Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 8

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

December 8

Category:Schoolteachers by school

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 17#Category:Schoolteachers by school

Category:Newsgames

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 17#Category:Newsgames

Category:Serious 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 02:15, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Blatantly subjective category. Much like the also nominated Category:Art games, whether or not a game qualifies for this category is solely down to if someone described it as "serious", which is not a quantifiable inclusion criteria by any means. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Neutral - same as my comment for Art games category below, I think this category is better served by defining strict inclusion criteria rather than deletion. I do not find compelling the argument that the concept is subjective, when we have reliable sources defining it in an academic way; the category should just follow the sources that treat the included games in the same way. Diego (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
    Much of what I said to this argument about art games below applies to some extent here as well, but to specifically account for the definition of the topic at the eponymous article- "a game designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment" is pretty blatantly subjective, because "entertaining" is a subjective quality. Not everyone will agree on what is or is not entertaining, just the same as not everyone will agree on what is or is not fun. We don't have a Category:Fun games, and that would be an NPOV minefield if it existed for obvious reasons, so I don't really see how a category that is essentially "not fun games" can be useful or objective in any sense. Video games that aren't made with the intent of being fun are a valid topic for an article, but it isn't a workable category. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Serious game is an actual genre, not someone's random opinion. It means "a game created for activism/education/etc." which is quantifiable and not subjective. Nom is misleading/incorrect and should've checked the main article before nomination. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
    The issue here, to me, is that the description on the article ("a game designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment") is unhelpfully broad, and attributes intent to the game developer(s), rather than describing the observed qualities of the game, and a game's intent or effect on a player is subjective, variable, easily conflated, and difficult to define. I guess thinking about it further, maybe this is an indication the article needs a rewrite of some kind more than anything else. I suppose the category could be kept if there's a case to be made that the topic is a more objectively describable genre- I can buy that there would be some catch-all term for edutainment video games or training simulators, etc. However if it is kept I would likely consider petitioning to rename the article and category to something with less implicit POV issues. The category is very small, though, and I still think it'd be best off deleted, and maybe its contents recategorized to other categories. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
    Again, we are talking about games sources have characterized as serious games, not people's personal opinions. At best unfitting games might need to be purged, as said above, but the category itself is clearly defining for some games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Many articles mention that it is a serious game, but it is hardly ever sourced. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Diego and Zxcvbnm above. Serious game is indeed an actual genre, not at all someone's random opinion. Games like that appear mostly in an educational context.

Regrettably not even BoardGameGeek or other databases of Category:Online game databases deliver reliable markers for Serious Games. The reason: the people there are not much interested in the small segment called Serious Games. Different bubbles: the educational crowd and the normal game enthousiasts. The only way might be to search for scientific (academic or NGO) research about Serious Games. -- Just N. (talk) 20:24, 16 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:Art 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 02:15, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This is an inherently WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Although "art games" and the general topic of video games as an art form is a well-documented topic with many sources, it is hardly a coherent game genre. This category could theoretically include any game that was at some point described as "artful" in some sense by one or another critic (WP:STILLSUB). This is akin to having a category of Oscar bait films, which obviously shouldn't exist either. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is a too vague and not a defining concept. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete This is too arbitrary of a category to be worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)d
  • Neutral - I was going to remark how Art games is as subjective concept as Art film, but then I saw that we don't have a category on that either, so maybe it's not the good argument in favour of a keep I was looking for (other that point out that editors have put good effort to create the former category and not the latter).
I just will add that I agree that games should not be put in the list merely by being called artsy by some sources; yet we do have an objective definition of the concept, as the well-researched article on the notable topic proves. So my feeling is that the category can be salvaged by using that article as the WP:Defining inclusion criterion, ensuring that we put in it only games that have been described by the sources in the precise terms that are covered in that article. This is the way to manage what articles should go in WP:STANDALONE lists, i.e. by enforcing good objective and verifiable selection criteria so that only games matching it would be included. It is a harder job than simply deleting the content, but it may result in a much better outcome for coverage of the topic in our encyclopedia. Diego (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the article does provide any "precise" definition of "art game". Looking it over, most of the definitions it lists, of which there are several from multiple different parties, are to one extent or another highly subjective and contradictory of one another, and could be said to apply to most video games if interpreted generously.

