Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 15

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

April 15


Category:Mysore Legislature

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) 02:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There is no need for a dual merge, the content is already in Category:Members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly by term. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 23:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge a layer that just makes getting between articles harder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 24 April 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:Public domain poems

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Unverified on nearly all of these articles, and if used comprehensively amounts to a listing of all poems pre-1930 - this is also going by copyright law in America, so the name of the category is wrong, as it would require an impressive amount of original research to determine what is public domain in all countries. Same rationale as Category:Public domain films (heading towards delete) Copying the rationale from there: "The category is unworkable. A film that is PD in one country will not be PD in another country. Determining PD status in a single country is often complex - the film may be PD but the music score is not (films are multi-layered works of art not a single entity); or it was PD at a certain time but no longer due to changes in international agreements; or etc.. There is also a defining problem as all films will be PD eventually. All films pre-1922 are PD but that doesn't need a category." PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • See this other related discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete This is probably even a worse idea than public domain films. First off poems go back much further than films. I also remain unconvinced this is a defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Listify - public domain criteria and definitions varies by country. As a generalised legal term, these need clarity and context. - jc37 03:34, 17 April 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:Reference works in the public domain

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Unverified on nearly all of these articles, and if used comprehensively amounts to a listing of all reference books pre-1930 - in America, so the name of the category is wrong, as it would require an impressive amount of original research to determine what is public domain in all countries. Same rationale as Category:Public domain films (heading towards delete) Copying the rationale from there: "The category is unworkable. A film that is PD in one country will not be PD in another country. Determining PD status in a single country is often complex - the film may be PD but the music score is not (films are multi-layered works of art not a single entity); or it was PD at a certain time but no longer due to changes in international agreements; or etc.. There is also a defining problem as all films will be PD eventually. All films pre-1922 are PD but that doesn't need a category." PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete categorizing by copyright status is a complex thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, this seems like a valuable category for Wikipedia and other editors, and for publishers. It shows quickly what can be published. The nomination seems to be mostly about films, which is not what this category is referring. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    There is no difference between the case for films and the case for books. All of these are unverifiable and if comprehensive would be a category for every single book pre 1930. It's also wrong because most of these are still copyrighted somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Listify - public domain criteria and definitions varies by country. As a generalised legal term, these need clarity and context. - jc37 03:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose listifying, would be impossible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not meant to be a legal advice area. I think for this reason having a category that purports to show quickly "what can be published" is a bad idea. We do not want to give the impression we are giving advice we are not possessed of the skills or authorization to give.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 17 April 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:Patents placed into the public domain

