Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 3
December 5 >

December 4

[edit]

Category:Languages of the Arctic

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another WP:ARBITRARYCAT. I don't think that being spoken in the Arctic is a defining feature for English, French, Germanic, Uralic or Siberian languages, or any other content in this category, e.g. Category:Languages of Iceland, which isn't even in the Arctic. Place Clichy (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Arctic cuisine

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An absurd category gathering completely unrelated things. Despite a warning that "Arctic cuisine only covers the area north of the Arctic Circle", this category gathers articles and categories for Soviet, Canadian, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Alaskan topics etc., although 98% of their population lives outside of the Arctic. Cherry on the cake, this is even a child category of Indigenous cuisine of the Americas! The only content actually related to the Arctic here is Inuit cuisine and Sámi cuisine, but despite the similar climate I don't think they have enough in common to justify a category: the Sámi don't hunt seals, and the Inuit don't have reindeers. See also: this discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Industries in Myanmar

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge back into parent. Undo needless subcategorisation. 'industry' or 'industries' makes no semantic difference in this case. NLeeuw (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chemical industry in Iran

[edit]
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. ✗plicit 23:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just delete. Redundant layer, only subcategory is also nominated for merger (which in practice is also a just-delete). NLeeuw (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chemical companies of Iran

[edit]
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) 07:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Merge for now. Only page is already in target category. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Industries in Iran

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Upmerge back into parent. Undo needless subcategorisation. 'industry' or 'industries' makes no semantic difference in this case. NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


People of South Asian descent

[edit]
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) 07:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 20#Category:British people of West Asian descent, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 22#Caucasus descent, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#People of Central Asian descent descent categories should be organized by continent and country, rather than by regions, which are often overlapping and arbitrary. Hassan697 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Record labels based in Port Harcourt

[edit]
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) 04:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article so unnecessarily small at this time. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Small college football in Oklahoma categories

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These 1 and 2 article categories do not help navigation. Merging them to the parents will make navigation easier. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Murray State category as there are now three articles there. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fooian football supporters' associations

[edit]
Oppose. Most of these associations are not based in Albania proper. Kj1595 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Association football supporters' associations
Category:Football in Bangladesh
Category:Sports organisations of Bangladesh
Category:Association football supporters' associations
Category:Football in Indonesia (boldly added by me)
Category:Sports organizations of Indonesia
Category:Association football supporters' associations
Category:Football in Israel
Category:Sports organizations of Israel
Category:Association football supporters' associations
Category:Football in Ukraine (boldly added by me)
Category:Sports organizations of Ukraine (boldly added by me)

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: consistency with all parent categories, which are called Football (organis/zations) in Fooland (Australia: Soccer), as well as Sports organis/zations of Fooland. 4 country categories have only 1 page, and can be triple-upmerged. Indirect follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 11#Category:Argentinian syndicalists. Sidenote: For some reason, Category:Greek association football supporters' associations has the word 'association(s)' twice in the catname. I suppose there's no risk of confusion with non-association football, so the first 'association' can be removed per WP:C2C. NLeeuw (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Grnrchst and Marcocapelle: for indirect follow-up of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 11#Category:Argentinian syndicalists. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NFL in Los Angeles players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: An awkwardly-named category that does not aid navigation. User:Namiba 20:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to NFL in Los Angeles. Category is small enough to contain three additional subcats, and they should remain in the tree in some way. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harvard Crimson athletes

[edit]


Restaurants by cuisine

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to this recent discussion, where the parent category was merged as Category:Restaurants by cuisine. These categories are about restaurants serving cuisine associated with some origin, e.g. Chinese or Asian. @Pppery, Marcocapelle, Justus Nussbaum, and Smasongarrison: courtesy ping participants. Place Clichy (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This feels like a better way to capture the sentiment. SMasonGarrison 18:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Utah Utes football venues

[edit]
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) 07:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Logan Navy football seasons

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 11#Category:Logan Navy football seasons

Category:Omaha Knights players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary level of categorization. User:Namiba 16:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional gunfighters by medium