Like, what exactly, if anything, constitutes a "mental challenge", "emotional reaction", "cultural critique", and so forth? What does "artistic intent" mean and to what extent is it a factor? What are "political themes", what constitutes a worthy "artistic purpose"- and so forth. If I really wanted to, I could make the case based on this article that Cyberpunk 2077 or The Last of Us Part I, or Active Shooter, or whatever else I wanted to argue for, is an "art game". And indeed, the category already includes several games, like The Last Guardian, South of Midnight, and Detention, which don't seem like they're defined by sources as "art games" and seem to have been added pretty arbitrarily by some editor who decided they "felt like" art games.

There is also a significant section of the article highlighting criticism of the notion. I would say to listify the category, but a list of art games already exists, and I think that's a better format for elucidating upon the reasons why a particular game would be considered an "art game" than a category.

If you do think the article has precise and coherent criteria contained within it, I think it might be helpful if you outlined it and maybe showed how you might choose to describe the criteria in a revised WP:CATDESC for the category page. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
what exactly, if anything, constitutes a "mental challenge", "emotional reaction", "cultural critique", and so forth? What does "artistic intent" mean and to what extent is it a factor? What are "political themes", what constitutes a worthy "artistic purpose"?
Whatever is meant by the references we use, of course. It is not our job to clarify what potentially subjective terms mean, but to verify that the reliable sources describing a game are using those terms that we know are descriptors of the topic. This transforms a potentially ambiguous task into one where we are not open to subjectivity - either the game is described in terms that commonly belong to art games, or it is not. Old common verifiability is all we need. Diego (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
This isn't really a good argument for the reasons outlined at WP:STILLSUB, as I stated at the outset. Categories need a stronger set of criteria beyond "someone called them that once". silviaASH (inquire within) 22:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
And that's why the criteria I proposed was "reliable sources describing a game are using those terms that we know are descriptors of the topic", not "someone called them that once". Diego (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Art game is a legitimate genre of games created for artistic purposes. Usually an art game has little commercial viability, sometimes is meant to send a message more than be "fun", and isn't made for commercial profit reasons. As what is an "art game" is discernible from sources, this doesn't fall under WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
    I can't agree with this assessment, as I still think it's subjective for the reasons I already outlined. However, if we are to keep the category, then it should be purged of any entry that is not described by sources as an "art game", and clear criteria for qualification should be outlined at the top of the category page to discourage editors from adding games simply because they "feel like art". silviaASH (inquire within) 06:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
    I would agree with this, but I believe that most if not all of the games in this category already do fall under the criteria for being an art game, as they were described by critics as one or otherwise singled out for their unconventional nature. I don't feel like some sort of wide-ranging purge is necessary, though there are a few games that are iffy (or just straight-up miscategorized, like Swapnote and Chicory: A Colorful Tale, in which the player themselves does art). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Many articles do not even mention that it is an Art game and just being "unconventional" is not good enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
      Agree to that, specific games that are not described in terms of their merits as a work of art do not belong in the category. Weirdness on its own is not enough, though it can be one component of a deeper analysis that describes other artistic elements. Diego (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
    i agree E.Sousa-art-fan (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just the same as above. Art game is a legitimate niche genre of games created for mainly artistic purposes. I agree with Zxcvbnm and Diego. -- Just N. (talk) 20:32, 16 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 Shé Quán practitioners

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> 13:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The article for the martial art is called such, and even the note in the category refers to it as snake kung fu, which appears to be the common name. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. If the article is named like that... -- Just N. (talk) 20:36, 16 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 of Spanish Texas