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The word "public domain" isn't even mentioned on one of these articles, and the other was not "placed in it", but it expired, like all patents do after 20 years. We should not have a category for every patent more than 20 years old. An expiration of a patent is also not the same as copyright public domain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete the short nature of patents makes this an even worse category. Arguably also we have articles on products or things. How clear the article corresponds to what a patent is held on can be unclear but I think they do not correspond as closely as some claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I have fixed the setuid article, providing lots of sources. This category is named "placed" to exclude patents that expired. There are lots of other patents that have been placed in the public domain early for the betterment of humanity. e.g. https://www.volvobuses.com/en/news-stories/stories/2019/jul/the-three-point-seat-belt-an-innovation-that-saved-over-1-million-lives.html and https://www.bbc.com/news/business-27824698 and https://global.toyota/en/detail/4663648 . Note I am the creator of this category, so obviously biased ;-) . John Vandenberg (chat) 02:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    If that was your intention, now only one entry in the category with the other removed, so this should be deleted on those grounds. Either way I still doubt this is defining. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    It was trivial to add more. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    None of the additions seem appropriate. For example, Fuel cell vehicle does not say this, there are many types of the other things (e.g. many different formulations of insulin) only some of which this may apply to, so tagging the whole article is wrong. None of these articles are even about patents. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Listify - public domain criteria and definitions varies by country. As a generalised legal term, these need clarity and context. - jc37 03:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    That is irrelevant. The majority of these dedications to the public domain never became contested, because the holder of the patent simply refuses to protect their patent, and often they are even involved in helping other organisations make wide & free use of their patent. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    And in a list, that could be explained for those it applies to. I'm not opposed to the potential for categorisation, with better, more WP:PRECISE naming. - jc37 09:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose listifying, would be impossible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:10, 20 April 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:Public domain comics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as Category:Public domain films (heading towards delete). Copying the rationale from there: "The category is unworkable. A film that is PD in one country will not be PD in another country. Determining PD status in a single country is often complex - the film may be PD but the music score is not (films are multi-layered works of art not a single entity); or it was PD at a certain time but no longer due to changes in international agreements; or etc.. There is also a defining problem as all films will be PD eventually. All films pre-1922 are PD but that doesn't need a category." PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete the public domain categories are a bad idea. The fact that comics are often published over a long period of time would mean that some issues of a comic could be in the public domain but not the whole of them. Just a bad category idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Listify - public domain criteria and definitions varies by country. As a generalised legal term, these need clarity and context. - jc37 03:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    How would that work? We would have to have a column for status in every single country, and none of them are sourced. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
      • It might not need to be a column for every country. There may be some countries that fully defer their copyright law to other countries. It still sounds like a very difficult undertaking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
        I don't think that's the case; or if it is, it's so complicated as to be useless. For example, France follows US's rule of the shorter term, EXCEPT when it comes to notice requirements. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:10, 20 April 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:Brazil–Mongolia relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category created solely to contain the single-article category Category:Mongolian practitioners of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. This is utterly nonsensical and completely redundant. Zero connection with bilateral relations between these two nations. AusLondonder (talk) 16:25, 15 April 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:Brazil–Kuwait relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article, Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics. How this is related to bilateral relations between the nations of Brazil and Kuwait is really not clear at all. AusLondonder (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article is about relations between IOC and Kuwait, while Brazil happened to be the host country of the sports event. Involvement of Brazil is trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete The article has nothing to do with Brazil.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 16 April 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:Brazil–Grenada relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article, Grenada at the 2007 Pan American Games, and a sub-category containing a single article for a British mixed martial artist which has no plausible relation to bilateral relations between Brazil and Grenada. AusLondonder (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article is about participation to a sports event that happened to be hosted by Brazil. Note that I purged Andre Winner from the subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete the article does not go here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 16 April 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:Brazil–Saint Kitts and Nevis relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing two articles on participation by Saint Kitts and Nevis at sporting events hosted in Brazil and an expatriate sub-category tree which contains only a single article. Redundant and not useful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, involvement of Brazil is trivial and we do not need the category for just being the parent of an expatriate subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 16 April 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:Islamic arts of the book

