Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 9
December 11 >

December 10

[edit]

Category:Arab film directors

[edit]
  • Nominator's rationale This is mainly being used to hold various nationality categories, some of which such as Egypt, Sudan and Iraq have many inhabitants who do not identify as Arab. Film directing has been done in the modern era, so we can either have people in the specific nationality categories or have the few who were not in a general category. Arab categories only really work when we have large populations who either lived outside of formal states or lived in times where states where so unstable or so small that categorizing by it does not make sense. None of those apply to filmmakers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many notable Egyptian filmmakers, many of which are Coptic, i.e. not Arab. It is not useful to categorize film directors by language spoken. Place Clichy (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tecnkcally this is not by language spoken, it is by ethnicity. Which in some areas is even more open to debate. For example in Lebanon there are many people who speak Arabic all the time but do not see themselves as ethnically Arab.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not by ethnicity if all national categories of all Arabic-speaking countries are automatically added to the category, although many of them are multi-ethnic. Ethnic categories should follow the guidelines at WP:EGRS, which in short means that only articles where the Arab ethnic identity is relevant to the topic and supported by reliable sources should be placed in that category, rather than being implied by last name or place of birth. Place Clichy (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but move the two articles about Bahraini film directors to Category:Asian film directors. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I meant Category:Film directors. I think overall we need to stop insisting on breaking down categories fully by nationality. There are some nationalities that we have very few articles from. We can have broad categories, but I do not think we need to split out every single occupation by nationality fully.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asian film directors has no direct articles. I still think we have never decided that directly sorting articles on the continent level is a good idea. I think it is better to either put them in the by nationality categories or the generalized one. I think in generally putting people directly in the continent categories is not a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There were indeed landmark discussions in the past, such as this and this, where it was decided to containerize continent-level people categories (i.e. not place biography articles directly in them), mostly because they are a proxy for race, and it is wrong to categorize people by race per WP:ETHNICRACECAT. Place Clichy (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want people appearing directly in Category:Film directors either. It would be extremely large, literally to the point of total unbrowsability, if it directly contained all film directors without any kind of subcategorization — and every person who gets left in the main category, due to the lack of any viable subcategory to move them into, makes it significantly harder to clean up any misfilings of people who do belong in subcategories. For instance, if I have to leave two or three Bahraini film directors and two or three Omani film directors and two or three Sammarinese film directors in the main category just because they don't meet your personal standards for how many film directors from any given country should have articles before it's allowed to have its own "[Nationality] film directors" subcategory, then you've made it significantly harder to find and fix the American film director who gets incorrectly thrown into the parent category alongside, or instead of, the American subcategory — because instead of the misfiled article being the only thing there and thus standing out, I now have to check ten articles for their movability or non-movability status each and every time I try to check the category for any misfiled entries that need cleanup.
Sure, in the case of more specialized categories with much smaller scopes, partial or no diffusion is fine — but in the case of impossibly broad megacategories that could become populated into the tens of thousands without careful management, like Category:Film directors or Category:Writers or Category:Singers, I need any misfiled articles that show up in the parent category to be the only thing there, rather than having to sort through eleven or twelve or fifty articles that can't be moved in order to find the one that can. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it does not seem that hard. Some categories should naturally not directly contain any article or biography, such as by country categories, or continent-level categories per past decisions (1, 2) if proxy for race. There is no such reason for occupational categories. If there is no suitable diffusion sub-category to place an article, of course it should be placed at the root. If there are too many of them, then it can be diffused. Loop. Place Clichy (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the part about how cleaning up the category of entries that should be diffused becomes significantly harder if the category is a mixture of diffusable and undiffusable entries. It cannot be that I have to check 15 or 20 or 50 undiffusable film directors to find one diffusable film director — and it's not an issue where we can just agree to disagree about whether that's actually a genuine burden or not, either: it's an issue where the people who are actually doing the work of monitoring that category, because they're a member of the WikiProject whose ambit the category falls under, get the final say on how burdensome it is. Especially since there isn't a universal rule that "National X" categories have to have a specific minimum number of entries in the first place — size cutoffs for categories are a rule that varies according to the particular needs of any particular tree, not a one-size-fits-all rule that applies the same way to every single category across the board. Some circumstances require at least five pages, some require 60, and some allow categories to exist the moment one page can be filed in them, because it's a context-dependent issue rather than an absolute invariable cutoff. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is all very subjective. Also, there are other ways to diffuse a category such as Category:Film directors: genre, language, century, award received etc. Place Clichy (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we really want to diffuse film directors by century. Basically we would have 2 categories with a very high overlap. I really think we should only diffuse categories by century where we can have 3 reasonably size centuries. I do not think we should diffuse any category by century where there is not a reasonable change to have multiple articles from before 1890.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: film directors are not actually diffused by century. I alluded to that and it was my mistake, I do not suggest that. They are also diffused by award received though. Place Clichy (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good to know about century diffusion. Do we actually diffuse by award received though, or is it just an added category. If we had some profession with only 37 articles so not diffused at all by nationality, but there was a major defining award 10 of those people got, would we take those 10 articles out of the main category, or would we put them in both the main category and the award category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The flaw lies not in the category's existence but in its misapplication as a parent for nationality-based subcategories. The solution is reorganization, not deletion: remove all national subcategories from Category:Arab film directors and restrict its scope exclusively to individual biographies where Arab identity is supported by sources. The precedent for proper structure is already established within Category:Film directors by ethnicity: both Kurdish and Bengali categories function strictly as ethnic identifiers for individuals, and not as umbrella classifications for national cinema categories. Arab ethnicity deserves identical treatment. Al-Andalusi (talk)