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category tree was made by a blocked user, it's not an encyclopedic cross-categorization. There is not really specific discussion of each of these subcategories. Therefore, I suggest a merge to the parent category. Note: Would exclude anyone currently in Category:Western (genre) gunfighters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Women's association football fullbacks

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matching article for full-back and matching category Category:Men's association football full-backs. BRDude70 (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timrollpickering since you were the one who reverted this by saying this was undiscussed, here's the discussion. BRDude70 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Air Transport Command Rockets football

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 11#Category:Air Transport Command Rockets football

Fort Douglas GIs football

[edit]
  • Merge Category:Fort Douglas GIs football coaches to Category:American military sports coaches, Category:College football coaches in Utah and Category:Fort Douglas GIs football
  • Merge Category:Fort Douglas GIs football seasons to Category:Fort Douglas GIs football and Category:College football seasons in Utah
  • Nominator's rationale Category:Fort Douglas GIs football has a total of 3 articles spread across 4 categories. This actively hinders navigation. I already proposed upmerging Category:Fort Douglas GIs football players to its 2 parent categories. With these mergers Category:Fort Douglas GIs football will have 3 articles in 1 category. There is no reason to split up such a small category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And what with Category:College football seasons by team? This type of noms would remove all small cats from this large category, thereby making it incomplete and less useful. The same goes for other such omissions (e.g. deletion of Category:Air Transport Command Rockets football in the nom above would remove it from e.g. Category:College football teams in Tennessee or Category:United States Army Air Forces sports teams, thereby making navigation harder, not easier. Fram (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Categories are not lists. They are not meant to have all possible components. They are meant to be useful connections of article, not just having all possible sub-components. In theory Category:College football teams in Tennessee should have articles on all the teams in Tennessee under it. but we do not have an article Air Transport Command Rockets football so we cannot put that article in that cateogry. If we did we would put it in that category. We do not need overly small categories that do not actually group articles. There may be other existing or potential targets that these categories should be merged to, but there is no reason we should have these as 1 article categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        "Categories are not lists. They are not meant to have all possible components. " Er, yes, they are supposed to have all possible relevant subcomponents either as articles or as subcats. Deliberately making categories incomplete is akin to vandalism. Fram (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Hopefully we can hold different perspectives on categorization while still mutually assuming good faith! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        It's hard to assume good faith from someone who with a straight face announces that "Categories are not lists. They are not meant to have all possible components. " Every article where X is a defining characteristic should be in category X or one of its subcats. Seems pretty obvious and straightforward. Fram (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a category of X by y is only meant to hold the sub-cats that are useful. For example we regularly merge 1 article people by occupation categories up to the x occupation category. College football seasons by team is not a category we need everything in. What we want everything is is College football seasons, and the contents remain there by putting them in Category:College football seasons in Utah. We do not need everything under a sorting category, we just want everything under the actual topic category, and it remains there since it is in under the category of College football seasons. There is no reason to have a category with one article, and that remains the case of Category:Air Traonsport Command Rockes we have one article on one season of that team and that is it. The merger there would leave it under Category:College football in Tennessee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't we want the category to be complete? What do you base this arbitrary distinction on, that people will not want to see the smaller cats in the complete tree? Yes, they can be found per state, but "you can find this some other way" is not really a reason why people shouldn't be able to find it some other way as well. There is no good reason why someone who visits Category:College football seasons by team should not see all teams we have one or more season articles for. I hope you