Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 2

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

December 2

UC California Banana Slugs

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. (non-admin closure) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - What is the minimum number of articles that should be in the category to keep it? The basketball coach category now has three articles as I found it was under-applied when created. There may be others as well (looking for a historical list) and of course the category has potential to grow since the school still sponsors the sport. Rikster2 (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
      • In general I would say we really should not break out categories below 5 articles. I have not however nominated for merger categories with any more than 3 articles except in some cases where they are part of a very small larger term. When we ended the small category guidelines we removed potential to grow as a guideline for category creation. We create categories based on the number of potential articles we have at this time. We can of course create additional categories in the future when we have the articles to justify that, but we do not need to create categories when we do not have enough articles to fill them out. I would say any category below 4 ought to be merged, ones with 4 and 5 articles we should consider if there is a good reason to keep them and only keep them if the various parent categories are getting so big that large scale diffusions is helpful. Upmerging all the coaches into Category:UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs coaches will only give that category 7 articles, which is really not enough to make splitting the category in any way reasonable. I would say that if the category has under 20 articles we would not split out a sub-category unless that sub-category has at least 7 articles, and if under 25, we should not split out if it is under 6. I think we should only allow 4 and 5 article categories if that is needed to keep the parent category below 25 direct articles. Even this may be splitting categories too small. Because of the potential size of Category:College men's basketball coaches in California using this rule would justify the Menlo Oaks men's basketball coaches category that has 4 articles. True that category only has 4 articles now, but there are several 1, 2 and 3 article categories that probably should be merged. The fact that there are only 4 articles that have not been diffused does tell us we are not dealing with small categories because diffusion has been not as complete as would be good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
        • So, to be clear, there is no guidance about what constitutes a “small category.” Rikster2 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
          • Narrow Category. We ended the small category guideline. So we now discuss if a category is too narrow. The general view is if you hit 5 categories in most cases you are good. However the old guidelines allow so many exceptions and there is no adequate way now to ensure categories are large enough before they are created. However in general merging up categories with less than 4 articles is widely supported, 4 and 5 a little more borderline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
            "The general view is if you hit 5 categories in most cases you are good" -- where is this spelled out in any policy or guideline? My editing philosophy has generally been, one article is good (so long as others can conceivably be added), two is great. Five is a lot. --Habst (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete per WP:NARROWCAT with no objection to future recreation if multiple articles are published. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Category:UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs men's basketball coaches. The category has 3 in it, and possibly more existing articles qualify for it, and WP:NARROWCAT does not specify any specific number. It is part of an existing category tree and there is no benefit to the reader to pushing an article back to a generic “basketball coaches in California” category. This is not a natural category for readers to have interest in, whereas a specific school is. No opinion on the others in the nomination. Rikster2 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
    • This is the very definition of a narrow category. Broader topics like who were college basketball coaches in California is a perfectly normal category for readers to have interest in. 3 is far too small to be a reasonable number to out it a category. This also makes it far easier to navigate through the whole group of University of California at Santa Cruz sport coaches instead of making people click on each sport to find them. I think with this number of articles we have more categories than is reasonable. This huge number of categories actively hinders reasonable navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, dumping articles from different teams directly into Category:College men's track and field athletes in California just because they are from a smaller college is not helpful for navigation. Having a balanced tree there, with all athletes in their college subcat, is much more user-friendly than upmerging all the small ones. Fram (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part of a well-established scheme of sorting athletic personnel by school and sport. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fram. Single-article categories are allowed on Wikipedia, and in this case they are sufficiently broad that it's likely other articles can be added to them. --Habst (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Chinese landscape architects

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). - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge 1 article categories are not helpful to navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support as per main article. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have 27 subcats in Category:Landscape architects by nationality. Removing the nationalities with only a few entries in them doesn't help disoverability or navigation, it just reduces the possibilities for readers. On the contrary, the ones directly in the cat:landscape architects should be downmerged. Fram (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
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.

UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs athletic directors

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 10#UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs athletic directors

College men's soccer coaches in Illinois small categories

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 10#College men's soccer coaches in Illinois small categories


Category:Gorilla City

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). - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for a relatively minor comic book location that was featured in an episode of the TV show The Flash. Since the Gorilla City article was redirected in 2019, there has been little merit in retaining this cat, which includes only articles where this location is a trivial mention and not necessarily prominent, aside from the Flash episode. It would make more sense if there were a category for the Gorilla Grodd character, who is arguably more notable and sought after than this location. (There was even a navbox that I brought to TfD last year.) — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 21:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to Gorilla City entry under List_of_DC_Universe_locations#Fictional_cities. Note that Gorilla City has far more appearances than noted by the nom, going well back to the 60s.- jc37 02:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
    @Jc37: Uhm, I think you are mistaken. This is for the category, not the article, which was already redirected in 2019 as I noted above. No real use in redirecting a category to a list, which I've never heard of as a viable option. Just because something exists does not mean it warrants its own category in an encyclopedia when each entry includes only passing mentions of this fictional subject. That is what I mean by this being a minor feature in the grand scheme of things. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 05:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
    Listify. - jc37 07:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. Any relevant links can still be manually transferred there without retaining this obsolete category, though that approach raises WP:INDISCRIMINATE concerns for me. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 16:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
    Comment the current entry on the list already has links to all pages in the Category:Gorilla City other than this one. WinstonDewey (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
    Then, in that case, there is no need to retain this category regardless. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 19:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a clearly defining characteristic. The "what links here" feature suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Just N. (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Weapons of the People's Republic of China

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 10#Category:Military of the People's Republic of China and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 21#Category:Nuclear program of the People's Republic of China. All these categories appear to be for identical purposes. All of the entries are for the PRC not any other form of China. Per WP:Commonname, we don't use formal names of countries. There is no ambiguity with ROC/Taiwan. Ping participants from previous and similar discussions. Mclay1, Omnis Scientia, Marcocapelle, Place Clichy, and Justus Nussbaum. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Tigers in literature

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 15#Category:Tigers in literature

Category:Lions in literature

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:Literature about lions. I see a consensus to rename too Category:Literature about lions. (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category contains works about lions rather than characters or appearances within works. WinstonDewey (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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.
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:Deer in popular culture. (non-admin closure) silviaASH (inquire within) 16:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I've gone through and edited categories from Category:Deer and humans downward and found that there are sufficient pages to populate separate moose categories, as listed below (as well as some additional tweaks based on the content). This has already done and can be reviewed starting here (Category:Moose and humans. I had not seen this discussion until after I was done, but I believe that the category structures are robust and enough that this will help with navigation (e.g., someone looking for moose/deer won't have to deal with pages about the other). This continues to maintain the broad scientific accuracy (moose as the largest species of deer) while helping with navigation. Happy to hear other concerns. WinstonDewey (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support changing "deer and moose" to "deer" – Moose are deer so there's no reason to specify moose in addition to deer in the titles. No opinion on the other changes to the category names. Mclay1 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support changing "deer and moose" to "deer" per Mclay1. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - Whatever is done, make sure to have category redirects for the leftovers from: moose, deer, and moose and deer. - jc37 07:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed, I am happy to take care of that. WinstonDewey (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename The deer family, Cervidae, is at the article Deer, and it includes moose (Alces alces). Current feels rather Amerocentric, since in the United States the white-tailed deer is often simply called a deer. I have made no attempt to discern which species of deer are represented in the category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Fictional superhuman abilities

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 (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Main article is Superpower (ability). Not every ability here is wielded by a human. Is the "fictional" part necessary? That's implied. Note: Superhuman ability redirects to Superpower (ability), but is larger in scope in some ways and smaller in others. If there is proven potential for an article there, I am willing to withdraw this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - just to cover a few of the questions: there are abilities in nature which could be called beyond or "super" human. There have also been feats performed by humans, which are beyond the ability of the average human. Hence, these are to only include fictional abilities. Also, I look at the current contents of that cat, and I think it's a stretch to call several of them "powers". Some, I'm not even sure I'd call "abilities". What should we call passive features or inherent properties? Anyway, if there's a consensus that there's real need to rename this, cool. But please be discerning. This is often "one of those topics" in comics - typically: heavy on enthusiastic editors, while often light of sourcing. So please tread carefully. I hope this helps : ) - jc37 02:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename, this seems to be a straightforward WP:C2D nomination and besides there is also a subCategory:Mythological powers for which the proposed title would be more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. It may also need to be purged; I just removed two works from the category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
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:University of North Alabama campus

