Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 24

January 24

Set theorists by nationality

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 And then a split can be done if there's editor interest in it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:
Category:American set theorists to Category:Set theorists

Category:German set theorists to Category:Set theorists

Category:Polish set theorists to Category:Set theorists

Nominator's rationale: The top-level category is not currently too big. If it gets too big, it would be better to divide by field of study. Nationality is not a very relevant property of mathematicians, and some of the most tedious and unproductive discussions on mathematician bios have been over which nationality gets to claim them. --Trovatore (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Side note: These cats are recent creations, just a day or two ago. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Many of the bigger subcategories of Category:Mathematicians by field are subdivided by nationality, and this can be parallel to a subcategrization by subfield. According to WP:PETSCAN, there are 112 items in this category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I wish they weren't, to be honest. Do we have to repeat the mistake here just because it's made in other fields? (Also, I'm particularly leery of this one because of Georg Cantor and Kurt Gödel, both of whom have been subject to these distasteful nationalistic claim-warrings.)

Alternatively, where would be a good venue to discuss whether this sort of subcat is a good idea in general? --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science would be the best place for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my specific concern is mathematics, so if it's to be a WikiProject I would think it would be WT:WPM, but it's true that the natural sciences probably have similar dynamics (not much relevance to the work; lots of contributors with ambiguous or complicated nationality). Maybe it's a Village Pump issue? Anyway I'll notify WP Math (neutrally) about the instant discussion; maybe someone will have ideas. --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not a defining intersection. All of these picky little intersection subcategories make it very difficult to categorize articles because you have to remember or look up every time which intersections exist and then spread what should be a single defining characteristic (set theorists) over all the different intersections (especially as academics tend to have multiple nationalities: where they are originally from, where they were educated, where they have held long-term jobs...) Merge the others too as/when they are nominated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, but then split category by century I think that by century is a much better way to split up a category that pertains to centuries of scientific and intellectual development and research. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, the very large majority of the articles are about people from the 20th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, they would be. Set theory was barely getting started in the 19th century, and most workers whose careers started in the 21st century wouldn't have WP articles yet. I'm not sure that's a super-useful subcategorization for this cat. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rough consensus that these categories should not exist, but should we then split by century?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant to this CfD., and can be done independently of it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:35, 25 January 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:Mayoral elections in Irvine, California

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 1#Category:Mayoral elections in Irvine, California

Category:Experts on refugees

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#Category:Experts on refugees

Category:Arab Nationalist Movement breakaway groups

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Offshoots of the Arab Nationalist Movement. No consensus to merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arab Nationalist Movement breakaway groups to Category:Offshoots of the Arab Nationalist Movement

Nominator's rationale: This is a more accurate description as many of these groups emerged after the dissolution of the Arab Nationalist Movement. Charles Essie (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are many articles in the category without an obvious link to the Arab Nationalist Movement, it seems purging is necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The genealogy of every group there can be traced to the Arab Nationalist Movement.

*:{{Tree list}}
*:*[[Arab Nationalist Movement]]
*:**[[Arab Socialist Action Party]]
*:***[[Arab Socialist Action Party – Arabian Peninsula]]
*:***[[Arab Socialist Action Party – Lebanon]]
*:***[[Jordanian Revolutionary People's Party]]
*:***[[Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine]]
*:****[[Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine]]
*:*****[[Jordanian Democratic People's Party]]
*:******[[Jordanian Progressive Party]]
*:*****[[Jordanian National Liberation Movement]]
*:*****[[Palestinian Democratic Union]]
*:****[[Jordanian Democratic Popular Unity Party]]
*:****[[Palestinian Popular Struggle Front]]
*:*****[[Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (1991)]]
*:****[[Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – External Operations]]
*:*****[[15 May Organization]]
*:*****[[Lebanese Armed Revolutionary Factions]]
*:*****[[Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – Special Command]]
*:****[[Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command]]
*:*****[[Arab Palestine Organization]]
*:*****[[Palestinian Liberation Front]]
*:******[[Palestinian Liberation Front (Abd ul-Fattah Ghanim wing)]]
*:******[[Palestinian Liberation Front (Abu Nidal Ashqar wing)]]
*:****[[Popular Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Palestine]]
*:**[[Dhofar Liberation Front]]
*:**[[Organization of Lebanese Socialists]]
*:**[[Popular Front for the Liberation of Bahrain]]
*:***[[National Democratic Action Society]]
*:**[[Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman]]
*:**[[Popular Front for the Liberation of the Occupied Arabian Gulf]]
*:**[[Revolutionary Democratic Party of Yemen]]
*:{{Tree list/end}}