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 * in solidarity 04:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I'm unsure what this is trying to convey. I assumed art related to books, but that isn't what this contains. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It certainly is what it contains! What on earth is the problem here? Category:Islamic art is too big as it is & it is foolish to add a distinct group into it. I'm rather amazed you are "unsure what this is trying to convey", which would be completely obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the field, where the term is very commonly used - see this search. Anyway, I've added a note to the category: "This category is for Islamic arts related to books, mainly manuscript illumination, calligraphy and bookbinding", which should clear that up. Frankly you seem to be firing off a great number of noms, without much evidence of thought. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    I've thought plenty about them, thanks! As the creator of the category, what is it supposed to contain??? This is not a distinct group. It's just art! Many of the entries have nothing to do with books, so there is no clear delineation between this and the main category. What does "art of the book" even mean? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    • I'll refer you to my expanded comment above (after a ec), which these remarks just reinforce! I'm curious; which entries do you think "have nothing to do with books"? Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
      The subcategory calligraphy (calligraphy is not exclusively in books, and the contents of that category are largely not about books), Islamic calligraphy is not exclusive or even mostly related to books - muslims are famed for their use of calligraphy in architecture -, Mughal painting (not about books, has one section about its use in books, but this does not mean this is defining for it, or all art would be in the book categories), Ottoman miniature, Deccan painting, Arabic miniature. If it is defined by simply sometimes being in a book what kinds of Islamic art would not also be "art of the book"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
      • There is infinitely more Islamic calligraphy in books than on buildings, and almost all Mughal painting, Ottoman miniature, Deccan painting, Arabic miniature are in books or albums - not "sometimes" but almost always. You've completely lost me with "but this does not mean this is defining for it, or all art would be in the book categories" - what are you trying to say here? Equally, you ask "what kinds of Islamic art would not also be "art of the book"?" - well ceramics, glass, metalwork, textiles and so on. Why don't you look at what actually is in that category, and the other sub-cats? Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
        There's infinitely more writing in books than on buildings but it doesn't mean writing should be a subcategory of books. Category:Writing is not a subcategory of books. Are you arguing that it should be?
        Albums are not always books and the pages clarify that they were not always in books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
        • The muraqqa type of albums, which is what we are talking about here, not an LP collection, are always books. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Even if there's a case for this category's existence, this is certainly not what it should be called. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is mainly about calligraphy and miniature painting which are common terms and for which we already have categories. At most I can imagine creating Category:Islamic miniature painting as an intersection of Category:Islamic art and Category:Miniature painting. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
      • This IS the category for Islamic miniature painting which we don't otherwise have, but museums and RS typically treat that with calligraphy and elaborate bindings together, making obvious sense. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    • The calligraphy and miniature painting categories are for individual manuscripts and individual artists. This is the general container category, in the normal way. I simply cannot understand why this is objected to. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
      No it isn't? There are plenty of things in the miniature painting and calligraphy categories that are not for individual manuscripts and artists and nothing indicates it should not be that way.
      Because "arts of the book" is a terrible overarching name if it is meant to apply to miniature paintings and calligraphy - neither of which are exclusive to books. Further, why would you even group these things outside the paradigm of art? What reliable source has done so? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
      • How are they being "grouped these things outside the paradigm of art" ??? It's a subcat of the main art category, & has "arts" in the name! You are making less and less sense. "Islamic arts of the book" is a completely standard term in RS, as the link I've already given twice shows. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, Johnbod and his links make the case that this is a real topic, an academic topic. The importance he applies to it is backed-up by the sources. And ÷AI agrees, which at a minimum provides evidence that the topic exists. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      • Ok , here we go with some examples:
A Jeweler's Eye: Islamic Arts of the Book from the Vever Collection, Book, University of Washington Press
"Islamic Arts of the Book at the Smithsonian: Providing for Research Across Disciplines", Council on Library & Information Resources paper
Studies in the Islamic Arts of the Book Academic book
Patrons and artists at the crossroads: the Islamic arts of the book in the lands of Rūm, 1270s-1370s, Oxford thesis
and so on. Another reason the term is widely used is that eg Ottoman miniature (figurative, all in books) is differentiated from Ottoman illumination (geometric, nearly all in books), which is a distinction not used for Western illuminated manuscript traditions. The same distinction applies to other Islamic regional cultures, not that we have the full complement of pairs of articles at present. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • (slight edit conflict so I’m duplicating some of the sources Johnbod just posted above) Keep. Surveying some scholarship on the topic, it looks like a well established term which accords with the scope of this category, including specifically discussing miniatures: . This thesis specifically enumerates the constituent arts of the book (calligraphy, illumination, illustration and binding). All of the articles I checked in this category clearly related to the arts of the book. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Merge per nom though I would be open to Marco's suggestion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:26, 16 April 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:Books by Greek authors

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:Greek books. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Totally isolated category. For one, we moved away from using "authors" in categories; Category:Authors redirects to Category:Writers, so I was going to suggest we rename it so it can be a subcategory of Category:Works by Greek writers and Category:Books by writer nationality. However, the Books by writer nationality only contains subcategories; for consistency, this should be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Fine by me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 17 April 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:Books set on islands