aren't planning on starting this all across our categories, something like the "albums" tree would be obliterated if you removed all 1- and 2-article cats from e.g. Category:Electronic albums by American artists. Fram (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are deliberately ignoring what I am saying. I already gave the example of how we have Category:Poets. We have Category:Poets by nationality. However if we have too few poets to justify the placement of the category in say Palau poets, we place the article in Poets. The same works here. The articles remain in Category"College football coaches in the United States and Category:College football seasons in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm not ignoring anything. You want these pages out of the Category:College football seasons by team tree, without providing a good reason.
        Furthermore, " We have Category:Poets by nationality. However if we have too few poets to justify the placement of the category in say Palau poets, we place the article in Poets. " is poor practice. For navigation, ease of use, you get subcats for large countries, and then a bunch of articles lumped together for small categories. If I was looking for "poets from Palau", I would much prefer a cat with one article in it over a bunch of articles about poets from Palau, East Timor, French Guiana, Fiji, Nauru, San Marino, South Sudan and Vanuatu all lumped together where I have to open each article to find the right one or ones. What possible benefit does your solution have? Fram (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        How far down does that logic go? A large country like India has a bunch of subcategories under Category:Indian poets , some of which are inherently unique but a lot aren't like blind, children's and communist poets. Assuming there was 1 article in small country, would you place that article separately in Fooian communists and Fooian poets or create a single article entry in Category:Communist poets by nationality?
        The 1 article is definitely defined as American football season in the United States so it should remain under the Category:College football seasons in the United States tree. This proposal moves it from that tree's "by team" branch but it stays in the tree under the "by state" branch. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        ...which means that people who arrive through the by team tree won´t see it. Why? Again, what´s the benefit for readers to no longer have it there? Fram (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it also remains under the Category:College football teams in the United States tree but again, changes branches. Clearly you favor keeping the current 1-article category and that's fine, but the proposal does keep that article in both the team and seasons trees. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is only one of the five parents of the by team cat. Please don´t look zt things from an "is it possible to get there by some way" look, but from a "which ways are no longer available if we do this" position. You (plural) are removing these from a whole bunch of category routes. Fine if that´s what you want, but then at least acknowledge it, and indicate why that is a good thing. Fram (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since Fort Douglas GIs football is a redirect we could in theory put that redirect into the parent category so that it had 4 articles, although I am not sure we would want to do that. It would not really effect the outcome here. I am not sure to what extent we want to be placing redirects into categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, easier navigation between the articles in Category:Fort Douglas GIs football and also a step less in order to go to other articles about seasons in Utah. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now These are conceptually fine but don't aid navigation given the current article counts. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:College football seasons by team is not a "category tree" it is a container Category. The category tree is Category:"College football seasons in the United States. The 1 College football season article in discussion here will remain in that tree both by the diffusion by year and by the diffusion by state. We are not removing the article free the tree, we are leaving the article in the tree. No one here has argued we should get rid of all diffusion by team, but there is no reason for us to insist on having every possible narrow category. We only need those that are large enough to aid navigation. Having 4 categories for the 3 articles we have that in any way fall under the subject Fort Douglas GIs football is not reasonable. We should have very few if any trees where the number of categories in the tree exceeds the number of articles in the tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A category is never a category tree. This one is part of five categories (and thus multiple category trees). Again you focus on just the one, ignoring the other categories " Category:College football seasons by team " is a subcat of. You claim that "The 1 College football season article in discussion here