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; no consensus to merge without prejudice against a new discussion focusing on merging. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This category and many other campus categories contain only articles about buildings and structures closely associated with the institutions in question. As such, this category and others like it should be renamed and recategorized to fit within the Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by university or college tree. User:Namiba 17:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Estrella Media stations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 10#Category:Estrella Media stations

Category:Fictional characters with elemental and environmental abilities

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... 16:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: We're looking at a purge and merge here due to WP:NONDEF failure. I won't broach merging any of the subcategories just yet, but at the very least the idea of simply possessing "environmental" abilities is unacceptably vague and should be more specific to be defining for a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Canis lupus dingo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 10#Category:Canis lupus dingo


Category:Cadet class sailing competitions

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Dispersed trees with few entries in both origin and destination categories. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Schools using the Abeka curriculum

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) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: A non-defining characteristic. Schools change curricula on a regular basis. Moreover, many of the articles do not even mention this curriculum. User:Namiba 14:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete not only do schools change curriculums quite regularly, but they do so without fanfare. The private schools that are most if not all users of this curriculum in some cases were in existence before the curriculum existed. Others will switch off. If we had an indepth profile that gave us a reliable source this curriculum was being used there is no reason to suspect we will have a report that it stopped. Even worse, schools can either partially implement a curriculum, or use different curriculums in different grades, or even just choose to have some classes use one curriculum and others use another. This is not really defining to a school at all. This is even before we get to the issue that if an instructional or curriculum model becomes widely popular it will end up having competing models. Scholls are defined by location, funding/governance source and the age/type of school (elementary, middle, high, etc.) I guess also the year of establishment and if thry no longer exist the year they were dissolved. Other things can be placed in the article, but in very few cases are defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Mass media in Arendal

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: 1–3 articles in each; this does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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:London Pulse

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). GoldRomean (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The categories contain at maximum one eponymous article, one category (most often a players-category) and a fair-use logo. Hence, there are not enough directly related articles or subcategories (WP:OCEPON) for these eponymous categories to exist. All subcategories and eponymous articles are sufficiently categorised. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Against Reason for deleting not good enough. Editor seems to be just deleting articles for the sake of it. Djln19 Djln19 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, the subcategories suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete for Now These are conceptually fine but, for now, the subcategories suffice. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete We do not need Eponymous categories just to hold player categories. We either want direct contents beyond the main article, or multiple sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
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 Chelyabinsk by occupation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 12#Category:People from Chelyabinsk by occupation

Category:Pseudonymous entertainers

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). GoldRomean (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic and the categories are to a large extent filled with different types of stage names, old nicknames, and old name changes. Musicians and actors were previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 9#Category:Pseudonymous musicians and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 24#Category:Pseudonymous actors. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not defining. Some organizations make entertainers have unique stage names, thus forcing people to choose such. By its very nature changing names by entertainers in almost all cases does not obscure identity. This is a trial thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Lost BBC episodes

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: Split * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Mixture of radio and television programs, with few episodes. Lost episodes are likely to already in Category:Lost television episodes, like the two subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support There should be no overlap: although some programmes (e.g. Dad's Army, Hancock's Half Hour, Steptoe and Son) were broadcast in both media, each individual episode was made either for radio, or for TV. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support No reason there can't be an explanatory note at the top covering Redrose64's point. I note, though, that certain Proms may have been transmitted on both and be lost. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC).
  • Support per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
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.

Redundant layers by metal oxidation state

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). GoldRomean (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Each category listed has a combined total of one page and subcategory, so these are redundant layers. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 06:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I know little about the topic but it is obvious that some merging needs to happen here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Sounds reasonable. -- Just N. (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
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.

College football players in Utah

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 12#College football players in Utah

Steve Lacy categories

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 10#Steve Lacy categories

Category:Natural products by elemental composition

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... 16:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This is its only subcategory (and I couldn't find anything else applicable to add), and it contains no pages directly, so this layer is redundant. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Institutes of the University of Toronto

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) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant; category only had one article, OISE, which is already categorized under and better suited for Category:Faculties and divisions of the University of Toronto. RapidDweller (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Category has been emptied, If you withdraw this discussion, we can tag the category for CSD C1. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support deletion for the nominator's reasons. (Yes, I saw Liz's message, but switchin to CSD C1 would reset the one-week timer, so this option would be slightly faster.) Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Except for CFD discussions often last longer than one week. Sometimes, even months. Liz Read! Talk! 17:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, without objection to recreate the category when a decent amount of articles is available. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Bangladeshi urban planners