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:Works set on islands * Pppery * in solidarity 04:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary parent category, there is no other tree for books set in places, because Children's books by location of setting and Novels by location of setting have their own tree. Non-fiction books are not "set" places, so this is a weird isolated category that helps nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another ill-prepared nom! There is a huge Category:Works by location of setting including eg Category:Works set on beaches, and where these are large sub-categories are normal and proper, eg Category:Novels set in courtrooms and Category:Novels set in deserts. In this particular case, there are sub-cats for children's book as well novels, which is fine. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, that's what I'm saying. The Works by location of setting tree deals with these two categories fine. There are no other kinds of books that can be "set in" a place, so having this category as a strange in-between for a single type of location accomplishes nothing besides having an extra click and a redundant layer of navigation with no parent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Works set on islands. An unnecessary additional layer of navigation to the tree. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Merge to Category:Works set on islands. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, per nom, but merge to Category:Works set on islands so that the childrens books subcategory stays in that tree too. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Huh, I would have suggested that, but I thought both were in there. Only one was. Fine by me then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, what is wrong with 'Books set on Islands'? Instantly brings to mind several books. Nothing wrong with 'Books set on...' categories as long as they can be well-populated. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Randy Kryn What books are set on Islands that aren't novels or children's literature? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    PARAKANYAA, see Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands by Chuck Darwin, My Father's Island: A Galapagos Quest by Johanna Angermeyer, many items listed in the bibliography at Galápagos Islands, books about Paul Gauguin's work and life on Tahiti, etc. Probably many more spread around the globe, and I added Darwin's book to the category. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Those are not "set in", they are about. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Please read the article on Darwin's book, it describes how Darwin reports on his observations with notes taken while on the islands themselves. Seems "set in" to me, and you asked for examples outside of novels and children's books and Darwin's is just one of many, including the others I listed above. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, that's not what the Category:Works by setting tree is for, it is a subcategory of the Category:Fiction by setting category tree. A book is not "set in" an island if it is someone writing about the island. If it is, it should be renamed Category:Books about islands as that is what is defining per WP:CATDEF. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    I believe this is true. I have seen many articles miscategorized as such. There is no shortage of documentary films categorized into "Films set in..." categories. But, as you mention, the category tree is for fiction by setting. However, to be fair, "setting" is merely an element of narrative, which can be fiction or nonfiction. So it could be said, for example, that a memoir is "set in" Southern California in 1947. And, indeed, it is often said that way. And nonfiction narratives can be set in a location and time, be defined by that setting, without having to be "about" that setting. For example, compare Just Kids, which is "set in" New York, with Slouching Towards Bethlehem, which is very much "about" California. Though, the line between "place as subject" and "the world the story happens inside" probably gets very fuzzy, and in practice I would think often collapses. Have there been discussions about this in the past and how the categorization should account for it? There must have been. But so far I voted to delete/merge the nominated category because that is the purpose of the tree as it currently exists. Οἶδα (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge/delete per PARAKANYAA. Οἶδα (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Works set on islands. Honestly surprised this is controversial, seems like a housekeeping nom for fictional settings to me. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:24, 17 May 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:Public domain books

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as Category:Public domain films. Copying the rationale from there: "The category is unworkable. A film that is PD in one country will not be PD in another country. Determining PD status in a single country is often complex - the film may be PD but the music score is not (films are multi-layered works of art not a single entity); or it was PD at a certain time but no longer due to changes in international agreements; or etc.. There is also a defining problem as all films will be PD eventually. All films pre-1922 are PD but that doesn't need a category." PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete because of textual revisions in the case of some books there are some editions of the book that are in the public domain but later revisions are not. I believe very soon the original edition of The Hobbit will be in the public domain, but the later edition with the encounter of Gollum and Bilbo to better align with The Lord of the Rings will not be in the public domain for a few decades.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per both. In very many cases of older books, the modern editions that readers are likely to see and use will not be PD, though older editions are. Also the category is excessively incomplete. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Listify - public domain criteria and definitions varies by country. As a generalised legal term, these need clarity and context. - jc37 09:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose listifying, would be impossible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment the vast majority of books are in the public domain, at least in part. A lot of books have been through revisions, translations, etc. So often the originals are in the public domain, but that does not mean you are free to copy the edition you would have in your hand. Which means that the list would be even more complicated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 24 April 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:Primary source collections