Charles Essie (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That leads to very indirect and non-defining relationships. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Maybe a purge is necessary. That said, what do you think about the proposed move? Charles Essie (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: What do you think? Charles Essie (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Essie: while looking at this again I think that an article (possibly a list) would be much more suited for this than a category. In an article the details of the relationships between the organizations can be elaborated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I think such a list could probably just be added to the main article as opposed to a separate page. In the meantime, do you agree or disagree with my proposal to rename the category? Charles Essie (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather merge it to Category:Arab nationalist organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With what and why? Charles Essie (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To Category:Arab nationalist organizations, because the relationships between the organizations aren't that straightforward. Some organizations that have a direct link in the chart were established as late as 1974. At best one can argue they were established by people who had been involved in the Arab Nationalist Movement in the past. Calling that an offshoot goes too far. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any groups you would describe as offshoots? Charles Essie (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Describing to what extent they are offshoots is better done in a list or article than in a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The main reason I asked is so we know if any of them should be included in the parent category. Charles Essie (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Charles Essie's most recent proposal? I am not seeing Marcocapelle's comments as an objection to renaming if kept, though he clearly prefers a merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, I support the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 25 January 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:Wikipedia categories named after mass media franchises

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...} 18:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia categories named after mass media franchises ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: What's the purpose of this? What "maintenance" is needed for these specifically? It looks as if every category can be restated as a "Wikipedia category named after", e.g. "Wikipedia categories named after countries", "Wikipedia categories named after years", essentially duplicating the category system. But why? If we want a category grouping all mass media franchises, it should be Category:Mass media franchises, not this. Fram (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - afaict, these seem to be an effort to diffuse Category:Eponymous categories. So these are part of that larger tree. Now whether that larger tree should exist, I don't know. This tree's cats are apparently all hidden cats, so apparently they are used somehow for the project, though I don't know how. Further info on this would be welcome. - jc37 09:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~If not kept, merge to Category:Eponymous categories per Jc37.~~ A separate discussion is needed for that parent category. The tree was started by an editor who has not been active for 10 years. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Part of the reason to not categorize these eponymous categories simply as mass media franchises is because the contents of those categories are not themselves mass media franchises. Similarly why Category:Rock musicians isn't a parent to Category:Elvis Presley even though the Elvis Presley article falls under the "rock musicians" tree. The content of Category:Elvis Presley are not all rock musicians and thus a scheme of wikipedia categories named after Foo was deemed warranted. Some relevant discussions on the matter seemed to have occurred in 2010, such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12#Category:Eponymous categories and Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 13#Category:Eponymous categories (in which you, Fram, even took part in). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In practice however eponymous categories are usually parented to content categories anyway. Likewise Category:Elvis Presley is parented to a family category even though the content of this category is not quite about the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cautiously relisting. If not kept, merge to Category:Eponymous categories? Should we handle this in a wider nomination, or should we start with removing this category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice now that merging is not meaningful. Category:Eponymous categories is a container category of types of eponymous categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I dunno either. There's a bunch of these "named after" cats. Is there a purpose to these? Or are we just highlighting examples of WP:EPON? - jc37 22:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose is undoubtedly what Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars said, but that does not really work in practice. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd offer a proposal to modify the WP:CAT guidelines to disallow the placement of topic categories within set categories, since this is a common cause of the longer category loops. The "named after" categories don't help, either. The shortest loop containing a "named after" category is: Emperors of Japan → Wikipedia categories named after Japanese emperors → Emperor Meiji → Meiji era → 1880s in Japan → 1889 in Japan → 1889 establishments in Japan → Kyoto → People from Kyoto → Imperial House of Japan → Japanese monarchs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, I have removed Kyoto from 1889 establishments in Japan. Kyoto is much older than that, in 1889 the city started to modernize. More importantly for our discussion here, establishments categories should never contain topic subcategories, only the main topic article should be in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 2 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.