Category:Curaçao people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The adjectival and demonym for people from Curaçao is "Curaçaoan." It seems like this category (and all subcategories) should be renamed to use "Curaçaoan." I don't know why we're just using the name of the country here. It would be like using "Category:Canada people." Compare, for example, Category:Aruban people, Category:Irish people, Category:Jamaican people, Category:Puerto Rican people, etc. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with Guns N' Roses

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:OCASSOC. --woodensuperman 20:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated characters introduced in 2022

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category solely consists of redirects. Not useful for navigation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not need redirect only categories. I think we have broken up our things by year categories way too finely. I admit to some of the responsibility for this. I may try to nominate some categories for upmerge, although the fact that there are huge trees in these cases makes it hard to know where to nominate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not particularly wedded to the need for this, but the reason I created it is because somebody preemptively populated it with all of the current contents as a redlink — but since content cannot sit in redlinked categories, my only choices were to either create it or remove it from all of the contents it was already on. And every single other year in the entire 21st century thus far has a sibling category — in fact, you have to go all the way back to 1972 to find any year that doesn't have one of these — so this is extremely likely to get recreated over and over again by users who don't understand why 2022 is the one and only isolated exception in a 50-year stretch of these otherwise existing right across the board. So, again, I don't really have any strong opinions about whether this needs to exist or not — but if it gets deleted and then I ever see it back on Special:WantedCategories again because somebody tried to repopulate it a third time, make no mistake that I will be going on a completely justified rampage. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do we need the 2 article 2020 category though? Maybe we should upmerge some of the other narrow categories, such as all with 3 or less articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that we really need any categories for animated characters by individual year of introduction at all — does having been introduced in 2022 really define an animated character differently than having been introduced in 2023? — so I'd almost prefer to smash them all down to by-decade categories instead of by-year categories, but obviously that would require consensus. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women's handball players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: From my perspective this category is simply a duplicate of Category:Female handball players Robby (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Most such categories use "women's" not "female". This is in part because these are by league played in, not actually by anything about the person per se. This category is for people who participanted in Women's handball leagues, so I think that is what the category should be named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging more categories to this discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+ 69 more categories
Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge three and rename female→women's to align with Category:Women's handball and other team sports such as Category:Women's association football players and Category:Women's ice hockey players or rename female→women to follow majority of other Category:Women by occupation category. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jimmy Neutron films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains two articles. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jimmy Neutron characters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: After removing redirects, the category only contains two articles. Should also be merged to Category:Nicktoon characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Team Cherry soundtracks