will remain in that tree both by the diffusion by year and by the diffusion by state. We are not removing the article free the tree, we are leaving the article in the tree." which is false as you start from a wrong supposition with "the tree" instead of "all trees". It is e.g. removed from Category:College sports team seasons in the United States by sport and from Category:History of college sports in the United States by team. I don't know why all the merge proponents continue to act as if the Category:College football seasons by team is only part of one category and thus there is no problem. Fram (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category tree in reference is Category:College football seasons in the United States. We do not try to include everything in a container category, because container categories are sub-cats of larger categories meant only for sorting. Not all sorting by that characteristic is going to be justifiable, so some articles we put in the parent. So we want all college football seasons in the United States to be in Category:College football seasons in the United States or in a sub-category of that. The by team category is only there to sort categories. Container categories exist to sort categories, not to hold a whole group. Not everything is reasonably sortable by all chracteristics. When we have some football teams we only have 1 season article for (a few of which only played one season period) it is not reasonable to sort all the contents by team and some entries should either be in Category:College football seasons in the United States or sorted in another way. The other way we sort is by state and so in this case the proposal is to move the contents to Category:College football seasons in Utah. It still remains under the tree College football seasons in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that´s not the "category tree in reference". There are 5 trees "in reference", whatever that´s supposed to mean. There is only one you want to discuss apparently. You are restricting access by removing it from the place where it would logically be expected, and placing it in one possible path as if readers will automatically find it there, or will be grateful that for this one case they will reach it one whole click sooner, if they are lucky to pick the right path. Fram (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at this through the eyes of a random reader. They are for example reading 1943 300th Infantry Sabers football team, and notice the categories at the bottom. Interesting, let's look at Category:300th Infantry Sabers football seasons to find other seasons for the team. Ah, no other seasons, too bad, but continue our scroll of potentially interesting articles and go to the first category there, Category:College football seasons by team. Hey look, there is Category:Air Transport Command Rockets football seasons, and Category:Fort Douglas GIs football seasons, and countless other ones I'm interested in, with one or more articles, great!
  • Now, in the future as created by this CfD, the same reader will not encounter the Air Transport season during his category stroll, nor the Fort Douglas one, even though they 100% are "college football seasons by a team". In what universe is this better? Fram (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The real universe where we decided that overly narrow categories hinder navigation. The reader can easily find these either by doing a search by year or a search by state, both of which are much shorter ways to get to all the information. As mentioned above there are lots of things that will be missed in any such search. For example most categories sorted by nationality do not sort by all nationalities so a search just through say Pediatricians by nationality will not lead to finding all pediatricians. Setting up a container Category scheme is not an excuse to ignore narrow category rules and divide up into a huge number of one article categories that in no way aid navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "How does this help navigation?" > "They hinder navigation because we decided that they hinder navigation". Wow, impressive reasoning. That they can be found by other means applies to all of them, small and large, so let's delete the whole parent cat. If there are multiple ways to find something, and you remove one, and the question is "how does temoving this one help anyone", then "but there are still other ways" is not an answer to that question. That other categories may be incomplete (wow, what a surprise seeing how many bad uses of "narrowcat - delete!" we have had) is again not an answer to why removing this one is helpful.
      Final attempt: please give a concrete answer, not "but guideline!" or "there are other means to find them" or "it aids navigation somehow": how is it better that the Fort Douglas season, and the Air Transport season, and countless other similar ones, are not in Category:College football seasons by team? Fram (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the coaches categories. Part of a well-established scheme of sorting athletes by school and sport. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baylor Bears coaches

