Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 4

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< July 3
July 5 >

July 4

edit

Category:World's Fair mascots

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correcting capitalization to match World's fair. Trivialist (talk) 23:44, 4 July 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:International bridges in Canada

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/rename as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Clean up a few redundant layers:
Canada:
Mexico
Overall
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:20, 4 July 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:Ports of Entry in Mexicali–Imperial

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnedeed layer; Category:Mexico–United States border crossings is not otherwise diffused by city pair and neither Category:Mexicali–Imperial nor Mexicali–Imperial exist. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:59, 4 July 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:Baja California–California border crossings

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnedeed layer; Category:Mexico–United States border crossings is not otherwise diffused by state. Manually move Category:Ports of Entry in San Diego–Tijuana (and Category:Ports of Entry in Mexicali–Imperial if it survives the CfD above) up to Category:Mexico–United States border crossings; Tijuana International Airport shouldn't be merged because the more-specific Cross Border Xpress (the actual border crossing) is already there.-* Pppery * it has begun... 22:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitrary subcategory. State politics is mostly irrelevant to immigration policy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:55, 6 July 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:Countries and territories where Serbo-Croatian is an official language

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per talk page, there seems to be somewhat controversial on applying C2A and/or C2C criteria on such renaming. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as an original proposer. As I said, Serbo-Croatian as such hasn't been used as an official language in any political entity for quite some time (see also: Serbo-Croatian#Legal status). – Aca (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the original proponent of the formulation Category:Countries and territories where Fooian is an official language. The word is should not be taken as absolute, certainly not when all contents of the category are countries and territories which no longer exist. Therefore, was is a better option in this situation. In future similar cases (if any), this category can be referred to for a speedy rename per WP:C2C as far as I am concerned. NLeeuw (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should we have categories for a former official language, or of former countries? If so, then some of the other country-by-language categories will need to be split. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea. But I imagine it will be difficult to populate such categories with at least 5 members. I suggest taking that on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it's a very easy rename because they are all former countries. NLeeuw (talk) 11:06, 14 July 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:Television stations in Fort Myers, Florida

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 19#Category:Television stations in Fort Myers, Florida

Category:Television stations in Clarksburg, West Virginia

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hyphenated market; consistency with Wiki article Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:57, 4 July 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:French Guianan musical instruments

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Music of French Guiana
Category:South American musical instruments
Category:French musical instruments
Nominator's rationale: 1 p, 0 c. Triple upmerge for now. NLeeuw (talk) 19:57, 4 July 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:Norman music

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arguably Music of the Channel Islands is the main article for this category (because the other three articles are songs from the Channel Islands, and none of the articles is about "mainland", French Normandy), and child Category:Norman musical instruments should probably be un-parented. However, I'm less certain about how to properly reparent this category. The Category:Culture of Normandy has strongly influenced the Culture of the Channel Islands (as the main article says); we can't just sever those category ties because they are now part of a different political entity. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 19:52, 4 July 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.

Betawi catloop

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another empty catloop created in January 2025 by User:Ahalgao (blocked for sockpuppetry). NLeeuw (talk) 19:26, 4 July 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:Minangkabau-language culture

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty catloop with Category:Minangkabau culture, created in January 2025 by User:Ahalgao (blocked for sockpuppetry). See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 4#Category:Minangkabau diaspora cuisine. NLeeuw (talk) 19:13, 4 July 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:Serb music

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. 0 p, 2 c, both of which are already in the Category:Music by country tree. Category:Serbian songs is even directly in Category:Music of Serbia already, while Category:Serbian folk music's main article Serbian folk music is in Category:Folk music by country. Put simply, "Serb" can be read as "Serbian" here, and there is nothing "ethnic" about this category's contents. NLeeuw (talk) 18:42, 4 July 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:International cricket tour of Canada stubs

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories, with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories have a 60-article size minimum before they can be created, so they're not free for just any user to create at random and need to be authorized by the wikiproject, but these are both under 60 and there's no evidence of approval.
Although even combined they still only hit 58, that's close enough to 60 that it would fall within the range of "permit it anyway on the grounds of possible future expansion" -- but neither one of them is large enough to stand alone independently of the continental level at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 4 July 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:International cricket tour of Netherlands stubs

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories, with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories have a 60-article size minimum before they can be created, so they're not free for just any user to create at random and need to be authorized by the wikiproject, but these are both undersized and there's no evidence of approval.
Technically these two still fall short of 60 even combined, but since there are England and Scotland categories also up for discussion below, a UK-level category would also obviously be a subcategory of a Europe-level category, which would eliminate that problem since subcategories count toward the 60 bar too. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 4 July 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:International cricket tour of Papua New Guinea stubs