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. The only category it can merge into is Category:Team Cherry, which the article is already present in a subcategory for. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adoption of Bitcoin

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Nondefining and vague SMasonGarrison 00:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs athletic directors

[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College men's soccer coaches in Illinois small categories

[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish plasma physicists

[edit]
  • Nominator's rationale This category does not comply with our narrow category rules. It only has 1 article and narrowly intersects multiple subjects (plasma physicists and Swedish physicists). It is not helpful to navigation. Merging to the parent categories will help people find similar articles more reasonably.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. It took me literally 3 minutes to turn this into a 5-article category. Similarly to WP:BEFORE, there should be a requirement when you want to nominate a cat for being too small (no matter how dubious that concept is in the first place), that you first need to make a good faith check to see if the category can't be filled with more articles. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw since there are not enough articles. Making it harder to nominate narrow categories for upmerge is not a good plan. People who create categories should do their best to fill them out. Expecting people to go through and ensure that categories are large enough before nominating them would add a huge amount of work. We already make it trivially easy to create categories, and already have a huge process of having to post nominations in multiple places. We need to avoid policies that will make it even more likely that people create new narrow categories without trying at all to ensure they are large enough to justify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Three of the articles didn't even exist when the category was created, meaning that a) whoever created this cat could not possibly have added them at the time, and b) deleting these categories is in many cases a bad idea because apart from the obvious benefit they bring even when small, they will often be populated by later creations as well. The remainder of your reply makes it look as if you find it more important to delete categories than to have good categories, since you don't even want to do the effort to see if a category you nominate for deletion/upmerging could better be served by adding articles, which would make both the articles and the category and its tree better, instead of worse. Fram (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people are creating new articles but not adding them to the category then maybe the category is not very defining. Having larger categories instead of hyper narrow categories makes things better. Navigation in Wikipedia is actively hurt by having such small categories. Trying to make is that we have categories that are large enough to actually assist in the process of navigating between articles is a reasonable goal. I have spent large amounts of time trying to find enough articles to put in a category, and in some cases have given up and stopped trying to create the category when I realized there were not enough articles to place in it. I would suggest not attacking others for the methods they choose to use in improving Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Or people are just not very good at categorizing. And the issue is that many of the things you do (or like here refuse to do) don't improve Wikipedia. And "Navigation in Wikipedia is actively hurt by having such small categories. " doesn't become true if you repeat it often enough. Fram (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please be civil. Your above comment is uncivil and uncalled for. Please stop personally attacking me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          Nothing I said was uncalled for. If you don't like having your edits described accurately, then change your actions. Fram (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • Saying that others people do not improve Wikipedia is just plain rude. When someone asks you to be civil that means that what you are saying is rude and disrespectful. This response was also uncivil and uncalled for. Please stop attacking the ways in which I edit Wikipedia. It is very rude. I am asking you to stop engaging in personal attacks. Please stop it. It is a reasonble request to ask that people do not go around saying that others actions "do not improve the encyclopedia". That is rude. I am asking you to stop posting such rude messages. Being civil is one of the guidelines of editing on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
              Refusing to do an easy check if a category can be populated and instead nominating it for deletion or upmerging doesn't improve Wikipedia, just like people nominating articles for AfD where an easy WP:BEFORE check would show numerous good sources doesn'y t improve Wikipedia. Saying this is perfectly acceptable. Like I said in another discussion, feel free to open an ANI discussion, where the edits around this by both of us will be scrutinized. For example, describing someone's edits and the result they have is not a "personal attack", and misusing "personal attacks" to silence someone is frowned upon. Fram (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
              Thank you for populating the category. WP:BEFORE is describing AFD and, while I think it's fine to try to save categories, there is some onus on category creators to ensure their creations are useful. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
              There is also onus on article creators to have fully sourced, fleshed out articles. Still, when a one-source stub comes to AfD, we expect the nominator to have checked whether the subject is notable, based on e.g. Google searches, not just based on the state of the article. Poor article creation / category population should not be an excuse for deletion when there is an alternative. Fram (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small journalists categories by nationality beginning with the letter A