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> 13:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename Category:People of Spanish Texas to Category:People from New Philippines
  • Nominator's rationale This is a basically a sub-cat of People from New Spain under the container cat People from New Spain by province. The province was called New Philippines as explained in the article. This province was much smaller than modern Texas, although its northern and eastern borders were disputed. The category should be A-limited to those who lived under Spanish dominion. B-much more importantly limited to people in the Province of New Philippines. We normally use "from" to sort people by sub-national entity. Lastly we want to limit this to the Province of New Philippines, not to place people from what is modern Texas in the category, because the boundaries of modern Texas were disputed until late in the 1840s and were the cause of war during the 1840s. They were not natural and apparent, they were disputed and contested. So we want to exclude from this category people from Nueva Mexico, which in this context would be anyone who lived in the general area of what is now El Paso. It also would exclude anyone in Nueva Vizcaya, New Spain, I am not sure there were many people there. However in the case of Nueva Extremadura, New Spain there were people in Laredo in the colonial period (I am not sure we have any articles on any of them, but there were people there), so we would want to have those properly in the Nueva Extremadura category and not this one, we would also want to place anyone in the coast plain south of the Nueces in the People from Nueva Santander category and not in this one. I am not sure if this should be "from the New Philippines" or "from New Philippines" but reading through the article on the province I think it actually is supposed to be the later (the fact that it is a mainland land mass not a bunch of islands makes calling it "the" and then following with the name less common.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename, like its siblings in Category:People from New Spain by province the category should have its historically accurate name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 20:38, 16 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:Individual cats in politics

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 including the dogs categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:15, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge Category:Individual cats in politics to Category:Individual cats
  • Nominator's rationale I do not think that the fact that these cats are either the cat resident at a political building or owned by a politician make them "in politics" in any meaningful way, I guess the sub-cats are OK, maybe, but the two sub-cats do not require the parent and I do not think these are really a group or that they belong together, so I think we should just merge these up one level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom --Lenticel (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that this is being nominated but not its parent category, Category:Individual animals in politics, makes no sense. In any case, I think the subject of high-profile political animals is a notable one regardless of what it's called, and this cat-egory is defining. While it might be argued a rename could be merited to make it obvious the cat itself is not a politician, first of all, why would people actually believe that, and second of all, it comes off as being the WP:MALVOLIO who wanted to destroy all sense of whimsy and fun. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will add the other two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 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.

FIBA Oceania U15 & U17 cups

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 17#FIBA Oceania U15 & U17 cups

Category:Suryavansha

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: Manual merge * Pppery * it has begun... 02:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Suryavansha is merely the literal Sanskrit original of Solar dynasty. These are not different items/cats but the same thing. Not sure why a duplicate at was created here. Gotitbro (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Selectively merge, in many articles "Suryavansha" or "Solar dynasty" is not even mentioned. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 8 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:Explorers of the colonial Southwestern United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 5#Category:Explorers of the colonial Southwestern United States

Category:People from the Colonial Southwest United States

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 17#Category:People from the Colonial Southwest United States

Category:Transport in Adıyaman

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... 02:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: 1–2 articles or one sole subcategory in each category; this does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, per nom, but don't merge to city categories because articles are already in a deeper city category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, works better. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:15, 14 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:Buildings and structures in Adıyaman

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> 13:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: 1–2 articles in each category; this does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:18, 8 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:Turkish expatriate actresses in Pakistan

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:Expatriate actresses in Pakistan. (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 12:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Upmerge We clearly do not need a 1 article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 8 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.


Parliament of England (pre-1707)

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> 13:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Followup to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_23#Members_of_the_Parliament_of_England. Adding "pre-1707" distinguishes the Parliament of England from the Parliament of the United Kingdom which includes England and is based in England. Partly this is to help readers notice the difference, and partly it is to reduce categorization errors. Beland (talk) 12:28, 8 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:Soteriologists

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) 15:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This category of soteriologists (theologians who work on soteriology) is difficult to define in terms of its boundaries, as most theologians deal with soteriology to a greater or lesser extent. I question the interest of this cat for the reader. Telikalive (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. I am not sure about the difficulty to determine boundaries, but at least it will be difficult to find articles about non-Christian soteriologists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 8 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:Albanian singers by language