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category, with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories have a 60-article size minimum before they can be created, so they're not free for just any user to create at random and need to be authorized by the wikiproject, but this only has two articles and there's no evidence of approval.
Australia and New Zealand both have their own categories as well, which are both so far above 60 articles that I'm not even going to suggest merging them into the Oceania level -- but they can easily be refiled as subcategories of the Oceania level, which would resolve the size problem here since subcategories count toward the 60 bar too. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 4 July 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:International cricket tour of Kenya stubs

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories, with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories have a 60-article size minimum before they can be created, so they're not free for just any user to create at random and need to be authorized by the wikiproject, but these are all undersized and there's no evidence of approval.
South Africa just slightly surpasses 50, so obviously consensus could be to keep it as a subcategory of the Africa level anyway if there's a strong feeling that it's warranted, but I'm including it here anyway since that's not guaranteed -- but neither of the other two are large enough to stand alone at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 4 July 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:International cricket tour of Bangladesh stubs

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories, with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories have a 60-article size minimum before they can be created, so they're not free for just any user to create at random and need to be authorized by the wikiproject, but these are all undersized and there's no evidence of approval.
The India and Pakistan categories are in the 50s and Sri Lanka hits 60 right on the button, so consensus obviously could decide to keep them as separate subcategories of a continent-level category, but I'm including them here for discussion of whether they're needed or not anyway -- but Bangladesh, Hong Kong and UAE aren't even close to 60 let alone surpassing it, and thus can't stand alone. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 4 July 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:Minangkabau diaspora 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: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 item, Lemang, which is already in Category:Padang cuisine, which Category:Minangkabau cuisine is a redundant duplicate of (Minangkabau cuisine redirects to Padang cuisine; however, we should keep a redirect because c:Category:Minangkabau cuisine exists and c:Category:Padang cuisine does not). Created in January 2025 by User:Ahalgao (blocked for sockpuppetry). NLeeuw (talk) 17:52, 4 July 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:International cricket tour of Scotland stubs

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category, with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories have a 60-article size minimum before they can be created, so they're not free for just any user to create at random and need to be authorized by the wikiproject, but this has just 17 articles in it. There is also a separate Category:International cricket tour of England stubs which does have over 60 articles in it, so that could be either refiled as a subcategory of the United Kingdom level (thus resolving the size problem, since pages in subcategories count toward the 60 bar too) if consensus determines that it's warranted, or just merged into a single UK-level category that directly mixes both the England and Scotland articles if people feel that a separate England-level category isn't really needed, but with just 17 articles in the Scotland category it can't stand on its own regardless of what we do with the England category.
There are also several more undersized siblings of this that will also need to be addressed, but I'll be nominating those in separate batches based on the differing targets. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 4 July 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:Palembang culture

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category loop without articles. > Category:Palembang culture > Category:Palembang language > Category:Palembang-language culture > Category:Palembang culture > etc. Created in January 2025 by User:Ahalgao (blocked for sockpuppetry). NLeeuw (talk) 17:41, 4 July 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:Himalayan musical instruments

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer between 'Asian' and 'Bhutanese'. For full disclosure: it was a WP:ARBITRARYCAT, but I fixed that. I first removed Chiwang, because it was already in 'Bhutanese', and the entire article stresses just how 'Bhutanese' the Chiwang is, so there is no reason to claim it is also more broadly 'Himalayan' as well. Secondly, I recategorised the Dramyin from 'Himalayan' to 'Indian', because the first sentence states it is commonly used in Bhutan, as well as in Tibet, Ladakh, Sikkim and Himalayan West Bengal., and it was already in 'Bhutanese' and 'Tibetan', but not yet in 'Indian' (for Ladakh, Sikkim and West Bengal), yet not 'Nepalese' (though we could still add that) nor 'Pakistani' or 'Afghan', so not universally 'Himalayan'. The other parent Category:Himalayan music is also an WP:ARBITRARYCAT which just groups Music of [Asian country] categories (and 1 article) plus "Himalayan musical instruments". I suggest saving that for a follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 17:01, 4 July 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:Health fraud people

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. There is clear consensus that the category, as it stands, should not continue to exist. Of the proposed fixes—renaming and deletion—more editors supported deletion and found that there were WP:OCASSOC problems with the proposed rename target. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think this category should be renamed to something more intuitive like people associated with health fraud or Health-related fraudsters SMasonGarrison 01:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Similar to existing categories Category:People associated with technology and Category:People associated with animal welfare and rights. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the OCASSOC argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convincing. Delete per Marco and LaundryPizza. NLeeuw (talk) 17:05, 4 July 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:Deaths by LTTE suicide bomber