[edit]
  • Delete Category:Azerbaijani television journalists since the above merger will leave this category empty.
  • Nominator's rationale All these categories violate the narrow category guidelines. In all these cases there is only 1 article in the category. The extreme category is the set of Armenian categories where a tree of 3 categories has only 1 article in total. This excessive splitting makes navigation harder, and in the two women categories is not really in line with the last rung policy which is that for ERGS categories we should not split them if there is not a reasonable way to split the category by another way. There might be a size exemption to the last rung rule, so that a category like Category:Armenian women journalists we maybe would split up by columnists, correspondents, radio, TV etc. even if that was the only way we could split Category:Armenian journalists if the women journalists category was exceedingly larger and made navigation very hard by its huge size. However that is not the case. The merger will give us Category:Armenian women journalists with only 9 articles in total. I believe these upmergers will assist in navigation. I am also trying to strike a reasonable balance between too large and too narrow nominations. Although each one of these is a different sub-cat of the specific type of journalists from that country, I think that overall all the categories being journalists categories makes them related enough to put together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no benefit to readers from removing some of the countries from e.g. Category:Women journalists by nationality, which now has subcats for some 150 countries. No problem seems to be solved by moving some of these out of this tree only because their country has less entries. Navigation is just as hard or just as easy for a journalist from a large country as for a journalist from a small country. Removing some countries is making the structure less logical and may well give readers the impression that we have no articles for e.g. women columnists from those countries (because, from the point of view of a reader, why else would we have a category for Argentine or Belgian women columnists, but not for Armenian?). Fram (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, makes it easier to navigate from e.g. Marta Repullo i Grau to other articles about women journalists. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But makes the reverse harder if you come from a by country category, e.g. French or Spanish. The logical place to look for them, if you are interested in these from that perspective, would no longer list them. Making it "easier" by removing the need for one or two clicks, while at the same time making it harder by completely removing it from a logical category, is not a zero-sum game. Fram (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also makes life easier when you start at French. When someone has read all articles about French television journalists and they are so much in the topic that they also want to read about television journalists of other nationalities then they will find Marta Repullo i Grau quicker in the root category than in a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not when they want to read from specific countries only (Andorra being a neighbour of Spain and France), but the root category is also filled with Adele Ramos and Maria Ângela Carrascalão and Rosa Malango and Marthe Fare and Marie-Antoinette Rose and so on and so on. Apparently we have decided that it is normal for people to want to find women journalists of certain countries (hence this tree) but not if you are from a small country? Fram (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • When people are specifically interested in women in journalists from small countries, they will find them in the root category. That is how all root categories work in relationship to subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is completely obscure and illogical for readers. Please, please, don't just give me "but that's how we do this" answers, I really am not interested in or convinced by such. And people are normally not "specifically interested in women in journalists from small countries", they may e.g. be interested in woman journalists writing in Catalan (so looking for journalists from Spain and Andorra), or from the Iberian peninsula, or... (to stick to the Andorra example), or they may be interested in women journalists from countries from Oceania, or ... Fram (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • If readers are specifically interested in Andorran people they will find them in the Andorran tree. For clarification, "that's how we do this", what I mean is that throughout the categories there are categories consisting of subcategories plus single articles that do not fit anywhere in the subcategories. For example Category:Journalism has 29 subcategories and 91 articles. Readers who use categories to navigate between articles will be aware of that, or will become aware of that. They will scroll or read the 91 articles if none of the 29 subcategories is particularly interesting to them. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "If readers are specifically interested in Andorran people they will find them in the Andorran tree. " applies to every single subcat of course. "what I mean is that throughout the categories there are categories consisting of subcategories plus single articles that do not fit anywhere in the subcategories." (emphasis mine). Facepalm. Here the articles fit perfectly into the subcategories, but you want to remove them. You give the example of the loose articles at Category:Journalism, but these are articles which don't fit in the subcat system as it stands there now. This doesn't apply to subcat systems by period or location, where the loose articles would fit perfectly in the subcat system (or as usually at CfD are already in the subcat system) but get removed from it, not because "they don't fit in the subcategories" but because they don't fit in some "ooh, too many