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This is an ill-defined term with an underpopulated category. I don't think this is really defining, and of the examples one is a series that also collects secondary sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose obviously it is defining for a book if it's a primary source collection versus having a different content. The solution to underpopulated category is to populate, not a valid reason to delete. (t · c) buIdhe 17:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete sources are primary or secondary in many cases based on the use they are put to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 16 April 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:Moroccan Darija books

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 * in solidarity 04:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This should be "Moroccan Arabic-language books" to match with the Moroccan Arabic article and the rest of the category tree, but there is only one article here, so it should just be merged. If not, renamed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm fine with either renaming or merging. I can't think of any other Moroccan Darija books that could be notable at the moment, so probably there won't be any more of them for a good amount of time. Therefore, merging probably makes more sense. Though if there are other books in Arabic dialects that are notable, perhaps an intermediary category Category:Books in Arabic dialects would make sense, in order to separate them from ones written in Standard Arabic. Ideophagous (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
I just started an article on Mala'bat al-Kafif az-Zarhuni, which is considered the oldest surviving text in Moroccan Darija. إيان (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
The RS on the topic states:
The work known by the name Malʿabat al-Kafīf az-Zarhūni (henceforth “MKZ”) is a long poetic text composed in a variety of medieval North African Arabic (“NAA”), and its geographic provenance qualifies it more specifically as a type of Moroccan Arabic
However, the text is from the Marinid dynasty, which isn't exactly congruous with Morocco, so I oppose simply merging into Category:Moroccan books. إيان (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Hello @إيان, you're right, but I think that's not a book in the modern sense, unless you mean Mohamed Benchrifa's book about the poem, published in 1987 (Benchrifa himself should have an article, currently available in Arabic and German only). Perhaps we need a category Category:Moroccan Arabic-language literature, but I think it's a bit early for that at the moment, otherwise it may end up in a deletion discussion like this one. Ideophagous (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
The Odyssey, an ancient epic poem, is in the book categories. So as long as that is the case I do not see a problem with it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
I would be fine with keeping and renaming if there is now more than 1 article in it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. The article is already in Category:Moroccan books. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Since it is already in Moroccan books and Arabic is so dominant for works produced in Morocco being Arabic in language we do not need to categorize for such based on category overlap rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Johnpacklambert No? A large amount of Moroccan literary works are in French, not Arabic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Johnpacklambert Moroccan Arabic and Arabic are not the same thing. The category indicates that its member articles are topics about books written specifically in the Moroccan Arabic dialect(s) of Morocco, not that they're written in Arabic and in Morocco. Ideophagous (talk) 20:59, 16 April 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:Books in Serbo-Croatian

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 22#Category:Books in Serbo-Croatian

Category:Lone wolf attacks

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: As shown by the lone wolf terrorism article, there are multiple disparate definitions, under which either very few or almost all terrorism can be included. The term is too subjective to be used in the isolated manner inherent to categories. This is just not a good term to categorize by, there is no solid definition so it ends up being almost completely arbitrary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Inclusion can be determined based on sources for the specific attacks. Both of the events include "lone wolf" attacks in the infobox as a key belligerent. Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Not if there is not an actual definition we are using to determine the category. Categories are not for any descriptor anyone has ever used. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT; for a demonstration of this, we are using it now for insurgent warfare, which is not at all the same thing as "lone wolf terror". PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    We shouldn't be using our own definitions? We should use sources. A page can be included if a substantial proportion of non-fringe sources use the term "lone wolf".
    This does have a clear definition and doesn't include all terrorism.
    A lone wolf is driven by ideology or propaganda without direct assistance from an organised group. It is increasingly common, but it's not all terrorism. There are numerous terrorist attacks that are not lone wolves. e.g.
    A terrorist is distinguished from an insurgent by attacking civilians or invading / occupying military, this is a different variable to lone wolf. The "lone wolf" / "not lone wolf" distinction is much clearer than "terrorist" / "defensive force" / "militant" / "freedom fighter". From that list of 5 attacks, 4 of them possibly count as a valid military target according to the group, but count as terror attacks according to most of the world. Whereas all 5 are clearly not lone wolves. Late Night Coffee (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using our own definitions but to have a category there must be an accepted definition, which there is not of lone wolf terrorism. Read WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. What counts as a "lone wolf" is debated, with disputes over whether the person has to be alone, what "direct assistance" entails (after all, is ideological influence not assistance?), whether group direction counts, whether influence online counts. For example, the two examples you added would not be considered lone wolf attacks under most definitions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