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shark hunters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category. upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 22:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: thoughts on alt merge suggested by Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 14:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but only because I've gone through and added 6 more pages to it. I've also added the Category:Sharks and humans per Marcocapelle's suggestion. Happy to hear thoughts if anyone wants to review the additions. WinstonDewey (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies based in Billings, Montana

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1-article category, overcategorization. Merge to Category:Billings, Montana and Category:Companies based in Montana Gjs238 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Conferences in Sweden

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 11#Category:Conferences in Sweden

Category:Acquaviva (San Marino)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 11#Category:Acquaviva (San Marino)

Category:Egyptian autistic people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category. upmerge for now. The single page is already in Autistic actors and American autistic people SMasonGarrison 01:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Nth User. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete @The Nth User: That's WP:SYNTH, which is strictly prohibited under WP:BLP policy. But it is also against BLP to add unreferenced categories to articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry about that. I have struck out my first message, but I will delete it outright if that would be better. I did figure that I should wait for feedback before removing any categories, which turned out to be a fortunate mindset to have since I didn't make any edits to that page that would have had to have been reverted, but that should not have only been the only thing preventing that. I will be more careful with biographies of living people in the future, so thank you for making me aware that I needed to make that adjustment, but I should have realized even without that, so again, I apologize. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 18:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not actually say the subject is a person with autism. It only says that he portrayed a character with autism. So him being in any autistic category is a BLP violation and he should be deleted from all autistic categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category illustrates why 1 article categories are a bad idea. This is a clear BLP policy violation applying a BLP violation uncited and unmentioned in the text of the article to a living person. Normaly any editor could remove this. However since it is a special 1 article category we evidently have to allow the BLP violation to stand while the category is being discussed. This is not a good situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This diagram suggests that the best (with the caveat that not being allowed to clear a category undergoing a deletion discussion is usually not a problem but is problematic here) thing to do would be to (propose that the community) add a speedy deletion criterion for categories where the membership of every page in them violates some Wikipedia policy (in this case WP:BLP). It would at least be helpful for next time a situation like this arises. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 07:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do not need an extra criterion, because we can boldly remove articles from the category in cases like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • We should not have a situation where we even have to consider this. What we really need is a way to endure that categories have sufficient articles in them so that the article in them being a BLP rule violation is very rare. One of the frustrating things about categories is that it is not easy to tell if we have 1 article categories because there have never been more articles, there used to be other articles but they were deleted or there used to be other articles and they were removed. I suspect that the largest portion are the first, but it is not really easy to tell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes absolutely no sense. If something is a BLP violation, remove it. If that empties a cat, so be it, that's not a problem. BLP trumps things like a CfD discussion. Whether this is the only article in the cat, or one among 1000, changes nothing at all.
    "What we really need is a way to endure that categories have sufficient articles in them so that the article in them being a BLP rule violation is very rare." I have no idea what kind of logic this tries to be, but the conclusion that larger categories somehow reduce BLP violations in articles is based on nothing at all and is a very bad excuse for your crusade against small cats. Fram (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that John Pack Lambert meant to type the only article in them. The notice on the CfM template says, "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress," (emphasis added), but removing a single page from a category that already has ten other pages would not be problematic (at least not in that way), and I think that that is what John Pack Lambert was trying to get at. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 05:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we have set up a policy where if someone empties a category they will be reprimanded at ANI for doing so, especially if they then nominate it for deletion. We have the narrow cat policy for a reason. 1 article categories actively hinder navigation. The point of categories is to allow us to connect articles. It is very hard to go from article to article with 1 article categories. It is even harder to do so when these categories are in a whole stack of categories that are empty. When X College men's soccer players is the only thing in the x college men's soccer which is the only thing in x college soccer, so we have 3 articles that in total have only 1 article we have a problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It was such a bad decision to let you deal with CfDs again, if you can't even see how ridiculous your answer is here. DO you really think you would have been dragged to ANI, never mind "reprimanded", if you had removed that article from that category? I'm sorely tempted to do the opposite, for knowingly and deliberately letting a BLP violation stand. But please, I urge you, if you think that what I did here was against policy, please please please open an ANI discussion about it.
      As for the remainder of your reply: it is not a policy, and none of this is a reply to your bizarre reasoning that small cats increase the risk of BLP violations. Fram (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems like you're really passionate about preventing BLP violations. While your intentions are good and admirable, I think that making a hierarchy of the relative importance/priority of Wikipedia's various rules and policies in the project namespace (and getting consensus about it) would be a more effective way to prevent repeats of this situation than continuing to criticize John Pack Lambert.
