - I noticed it when someone moved a page on my watchlist from this one to the merge target I've proposed. There isn't an extremely clear line between what makes a script "medieval" and what makes it pre- or post-medieval, and palaeographers don't tend to talk in those terms about them either. If this category is kept, it should be clearly categorized as a non-diffusing subcat, so that items aren't removed from one category when placed in the other.
tl;dr everything in Cat A is part of Cat B by definition; however, being in Cat A does not preclude being in some other subcat of Cat B as well. asilvering (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping on reply if necessary, I'm not watching this page. -- asilvering (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RanDom 404 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is the first "real" relist; the previous one occurred literally the day it was filed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass murder in the Gaza Strip

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to exist primarily if not entirely for POV pushing with attacks being labeled as 'mass murder' irrespective of what sources say. I don't know if a single article within it meets the standards for Verifiable, Neutral, and Defining. As an alternative maybe merge with "Massacres in the Gaza Strip". Bob drobbs (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about Category:Mass murder in Palestine? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through examples, it looks like that broader category should probably be deleted too, and that the POV pushing is happening on both sides. Look here Ramat Eshkol bus bombing. 5 people were killed in a terrorist attack. No mention anywhere of "mass murder" in the article but it's in the category. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually.... should I just withdraw this request and re-submit it as a collection of related "mass murder" categories? Bob drobbs (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense than just singling out one category. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob drobbs I would strongly oppose that - mass murder has a specific definition. If the entries in the category don't fit it then remove. Better than "massacre" which is inherently a POV term. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging to "Massacres in the Gaza Strip" seems the best solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is massacre not the far more POV term? The massacre categories should be deleted as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article Massacre starts by saying: "A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless. It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person." That seems a reasonable description to me and I can't see what is POV about it. The only question it leaves unanswered is about the minimum number of mortal victims before we call it a massacre. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion of this or any of the other mass murder categories (Though upmerging to the Palestine category makes sense, idk why we would do it like this). If it's not described as such in the page then remove it, but mass murder is a thing. The massacre categories are a worse named subcategory of the mass murder ones. There is the distinction that all the mass murder categories are typically used for individual lone actor crimes, while many of the entries we call massacres are state actiosn that don't fit there ... but just as often not. In any case this category system should not be disrupted because people in this topic area have POV problems - most of the problematic articles shouldn't even exist PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with all these categories is one I have never been able to think up a way to resolve: there are two encyclopedic, defining topics here, covered by both "mass murder" and "massacre" categories:
    • "mass killings", committed by the state or military or by ethnic/political lines without individual basis, also called massacres, e.g. My Lai massacre
    • "mass murders" committed by an individual or small group of people without state backing, also called massacres, e.g. École Polytechnique massacre
    In sourcing that I have read, "mass killings" and "mass murder" (regardless of whether a murder conviction was sustained or the perpetrator died before trial, "mass murder" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the non-state type - however very rarely they are also called mass killings) are almost never discussed in the same breath, but frustratingly the terminology used heavily overlaps, and as a result so does our categories, so we have two slightly overlapping ones but some of the second group is sorted with the first group because people like the word "massacre". I don't know how to fix this, but I don't think deleting all of them will help. It will probably make it worse, because we will have collapsed the minor distinction we have, and even worse, in the wrong direction. The massacre categories are decidely more problematic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's where I disagree with you. There are plenty of things which we describe as "massacre" in wikivoice. There should be no issue dropping the "My Lai massacre" into a massacre category. The same with the Flour massacre. If editors can argue that it should be called massacre in wikivoice it belongs in the category.
    But at least within the I/P space, I'm not sure there is a single event which is described in wikivoice as "mass murder". It seems like it's solely being used for POV pushing.
    I checked the mass murder page for guidance on possibly finding a definition. The page seems pretty problematic. First highlighting examples of terrorism as mass murder without seemingly sources calling them "mass murder". Then an entire section on "Criticism as an analytical category"
    I'm still leaning pretty strongly that at least in the I/P space the "mass murder" categories don't add any value, and just make a POV mess of things. Bob drobbs (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that in the I/P area at least it's a mess but the massacre category should also go then, no? Is that not *more* POV pushing, since it basically means "bad killing" as opposed to lawful killing? If we are going purely by things that are called that by some people for a POV term with no cohesive definition we should not have the category at all. Do we get to have a category called "bad events" if most sources view an event as morally abhorrent? No, obviously. Are we going to put the Saturday Night massacre into a massacre category? It has it in the title.
    Yes, the mass murder Wikipedia page is deeply unfortunate and has been for a long time so I agree that I would not look at it for guidance on what constitutes that (I really need to get around to fixing that article), but the word does have a generally agreed upon definition - however, it is generally not applicable to state actions as agreed upon in those definitions, so there is widespread miscategorization going on here and probably none of the entries in this category would count.
    The massacre subcategory is also problematic because most of the articles aren't titled with it in there, and if it is included it's uncited in the infobox or just "people called it this" which is not defining and disputed. The massacre page is meanwhile almost entirely an etymology of the word with just as many definitional problems as the mass murder one. I think something needs to change but both of these categories have problems in a way that needs to be sorted out beyond just deleting one of them entirely and collapsing the distinction.
    Since nothing in this category is applicable to the non-state mass murder definition, this one can probably be deleted. There are a few in the other Palestine categories that do though. So delete this one and I would be open to deleting some of the other I/P ones but please do not do some general mass murder CfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose plain deletion, while one may argue about the category name (personally I think massacres fits better than mass murder) the articles clearly belong together as a group. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose deletion for same reasons given above by others. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is against deletion. I am cautiously relisting this discussion; a reminder that the extended-confirmed restriction applies to this discussion. Should the category be renamed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century Irish monarchs

Nominator's rationale: delete, these weren't Irish people. Supposedly the category tree has deliberately been named Irish monarchs instead of monarchs of Ireland. If this goes ahead the 17th and 16th century categories should be purged, as well as the Irish queens regnant category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May I remind you that none of the monarchs or politicians categories cover ethnicity? They all cover nationality, and the country in question was the Kingdom of Ireland. Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Dimadick's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English pretenders to the French throne

Nominator's rationale: delete, too much overlap with Category:14th-century English monarchs to Category:17th-century English monarchs and not a defining characteristic for monarchs after Henry VI of England. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subjective description of a hereditary claim that lasted all the way to the French Revolutionary Wars.Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Dimadick's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Oh Hellos songs

Nominator's rationale: All redirects to the band's three albums. Unhelpful for readers to just keep going back to the same articles where the most info about the songs comes from being included in the track listings. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
here from talk page notification ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ i thought it might be useful for aggregate data collection, but no strong opinions either way :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis geography stubs

Nominator's rationale: There are only 46 mainspace articles in the category, when stub categories should have at least 60 - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 19:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Grutness's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – a country-level geography category seems likely to fill up again. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Office (American TV series) episode images

Nominator's rationale: Single file category. Other files are included in upper category. RanDom 404 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – just populate from the parent category. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]