We have Category:Terrorist incidents
"Lone wolf" is much less subjective than that.
You can't justify removing this tactic on the basis of "subjective" or "point of view" when we're keeping "Terrorist incidents". If you think "terrorist incidents" is a problem, nominate that category.
If we are keeping the terrorism categories, the same guidelines "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" can work for this category. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Would be better off as a list, which could clarify exactly how and why a particular attack was described as being committed by a "lone wolf" and give other context which would redress the inherent POV issues with the use of the term. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    There is a list. The main page plus list is already nearly enough for a category. Late Night Coffee (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    The POV issue is on "terrorist". This is why the category is called "Lone wolf attacks" instead of exactly matching Lone wolf terrorism and List of lone wolf terrorist attacks. It's controversial to define it as terrorist / insurgent / freedom fighter, but much less of a controversy to call it lone wolf or not? Late Night Coffee (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Both halves of the phrase are POV for different reasons, though the reasons generally boil down to that the use of the term and its context often reveals the interests of who is saying it. "Lone wolf", in particular, suggests that the perpetrator acted in a vacuum, and it is often used by Western journalists to refer to white male terror perpetrators who tend to be framed as though they are aberrations unrelated to the social conditions that produced them. They will tend to not use this language for any terrorists/criminals who happen to be non-white, female, LGBTQ+, etc. Now, you might disagree with what my comment here implies about my own politics, but my point is that the term is WP:LOADED, and therefore it's not suitable as the basis for a category. If there's already a list, and it's already NPOV-compliant, then great. It should perhaps be expanded and improved. I still maintain my opinion that the category should be deleted, as already stated in my vote. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    The current usage of the term lone wolf doesn't skew towards white attackers. The two articles that had "lone wolf" in the infobox – the articles I was trying to categories when I made the category – were both describing attacks by Arabs in the Middle East.
    The issue of white male attackers is a problem I am aware of, but that's currently only a POV problem for the word "terrorist"; white guys aren't called terrorists. That's why I called the category "Lone wolf attacks" and not "Lone wolf terrorism". Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I am not sure that it is too subjective for a category, but I do agree that a list is a better place to start with. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    The problem is, basically all terrorism is lone wolf terrorism under some definition or other, and you can likely find a source calling it that. Contrary to the title, many definitions of lone wolf terrorism don't require that the perpetrator is a lone actor. The first two incidents added to the category were insurgency / wartime actions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    The problem isn't the definition of "lone wolf". The problem is the ambiguity of "terrorism". The category is not about terrorism, it's called "lone wolf attacks". There is plenty of terrorism done by states or by highly organised groups. Late Night Coffee (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    The problem is the definition of both. For example, is the Oklahoma City bombing a "lone wolf" attack? There were multiple perpetrators, so no, right? But many scholars consider it one. Are attacks directed by an organization but not perpetrated by their organization (many ISIS attacks were perpetrated by people who adhered to the ideology but had no actual membership) lone wolf attacks? Some scholars argue that the many terrorists who previously engage with a group, but then leave and commit an attack, are not lone wolves. Sometimes scholars say yes, sometimes no. Some scholars argue that lone wolves do not exist, ever. There is no coherent definition of lone wolf attacks and it is perhaps the most problematic term in all of the terrorism studies literature. It is entirely subjective, so WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Oklahoma City is notoriously disputed. A discussion of whether to put that in the lone wolf category belongs on the article's talk page. The same goes for the JFK assassination and a small number of others where there's unusually active debate about who else was involved. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    For most cases "Do a substantial proportion of balanced sources call it lone wolf" is an completely workable definition. We manage to use multiple much more controversial categories: like Category: terrorist incidents and Category:Islamic terrorist incidents.
    The current usage of the term "lone wolf" doesn't exclude others having some involvement. It is an origination strategy that's widely used by multiple modern extremist movements.