Israeli settlers

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 except Category:People from Modi'in Illit. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Ariel (1 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
Propose merging Category:People from Beitar Illit (2 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
Propose merging Category:People from Geva Binyamin (3 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
Propose merging Category:People from Oranit (1 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
Propose merging Category:People from French Hill (settlement) (1 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
Propose merging Category:People from Modi'in Illit (3 P) to Category:Israeli settlers

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, only 1-3 articles in these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreation of these categories when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge except Category:People from Modi'in Illit which now has 4 members. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 31 January 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:Neo-Nazi propaganda

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Neo-Nazi propaganda to Category:Neo-Nazi publications

Nominator's rationale: I don't know what is supposed to go in here vs say, the parent category neo-Nazi publications, and the category does not make it clear. The Category:Nazi propaganda, which this is clearly modeled off of, contains wartime propaganda, which makes sense. Given how neo-Nazis operate all of their publications can be understood as propaganda so I am unsure as what the difference between these two categories is supposed to be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support (i.e. I may change my mind if someone makes a really strong case to keep), for now I do not see how we can make a meaningful distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 25 January 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:Actors of European descent in Indian films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: purge and merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Actors of European descent in Indian films to Category:Expatriate actors in India
Propose merging Category:European actresses in India to Category:Expatriate actresses in India

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to isolate actresses of European decent from other expatriate accesses ^SMason_Garrison 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is more complicated than it initially seems. Category:Actors of European descent in Indian films also contains non-expatriate actors, e.g. Tom Alter. And in addition there is a third category that should be included in the nomination, Category:Actresses of European descent in Indian films. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I don't quite get the rationale, Indian-born actors with (recent/full or part) European ancestry are obviously very different from "expatriate actors" (born outside India and active there). Metamentalist (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Actresses of European descent in Indian films; thoughts on Marcocapelle's points would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: maybe just purge non-expatriate actors and then move on as proposed? As for the third category, this presumably would become? - see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose purging and merging Category:Actresses of European descent in Indian films to Category:Expatriate actresses in India

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's updated proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison and Metamentalist: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the purging/merging. Sorry for missing it before. ^SMason_Garrison 05:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose purging and merging - Some groups of people who act in Indian films from foreign countries would have their categories be too small. In this case, it makes more sense to have a single category. Z. Patterson (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm looking at Category:Actors by nationality, and it would appear that we do not categorize actors by descent directly by continent. And the majority of the subcats of Category:Europeans in India do not categorise that way either. I think this is a WP:TNT situaton. Once this is gone, the members can be selectively re-categorised at editorial discretion. - jc37 03:58, 21 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.

Category:Elements of fiction

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 4#Category:Elements of fiction

Category:Recipients of the IUPAP Early Career Scientist Prize

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...} 18:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the IUPAP Early Career Scientist Prize ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Minor early-career award, not lead-worthy, not defining. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category as I belive it is a useful "basket" to collect the biographies of all the young talents that have received this IUPAP prize—IUPAP is after all the one and only international organisation overarching all disciplines of physics. Many of these people are potentially becoming the next stars in their respective fields of physics. Regards Bibliophilen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bibliophilen: please add this to the correct discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:39, 26 January 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.

Defunct WikiProjects

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 all. Discussion of category names in the event the WikiProjects become active once more can be sorted out at that time. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting the following categories:

Various "participants" categories for defunct WikiProjects. Delete per prior precedent. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories tagged and authors notified where still active. It was funny that it turns out one of these was created by myself - I have no memory of doing so, and will let it go through the seven-day discussion with the others rather than G7-ing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question What happened to the WikiProjects? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

They were marked as defunct (in Category:Defunct WikiProjects). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an editor who spent a fair amount of time years ago assessing the status of all existing WikiProjects, the status of a WikiProject can easily change over time. If these are deleted, it shouldn't be a "forever" type of deletion in case editors want to revive the project. It also might be wise to post a notice about this discussion on the talk page of each WikiProject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Project I was working on that's on this list, the "Category" just relates to having a little box on my user page. That seems fun but also silly and pointless. Let them all die. Salamurai (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hello, I am currently a member of WikiProject Colombia and try my best to keep it active. To my knowledge, it is not marked as defunct. Mason7512 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I have not checked each and every of these categories. @Pppery: do you understand how Colombia became part of the list and is there a chance that a few more of them are not actually defunct? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that was human error - WP:WikiProject Colombian departments was marked defunct which is in that category which I wrongly parsed as the WikiProject associated with the category being marked defunct. Removed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as defunct without prejudice to re-creation should any become active again, with the exception of Category:WUSTL WikiProject Invitees and Category:Wikipedia:Personal acquaintances users which should both be deleted with prejudice as having non-conforming naming conventions and/or precedent to delete "invitee" categories. VegaDark (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that precedent stated? I searched WP:UCFD/I and WP:UCFD/H for "invit" and found only one instance of a "invitees" category where the project in question was not defunct, and it was renamed rather than deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:23, 3 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.