clicks" fallacy (it's just as many clicks as for all these slightly larger categories). Fram (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't understand what advantage there is in "would fit perfectly in the subcat system". Wikipedia does not exist for the sake of building a system, it exists so that people can easily read articles. Too many clicks is not a fallacy, it is reality. Reading as little as 4 articles in one-article categories requires 8 clicks going back and forth which is completely unnecessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The category system is so people can easily "find" systems. Making it harder to find the article(s) you want, or forcing people to open articles they don´t need because of insufficient categorisation, is worse than a few extra clucks to get exactly what you want. Fram (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think merging only the people from small countries into a general cat like Women journalists is helpful for navigation. There's no reason Category:Women journalists by nationality should not be complete. Readers don't know the intricacies of Wikipedia politics. If they don't see Category:Andorran women journalists, they'll just give up and assume we don't have any articles on Andorran journalists. They're not going to do a deep dive into every possible category route. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Category:Women journalists already has 4 direct biographical articles. There are multiple sub-cats that are things like Category:Women columnists that also have direct articles. I did not go and see how many direct articles we have there and how many of the direct articles there are also in by nationality sub-cats. We have upmerged over the last few months at least dozens if not more 1 article categories by nationality to more general categories not by nationality. In general doing so allows for better navigation. The idea that we have to split up every possible category into every possible by nationality sub-cat is just unreasonable. Categories are meant to aid navigation, and 1 article categories almost never do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the advantage of this approach. However I am hesitant about it. In most cases we have sources calling these people writers, journalists, scientists, chemist etc., and most often sources will describe them as from a place, of a certain nationality, etc. I guess we can just say we know x places are part of y continent. However one of these we have in some cases is various "Caribbean" categories, I am not sure we know 100% what is and what is not Caribbean. With actual countries there are actual borders. So I am hesitant, but if people think this would be better than a grand Writers cat, Jorurnalists cat, etc. to hold everyone where we cannot create reasonable by country sub-cats I will go for it. I will note we do have some histircal categories like various People from Al-Andalus categories, that refer to a recognized region that was not actually a country so there is present for that. We also in some cases do not have European categories when we have other sub-categories by continent, even though Europe has multiple micro states and other very small places even in the present that are too small in a lot of cases to justify diffusing by as many categories as we diffuse larger states by. What is clear to me is that any tree that has more categories than it has more articles makes it far too hard to find the actual category. I would support multi-national regional categories over these 1 and 2 article sub-cats that often require people to search through several categories to even find another article. What we have now is too many narrow categories. If we will allow every 1 article category that someone bothers to create why have the narrow category guidelines at all?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now Having narrow categories hinders navigation but no objection to future recreation if/when the article count grows signficantly for any given country. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanuatuan writers

[edit]

Category:Antigua and Barbuda singers

[edit]

Category:Pashto mass media

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Same thing. Gotitbro (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honduran film directors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Timber rafting in fiction

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. Οἶδα (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Namur (province) and Namur (city)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I'm aware that there was a CFD on February 20, 2022, but a lot of categories were left out, including those concerning Namur Province. In any other case, I would have listed this at CFDs under the C2B and C2D criteria, but I'd like a more thorough consensus. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 04:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stellation diagrams

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON (not enough existing directly related articles or subcategories). fgnievinski (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lacy categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Steve Lacy (guitarist) is currently a redirect to Steve Lacy, so any mentions of "Steve Lacy (guitarist)" in these categories should be replaced with "Steve Lacy". RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 03:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support renaming! HighlandFacts (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canis lupus dingo

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Main article should be Dingo, not Canis lupus dingo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Estrella Media stations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Estrella Media merged with MediaCo in 2025, and the article was renamed, but not the category. OWaunTon (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 02:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_10&oldid=1327990040"