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... 16:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support merging for the nominator's reasons Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge One article categories are not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom ✾✾ 🙞 quái hoa 🙝 (talk) (contribs) ✾✾ 13:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, I see no advantage in having 43 countries in Category:Urban planners by nationality, but not these ones. When a tree is well-developed, keeping the smaller ones next to the larger ones is much more natural and easy for navigation. And as so often with these type of nominations, no care is taken to see if upmerging this won't affect other trees: e.g. Phra Bisal Sukhumvit would no longer be part of the architecture in Thailand tree after this merge. Fram (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no good reason to keep hyper small one article categories. I do not think these categories should be under x category architecture at all, because this is a by nationality tree and these people could urban plan outside the country where they are nationals of and even where they work and reside. If any of these people are actually architects they can be placed in that tree, but at present we are treating urban planners as different than architects, because most urban planners are not architects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
      Category:Urban planners by nationality is literally a subcat of Category:Architecture by country, and the same goes for many of the subcats or related articles. Fram (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
        • I do not think it should be a sub-cat of architecture by country. I think that is an example of incorrect parenting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't there exist lots of award winners among urban planners of all those countries? Don't they get no articles usually? Or is it just again a shortage of article translations into English? OTOH categories with just one article are not indicated to survive our rules. -- Just N. (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
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:National Games of the People's Republic of China navigational boxes

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 (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per parent category: Category:National Games of China. No reason for formal name of country per WP:Commonname. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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's Republic of China navigational boxes

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All these categories appear to be for identical purposes. All of the entries are for the PRC not any other form of China. Per WP:Commonname, we don't use formal names of countries. Categories like these with the formal names are overcat and are unnecessary subcats. One category can suffice.

Plus, separate Taiwan categories exist that does not intersect with this PRC cat and entries in China named categories. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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:Triple jumpers from Northern Ireland

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. Beland (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Recently created 1-article category, overcategorization. Gjs238 (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Kaffet i halsen. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete we do not need 1 article categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, now a 3-article category. Isn't there some WP:BEFORE requirement for noms and voters at CfD, where people first check if a category can be further populated instead of deleted (if underpopulation is the, already dubious, reason for deletion in the first place)? I also don't get why people were so keen on deletion, thereby removing it from multiple category trees. What is gained by this? If all that is done is deletion, then no search tree to this article has been made any shorter, it just has been removed completely. Benefit for readers? Nil. Benefit for editors? Also nil. Really, what are we trying to achieve here? Fram (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
    A short answer to this philosophical comment: Northern Ireland is not a country. A classical way to define someone, and by consequence to have useful categories on Wikipedia, is <nationality> <occupation>, such as German athlete or British writer. Stick to that, and there are greater chances that the produced categories will be useful and have greater support. Place Clichy (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
    In the case of sports, it is often considered a country though, e.g for soccer or at the Commonwealth games where these competed. And it wasn´t an answer to my question anyway, as this isn´t even a deletion based on those considerations. Fram (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
    Not "often". Not in athletics. Not on people's passports. I was just giving a friendly (and I hope constructive) advice on what constitutes defining characteristics. Place Clichy (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
    Not in athletics? It is considered a country in athletics on the Commonwealth Games (where the people in this category competed, and which is a pretty big deal). Not often in sports? It has a separate team for football, the biggest sport. And in many other sports, Northern Irish people can choose to rplay for All-Ireland, which isn't (yet) a country, making their position different to most other sportspeople (e.g. I wouldn't support a category division between Flemish and Walloon athletes, as that is mostly meaningless: the same isn't true for Northern Ireland though). Fram (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
    For sure the Commonwealth and British Empire Games are a big deal. They are also organized in a pretty different way than international sports competitions or otherwise diplomatic topics, with places such as Norfolk Island and Newfoundland competing under their flag. It is somehow a legacy to both the enduring success and reach of the British Empire and the role of said British in the development of modern sports, and I mean that in a good way. That said, if I am not mistaken, the UK competes as a unified team in international athletics competitions such as the European Athletics Championships, the World Athletics Championships and of course the Olympics. Even in domestic competition, I don't think that athletes compete as a NI team. This may be a moot point as it is essentially an individual sport. Place Clichy (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The keeper's argument is that there was a Northern Ireland team at the multi-sports 1934 British Empire Games, as this makes Northern Ireland a separate nation in the realm of athletics, an essentially individual sport. This makes little sense. All articles are already in Category:British men triple jumpers, which is what they should be defined as. Place Clichy (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
    Within Category:British men triple jumpers are categories for Scottish and Welsh Triple Jumpers, so it makes sense to have a category for Northern Irish. Cjc13 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete 3 articles is not normally enough to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
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:National governments

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: for now, merge Category:National governments to Category:National governments by continent. Further cleanup required for clarity.