    It is used strategically by ISIS. They actively incite attacks and deliberately create ambiguity about which they are responsible for. Numerous sources describe a "lone wolf" strategy used by ISIS.
    ISIS don't have "actual membership", this is not a thing that exists, but the politics and theology of ISIS are beyond the scope of this discussion. The concept of an ISIS lone wolf is substantially better supported by more reliable sourced than the concept of an "ISIS member", particularly since 2019. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Not a single article you have added to the category abides by that definition.
    Some definitions do! Some don't! There is no consensus. Many scholars argue that if it is a strategy used by an organization it is therefore, definitionally, not "lone wolf". PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Marcocapelle, There is a list: list of lone wolf terrorist attacks. The category helps attach that to the descriptive page lone wolf terrorism. The list should probably be renamed list of lone wolf attacks to distinguish the "lone wolf" variable from the "terrorist" / "freedom fighter" / "criminal" controversy. Late Night Coffee (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Lone wolf terminology is not used outside of the terrorist context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    "terrorist context" is not a defining feature. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, it absolutely is. No source discusses this otherwise. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete we categorize based on shared trait not shared name. We need to be able to say the things involved are all the same sort of thing, not that they just ate called the same thing. Galacians can be people from Galacia a region in northwest Spain or people from Galacia a region of the Austrian Empire now split between Poland and Ukraine. We would not put people from those two areas in the same category even though reliable sources would use the same term to describe both. If there is not a clear coherent thing being described we should not have a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Applied here the huge debates about whether "lone" only applies if the person acted on their own, or if it means that they were not part of a larger group, and of course the complexities of determining what is directed how. All the more so because some of these attacks involve people who died before the full nature of their intents were discovered. This is also going to be conditioned without a tight definition on cycles in reporting. Realistically at least some early 20th-century assassinations were maybe closer to truly "lone wolf" attacks than anything in the last 20 years. Although maybe only because barroom conversations leading to such attacks are not as discoverable as online coordination. Was McKinley assassin a lone wolf? Has any source ever called him that? Is there any definitional instead of use reason for this. Categories are based on what things are not what they are called.John Pack Lambert (talk)
We need to use sources, and "do sources call it that?" is the way to determine what it is in a way that is citable. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Lone wolf attacks are a strategy that is used by modern extremist movements. It's an organisational / incitement / radicalisation strategy. This is the most common current usage. Someone acting completely alone on ideas they have devised independently is an unusual type. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Many would argue that if it is part of a movement strategy then lone is no longer lone. This is becoming very messy thus less useful for categorization. It seems that (Islamic) terrorist incidents is all we can objectively say. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    The category "Islamic terrorist incidents" is a much bigger problem than "lone wolf attacks". Every objection raised above is a bigger problem for the "Islamic terrorist incidents" category. Approximately a third of the pages that were in Category: Islamic terrorist incidents by year were missing sources "Islamic" or "terrorist" or missing both. Events related to right-wing terrorism get quickly removed if the sources are weak, but the standards aren't being applied evenly. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete because "lone wolf" is so hard to define. In addition the argument "The two articles that had "lone wolf" in the infobox – the articles I was trying to categories[sic] when I made the category" concerns me. The creator of this cat should read and follow the advice at WP:OVERCAT: "Not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires creating an associated category. For some article topics, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as 'category clutter'." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    "OVERCAT" is possibly a valid point. I'll look for other pages to add. If it's only a few, then wikilinks between those few pages are a better option. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. Non-defining, subjective, and just overwhelmingly massive overcat.SMasonGarrison 21:50, 21 April 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:Tax fraud