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> 13:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layers all containing exactly one subcategory; this does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Upmerge Although I would reiterate my view that the language used by a singer is not defining since one can sing in a language one does not understand, and there are people who di. A new tree Category:Songwriters by language might be doable, since it requires a lot more knowledge of a language to do songwriting in it, but that is a different story. I would note that actors and actresses were do not actually categorize by language, we have a few categories for specific linguistic cinema involvements, but we do not have say Category:American Spanish-speaking actresses. We realize that there are lots of cases where actors and actresses performed in languages that they knew very little, and since most are just reading dialogue created by others not creating it themselves there are lots of cases where people can do notable productions in a language without really being defined by it. The example that comes most easily to mind is Tony Leung Chiu-wai who has primarily appeared in films in Chinese languages, but who had a very large role in Shang-chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, a portion of which he delivered in English. I would argue there is no reasons to put him in an English-language actors category, and would not change my view in this case even if he had multiple major roles in English-language films. Now if he came to reside in the US to appear in a string of films I could see him going in expatriate male actors categories, but I do not think in either singing or acting the language used is defining enough to justify categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 23:04, 14 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:Rodez AF templates

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) 15:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Narrow template categories with one template per club that in several cases also breaks WP:CAT#T. For this reason, there is no need to merge to article categories. They are also all in Category:Sweden football club navigational boxes and similar categories, so they can be straight deleted. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 22:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 22:19, 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:Aerial transport in Sevastopol

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> 13:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Useless intermediate layer, with just one child category (itself with one article). It could be renamed to Aviation in Sevastopol per WP:C2C, but seen the little potential for expansion up-merging is probably more useful. Place Clichy (talk) 10:40, 8 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:FC Volyn-2 Lutsk

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 17#Category:FC Volyn-2 Lutsk

Category:Unsimulated Fellatio in film

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) 15:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Not an independently notable category. Dominicmgm (talk) 03:01, 8 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:Racial impostors