Nomination:

Nominator's rationale: Pointless layers. Category:National governments (a subcategory of Category:Government by country) contains only Category:National governments by continent and Category:Governments by country (which is already directly in Category:Government by country). Category:National governments by continent groups the countries by only two continents and also overlaps with Category:Governments in Europe by country and Category:Governments in Asia by country, confusingly mixing articles about the general government of countries with set categories and articles about individual cabinets from countries. Even if we purged the topic articles, it doesn't seem necessary to group cabinets by continent. Mclay1 (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Some clean-up is definitely required, and I will take a look at this myself in the coming days. As for categorisation by continent, I agree that we can delete the continent categories. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 12:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  • For more clarity about the purpose it may be helpful to rename the top layer of the tree "Cabinets". Regardless, the second category can be merged to the first. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
The top layer cannot be renamed 'cabinets' because, depending on the country, a 'cabinet' and a 'government' are not the same thing. In Britain, for instance, the cabinet consists of only senior ministers, while the government includes junior ministers. The articles contained in these categories deal with governments, not 'cabinets'. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Keeping these categories at their current name is never going to be clear. They will forever be filled with articles about governments. Mclay1 (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
They are meant to be filled with articles about governments. I am not sure I understand your point. Cabinets have their own category. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 12:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  • The point is that the term governments is unclear. Maybe "successive governments"?Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Dragon characters in video games

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. Beland (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: As with the other stuff from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 5#Category:Video game characters by type, this doesn't seem like a defining cross-categorization. While there is List of dragons in games, there's no evidence that such a thing has been independently discussed by sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons I opposed the video game nobility nominations. I would have opposed the other CfD too had I known about it, and a discussion with only one !vote is hardly consensus enough to establish a precedent. I just fundamentally disagree with the reasoning. This does not fail WP:CROSSCAT, and you can easily find sources talking about dragons in video games. The category is sufficiently populated that it serves as a useful intersection for diffusion. We subcategorise characters (and people) by all sorts of things that make logical sense (e.g. Category:Film characters introduced in 1932) even though there likely aren't many books specifically on that. While some specific categories might be questionable, I don't think it's helpful to tear up entire category trees and upmerge everything to giant general categories. The video game categories stand out because they're sometimes the only media with a subcategory, but I wouldn't oppose the creation of categories for other media. Mclay1 (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
    See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Your argument has no weight unless you can come up with the sources you are talking about rather than claiming they exist. And ones that are solely about individual dragons rather than dragons in video games in general are out of the scope of this.
    The other one is an WP:OSE argument. I don't see what's so notable about 1932 film characters as opposed to fictional characters in general. Seems like yet more ludicrous overcategorization when there were only 38 characters introduced in 1932, easily enough for a single category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
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:Futures projects

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:Future as a WP:Bartender's close. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: More correct and smooth adjective as futuristic redirects to future while futures is ambiguous. Brandmeister talk 12:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  • The articles are hardly about projects (even while "project" is sometimes in the article name). The articles are about the future though, so probably just merge to Category:Future. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Alt Merge This category is not defining; Marco's suggestion to merge to Category:Future works for me but open to other suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevelationDirect (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Proposals, which is a child category of Category:Future (although it is also a child category of Category:Planning, which is a child category of Category:Future, so perhaps it should be changed to only be a grandchild). I agree with Marcocapelle's and RevelationDirect's rationale for merging, but it seems like the overarching points of the members is to convince people of technologies that society should use in the future, which feels like proposals would fit. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 17:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it is not so much conviction but more about possibilities. I do not think the term "proposals" is really appropriate here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • These are probably prototypes for a proposed future vision so I see where you're going, but not sure if "proposals" is a close fit. I'm up for whatever merge has consensus though. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
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.