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. No merge is necessary, the only content is Category:Tax evasion. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Tax evasion. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to Category:Tax evasion. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect, the two concepts are too similar. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge unless we can find a person who set up a fraud scheme to cause him to pay more taxes. Which would be silly. If you want to donate money to the government you can beyond a tax mandate, so this would not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 19 April 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:The Coffin of Andy and Leyley

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. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: No point in a category with one article and a handful of character redirects which are unlikely to ever be expanded into articles. The parent categories already contain the main article. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. One page and its redirects do not warrant a category. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete and upmerge per nom. It would be understandable if each of the game's chapters also had their own articles, but this seems equally unlikely. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't even think an upmerge is warranted. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:47, 21 April 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:Asian space programme stubs

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/rename * Pppery * it has begun... 21:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary empty layer. There is a template but it is not used; the subcat Asian spacecraft stubs is missing a template, so reuse it there. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 15 April 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:American trade unionists of English descent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 30#Category:American trade unionists of English descent

Category:Malta–Montenegro relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a redundant category to me. It contains no article on relations between the modern states of Malta and Montenegro but contains an article on Malta–Yugoslavia relations and a sub-category related to that topic. It also contains an empty ambassadors category and expatriate/descent categories. AusLondonder (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should not keep this just for expatriate/descent subcategories, and other current content simply does not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Relations of Yugoslavia and Malta were no more relations of Montenegro and Malta than relations of Rome and Carthage go under Italy-Tunisia relations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 16 April 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.


Non-defining, single-article ambassador categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: More non-defining, single-article categories for non-resident ambassadors. Unhelpful for navigation and resulting in over-categorisation of individual articles such as at Martha Bárcena Coqui. AusLondonder (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete non-resident ambassadorships are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should not categorize non-resident ambassadorship. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I came here after the notification about the Croatian category, and it looks like a vestige of Croatia–Mongolia relations which required 10 years and 4 AfDs to get rid of. Sheesh, I almost have PTSD from that ordeal :) A single-item category is fairly pointless (tempting readers into the category space for no obvious benefit?), and if there's no potential for expansion, it should go. --Joy (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Potential for expansion was specifically ended as a criteria when narrow cat replace the previous guideline. Basically now we judge categories based on the article there now. Either argue that they are enough or add the other articles in during the discussion. Do not claim there are more articles that will be produced soneday.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
      Why are you being so combative when we agree in this instance? --Joy (talk) 07:11, 21 April 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:Ambassadors of Mexico to Albania

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single list article, List of ambassadors of Mexico to Italy. Not helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete We do not need to have this Category for a list let alone a list that does not even have the scope of the Category. Ambassadors are one of the most fragmentary categorized professions there is. There are far too many Ambassadors categories based on the number of articles we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is again non-resident ambassadorship. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 15 April 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:Comfort women

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: Not renamed. There is a consensus to not rename this category. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Nominator's rationale The current name is am admitted euphemism. Euphamisms are against out guidelines. We have renamed other categories to make it clear what is going on. This is why we renamed planters categories to owners of plantations. It might be worth adding more phrasing here to better match the scope of the contents. This is basically as far as I can tell Military sex slaves of the Japanese Empire during World War II. I am not sure if we want to leave it that limited or rename it so that the scope will be broadened. Either way we would be best off using clear language and avoiding euphemism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the main article is at Comfort women. It is a euphemism, but it is also the common name. Note that while there has been (unfortunately) sex slaves in many military conflicts, the term of comfort women refers to a specific context in a specific culture and a specific list of conflicts, so th etwo scopes are not identical. Place Clichy (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Normally I would agree but "women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces in occupied countries and territories before and during World War II" is such a specific topic with deep recognition as such. Read through the articles in Category:Comfort women which illustrate this. Ethnic cleansing is even more divisive a term, yet similarly has widespread adoption despite being a euphemistic term for mass atrocities, i.e. a politically correct term used as a 'softer' alternative to genocide. Οἶδα (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above and WP:COMMONNAME. – Fayenatic London 07:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. This could be revisited in the future if a rename of the Comfort women article is successfully pursued, at which point the category may be able to follow per WP:EPON. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose per above reasons. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:20, 15 April 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.