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... 02:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Title and description of category is misleading. The description is "individuals people who falsely claimed to be a member of a race or ethnicity they did not belong to", but the category includes almost exclusively cases of indigenous identity fraud. It is unclear whether people who pass as white should be included. I would argue that these are different categories as the power dynamics and motivation are different. Pencilsforall (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Rename to match article. There are a lot of controversial issues here, including the fact that some of these people get so labeled because ever though 7/8ths of their ancestry was what they represented they lived in a time where people felt that the 1/8th mattered more than the 7/8ths and they are labeled at this Fir obscuring a small part if their ancestry. I think this is something that we should be very hesitant to apply as a category, we especially on BLPs. I also wonder if it should be renamed to Category:Racial and ethnic misrepresentstion. The article mentions both and essentially treats them as cobe phenomenon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment The reasons for Racial misrepresentation change over place and time. The reason to exclude people who allegedly "passed as white" in the early 20th-century I think is in some ways not about power dynamics as well. The issue is a little deeper than that. Rachel Dolezal falsely claimed that she had African ancestry. This was a total fabrication in opposition to the reality of her ancestry. Basically 100% of the people who "passed as white" in the early 20th-century in the United States had white ancestry. The fmvast majority of them had significantly more white than black ancestry. In some cases they had 7 white great-grand parents and only one great grandparent with any black ancestry. This is a very different phenomenon. They are not fabricating ancestry for the most part, they are just obscuring a part of it, but thry really did have European ancestry. There are some known cases of early 20th century African-Americans inventing ancestry to specific Native American groups, one case of a person falsely claiming to be Sioux who may have been part of the Lumbee and another case of a Maryland African-American who claimed he was a Catawba who was a Native speaker. These clearly belong here. I do not think those who played up their majority European ancestry to obscure their African ancestry really do. I think we also need to be careful to not include people who we do not clearly know did the misrepresentation intentionally. If people claim a false ancestry or such but the evidence is they were doing so sincerely based on group dynamics they received from their parents where their parents were functional members of the group I do not think the person belongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment, if it is going to become a topic category instead of a biographical category then all articles but two should be purged. A third article might be created as a list of all biographies currently in this category. By the way, it should be Category:Racial misrepresentation (spelling). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Just Delete. Race is a cultural construct, and a scientifically obsolete one. Race is not biological. The category scope as defined implies that one belongs to a race, which is a false premise. Most people have complex multiple ethnic identification, which can be reflected with all appropriate nuance, context and sources in a biography or a topic article, but not a category. Some articles may be moved to a topic category, which may include others such as novel The Human Stain, but this will always be a bad category for biographies, not matter how many times you turn it around. In the past I had tried to add the case of Malia Bouattia as an example in article Transracial (identity), which led to back-and-forth among the watchdogs there, and leads me to think it is hopeless to consensually add such a label to a biographical article without it being an ATTACK. Self-identification is important for race and ethnicity, and people don't self-identify as imposters or committing misrepresentation. WP:ETHNICRACECAT applies, and also WP:TNT. Place Clichy (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Deletion, instead of keeping it with 2 articles, would be fine with me too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree with outright deletion. There is clear fraud and deception involved in the case of Ward Churchill. There is a clear case of intentionally attempts to deceive others involved in many of the people here. "Race" is a cultural marker of shared heritage and I do not think we should so flippantly rejected it, and so I do not think we should so flippantly delete a category grouping together people who perpetrated frauds based on knowingly false represenations of their ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
    Do you mean that the article for Ward Churchill does not make it clear enough who he was and who he pretended to be, or that topic/list article Pretendian does not give pointers to fraudsters of various levels of deception? Categories are not the solution to every problem. In fact, when applying uniform inflammatory labels over a range of vastly different individual situations, they are often a problem more than a solution. Not all articles that have been placed in this category were cases consistently and consensually regarded as cases of fraud and deception. Attack labels in category names should be handled with greater care. Place Clichy (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Place Clichy. Leaving it up to editors to decide what counts as "misrepresenting one's race" entails a huge can of NPOV and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT worms, and keeping this category around does not seem worth that inevitable trouble. If no consensus is attained for deletion, then rename as proposed. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Change to Delete per Place Clichy and silviaASH. I proposed to rename primarily because the description of the category was too subjective. I agree that without significant guidance there is a real risk of misapplying the category, leading to WP:ATTACK, following WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. See Sneeze Achiu where I believe the category was incorrectly applied. The articles within the category all have clearly outlined the specifics of misrepresentation or fraud for each person as appropriate, and there does not seem to be a need for a category to encompass different types of fraud, so I think WP:TNT applies. Pencilsforall (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pencilsforall et al.. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT clearly applies; the use of "imposter" is clearly a charged word and, frankly, one that violates the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:CONTENTIOUS. "Misrepresentation" is better, but also connotes intent; it's not clear if Sneeze Achiu, for example, intentionally misrepresented his own race, unknowingly had his race misrepresented on his behalf, or even whether his race was intentionally misrepresented at all. I do agree in principle that cases like Ward Churchill and the like make some sort of category useful, but I think Pencilsforall is right that WP:TNT applies since the category, though perhaps capturing one or two worthwhile categories, is so charged and imprecise that it would be unwise to continue with the category as-is. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I really do think this is a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT because of the accusation it levels; some people may have not realized they were not of a certain race and then been accused of purposely falsifying their ancestry. Or, people may have differing opinions of what "percentage" of genes would make someone a certain race or not. This can very easily be conflated with falsely claiming to be of a certain race. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:40, 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.

Writing systems by year of introduction

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> 13:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Too small to be useful for navigation; largely containing a single article and four articles at most (in a single instance). 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Upmerge There is not enough here to justify diffusing the category by year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge I'm OK if there's a few small years, but this level of granularity goes too far given the article count. -RevelationDirect (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. By year is not useful in this context. -- Just N. (talk) 20:51, 16 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:Ocher Studios films

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 15#Category:Ocher Studios films