Category:San Marino work group

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 3#Category:San Marino work group

Category:Liechtenstein work group

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 3#Category:Liechtenstein work group

Dominican

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Dominican victims of crime ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Dominican murder victims ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Assassinated Dominican people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Dominican military personnel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Assassinated Dominican military personnel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nest of ambiguously-named categories containing a grand total of two pages. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both articles are already in Category:Assassinated Dominican Republic politicians. If not deleted, rename the last one to Category:Assassinated Dominican Republic military personnel. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, or rename the last per Marcocapelle. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 31 January 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:Works about economies by country

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...} 18:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Works about economies by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, I was planning to propose renaming from "works" to "books" per actual category content, but the subcategories are already directly in Category:Economics books and one of them is nominated below, so this category does not add much value at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough contents to justify this grouping. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:26, 1 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.

Category:Books about the economy of the United Kingdom

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...} 18:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Books about the economy of the United Kingdom to Category:History books about the United Kingdom and Category:Books about economic history

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreation of the category when some more articles are available. The only article is about economic history, hence the history targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MErge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:26, 1 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.

Category:The Joe Rogan Experience guests

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...} 16:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:The Joe Rogan Experience guests to article List of guests on The Joe Rogan Experience

Nominator's rationale: The category as applied fails WP:CATDEF in most cases. Someone appearing on The Joe Rogan Experience is not defined by that appearance; it's just one of many talk shows that they attended one time. The category should be listified. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I actually came here because I felt the category should be proposed for deletion. In the realm of over-categorization, this category violates the Performers_by_production characteristic. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per @Kingturtle's rationale above. Rift (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have some doubt on whether it is worth listifying but do not entirely object it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Blatantly contravenes WP:PERFCAT. There's no need for a list article, this seems like WP:LISTCRUFT to me. --wooden superman 11:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert - Yeah, I wanted to make a list but couldn't be bothered so just tossed some random people into a category. It's clearly not category defining but I think a list page would be valid enough. Kline1992 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can count this as WP:CSD#G7 then. --wooden superman 15:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Woodensuperman, WP:PERFCAT does not need to become WP:LISTCRUFT. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 24 January 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:Anime and Cartoon television

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Television networks featuring animated shows. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Anime and Cartoon television ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: What even is this category supposed to be? Do I even have to explain why it's so bad? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - judging by the pages in the category it appears that it is supposed to be for television channels that broadcast anime and cartoons, but that's not obvious at all by the current name. I do think that such a category could be useful though. I don't have any ideas for a new name, so I'm open to ideas, but it should make it clear what the scope is. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per ArtemisiaGentileschiFan. We can probably just add "channels" to the title, so Category:Anime and cartoon television channels (with a small c in cartoon). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Networks featuring animated television shows or Category:Television networks featuring animated shows, per Category:Animated television shows and Category:Television networks. And because the network is not animation, the shows on the network are animated. I'd also be fine with deletion, since I'm not seeing networks categorised by their programming type.- jc37 22:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Television networks featuring animated shows. The naming scheme in Category:Television channels and networks by content is a mess, unfortunately. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when I went to go look at related categories, there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the difference between station, channel, and network. Probably due to colloquial parlance (Polysemy?). Probably could use some cleanup there. - jc37 14:34, 25 January 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:Free conventions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Free conventions to Category:Free goods and services

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. The only child category is Free festivals ^SMason_Garrison 03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 24 January 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:Hazardous air pollutants

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...} 18:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hazardous air pollutants to Category:Hazardous air pollutants under the United States Clean Air Act

Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming analogous to Category:Persistent organic pollutants under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and Category:Persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention. Other renamings were considered (albeit not advocated for: "I can't think of a way to rename the category to make it make sense. (Regulated Hazardous air pollutants)?? (USEPA Hazardous air pollutants)??") on the talk page all the way back in 2007. Preimage (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @A876 (original talk page poster) in case you want to weigh in here. Preimage (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too US-centric. The list suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Not seeing opposition to the rename if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. too US-centric. a very small number of editors might get very excited about initiating new categories for their own countries of residence and/or interest, and then the community would be impeded by dozens of very new and very fragmented categories for this. Sm8900 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 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) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I presume Sm8900's !vote is meant to be a delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:36, 25 January 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.