      Maybe it's not a policy for categories without active discussions (although this arguably counts as a discouragement of clearing categories), but the notice on the CfM template says, "Please do not empty the category…while the discussion is in progress," which is probably what John Pack Lambert meant. Also, your claim that he "knowingly and deliberately [let] a BLP violation stand" is incorrect (although it is understandable what you were mistaken about). John Pack Lambert's user page states that he is on the autism spectrum. One trait commonly associated with autism is an increased reluctance to violate rules, which would plausibly include the instructions to not empty the category while the discussion is in progress. Of course, this is not a characteristic of everyone with autism, and I don't know for sure that it applies to John Pack Lambert, but it is likely enough that you should have been more understanding of him. Either way, it is clear from his statements in the discussion, including voting for deletion, and the fact that he removed the other erroneous categories that John Pack Lambert did not want to let the BLP violation persist and was not seeking that goal, so calling it deliberate is inaccurate. Furthermore, saying that he let a BLP violation stand is at best misleading because while John Pack Lambert did not remove the category in an immediate sense, he did vote for the category to be deleted (using the inaccuracy of its only page's membership as his rationale), which will have contributed to the category being deleted and the BLP violation being removed less than a week from then. Thus, while he did let it stand in an immediate sense, he did not let it stand in a long-term sense. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 05:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There is very little dispute that BLP trumps nearly every other policy, certainly one like "don't empty categories you want to delete". I don't know how a link to an ANI discussion where you were threatened with a block helps your case, nor why "clearing categories without reason" (your title) has any relevance here. WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (bold in original). Fram (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not going to contest that BLP is more important, but I will contest the idea that John Pack Lambert should be brought to ANI for not realizing it. After all, the CfM notice template on the category page does not explicitly mention exceptions for BLP violations. Just because the order of the unwritten priority list was obvious to you doesn't mean it was obvious to everyone; see WP:IJME. Remember to assume good faith, especially because it might not be immediately obvious that BLP also applies to things that are never expected to have citations right afterwards. (Yes, I understand that it would also apply to them, but that is not the point of WP:Assume good faith.)
      As for the linked ANI discussion, the idea was that since clearing categories without discussion is discouraged and apparently punishable with blocks (at least in certain situations where one discards consensus, but the prohibition against clearing categories under discussion could have been presumed to be the result of consensus), John Pack Lambert would be understandable in thinking that there was a policy against it. Also, the block threat was directed at JWBE, not me; I assume that you missed the ping at the beginning of Voorts's reply. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 19:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      IJME doesn't apply as he isn't a newbie and is clearly aware of the BLP policy: "This is a clear BLP policy violation applying a BLP violation uncited and unmentioned in the text of the article to a living person. Normaly any editor could remove this. However since it is a special 1 article category we evidently have to allow the BLP violation to stand while the category is being discussed." So your "Remember to assume good faith, especially because it might not be immediately obvious that BLP also applies to things that are never expected to have citations right afterwards. " is a completely irrelevant lecture.
      I missed the ping in that linked discussion, thanks for pointing this out. However, it doesn't change the fact that this as well is not relevant here, as it was a discussion about emptying cats "without reason", as stated in the title. This is completely distinct from emptying categories "to enforce a basic policy". Fram (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay; I did miss that part where John Pack Lambert acknowledges that the erroneous categorization was a BLP violation; thank you for pointing it out. However, just because he was aware of at least part of the BLP policy does not mean that he has read the bold text that you quoted earlier, considering that the page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has many shortcuts to sections farther down and that there are other pages with at least snippets of the BLP policy.
      My point behind mentioning that other discussion was to say that John Pack Lambert was understandable for thinking that there was a general policy against clearing categories.
      I should probably clarify that I am not trying to argue that John Pack Lambert is correct; I am merely trying to argue that he is understandable. I agree that the erroneous categorization counts as a BLP violation, and I agree that WP:BLP's instruction to remove BLP violations without waiting for discussion overrides the template's instruction to not clear the category while the discussion is in progress, but I don't think that you should threaten to take him to ANI (or whatever you meant by I'm sorely tempted to do the opposite) for not realizing the latter. I see how this may not have been clear, especially since Wikipedia:Assume good faith says nothing about convincing other people of good faith, that is not even what the word assume means, and I do not have direct access to John Pack Lambert's mind, but I figured that trying to figure out your misconception then offer an explanation would be more courteous than just telling you to stop because you're violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I'm sorry if I accidentally misled you as a result. I do think that understanding him is a good idea, though, in order to prevent similar occurrences, especially by other people. To that end, I have submitted an edit request to prevent this sort of confusion in the future, and I think that you have the authority to implement it, so (if I'm correct,) please at least consider doing so. I have also written an essay that should hopefully make explaining this quicker in the future. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      An editor correctly points out that a category should be deleted instead of merged because of a BLP issue and ... there's a lot of text here agreeing that it is an issue. And I agree with your removal of the article.
      Let's assume good faith here. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a general principal Category discussions should really discuss the merits of the category, not the placement of specific articles in the category. For this reason I think it is unwise to have very small categories that could include biographies of living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_4&oldid=1327650743"