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 per Fayenatic london. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly overlaps with Category:Politicians assassinated by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which should be renamed to "Assassinations attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" per NPOV. Petextrodon (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the rename proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Petextrodon and Pharaoh of the Wizards: thoughts on the rename proposal? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Fayenatic. Makes sense. NLeeuw (talk) 17:08, 4 July 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:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand

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 Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand and Category:Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand into Category:State-owned research organisations in New Zealand. There is clear consensus for a change, and per WP:BARTENDER a plurality of editors supported this multi-merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As there are 4 "Public Research Organisations" in New Zealand, the category will at most contain 4 articles plus 1 eponymous one, only 2 of which currently exist. Gjs238 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about the discussion @Gjs238. I'm not wedded to having the category but I made it because we have one for Crown Research Institutes, which are being replaced by PROs. The research institutes category contains a number of different types of organisation - individual labs, institutes at universities, CRIs and PROs, which I think is quite messy and difficult to navigate if you don't already know what these things are (there's also a lot of existing and historical orgs with Wp pages missing from the category, which I've put on my to do list to address). So having a subcat for the things we can cleanly delineate (like CRIs and PROs) made sense to me.
Also noting that three PROs currently exist - the third is being rebranded from a reorganised Institute of Environmental Science and Research. I hadn't added the category to that page yet as I was hoping for more info to come out that would help me decide if it should be dealt with as a section on the existing page, or if the reorganisation is drastic enough to merit a new organisational page (I've added the cat now, though, for what it's worth). We know at the moment that this current government plans four PROs but there is no reason to suspect that the number wouldn't change in the future.
I don't hang out in category discussions much so will leave the decision up to you, but thought these considerations might be useful. For future reference, what's the minimum number of pages for a viable category? DrThneed (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input on the "mutliple merge" proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly from Crown Research Institute, Crown Research Institutes are soon to become Public Research Organisations.
If correct, perhaps it is best to wait for this change, then merge Category:Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand into Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand.
Gjs238 (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you merge them, what are you calling the category? The pages will not all be Crown Research Institutes or all Public Research Organisations but a mixture, so neither name works. (@Nurg and I already discussed this above and came up with a suggestion if you'd like to refer to that?) DrThneed (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand contains articles about Public Research Organisations in New Zealand...
and the former are soon to be renamed the latter...
then should we not be left with 1 category, Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand containing articles about Public Research Organisations in New Zealand? Gjs238 (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not a simple renaming, it is a reorganisation of our science system that has involved the creation of a new type of entity (a PRO - and just to be clear the term Public Research Organisation refers to a specific type of organisation, that has just been legally created, it is not a general term for a research organisation that is publicly funded). A CRI is not a PRO and vice versa. The PROs we have now are formed from SOME of the previous CRIs (other CRIs have been and gone, e.g. Canesis, HortResearch) but the government also announced they are creating a new PRO that is nothing to do with the CRIs. A category named Public research organisations should not contain the pages for the CRIs (and vice versa). DrThneed (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand. To telegraph my intentions, I currently see consensus for a change of some sort, ad of the various proposals for change the multi-merge to Category:State-owned research organisations in New Zealand has the most support of the various proposals. Further comments of any sort would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is the retention of the two categories Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand and Category:Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand. Whilst the two types of entity have a relationship they are not the same thing.
The original proposal to merge the category was made on the basis of size. Noone has bothered to answer my question about the minimum size of a category, and I don't find it anywhere in the category guidelines. My opinion is that the overall category of Research organisations in New Zealand is messy and has all sorts of different things in it and that because we can clearly define these two subsets of organisation, PROs and CRIs, it is helpful to our users to do so. DrThneed (talk) 22:21, 4 July 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:Foreign relations of U.S. states

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Puerto Rican diplomats, which doesn't belong since Puerto Rico isn't a state (as much as I wish it were one ...) and a layer of categories ultimately containing only Category:Baja California–California relations which is itself at CfD. This will leave several more layers empty. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:17, 4 July 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:Baja California–California relations

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not seeing the difference between these, or why they merit a separate layer. This will leave a large number of parent layers empty. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 4 July 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:External relations

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a hodgepodge of loosely-related topics without any clear principle binding them together. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 4 July 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:Desi films

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 to Category:South Asian diaspora films. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same scope. "Desi" just means "South Asian" (the cat description says as much). See also the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 4#Category:Desi cuisine discussion below for the same situation. NLeeuw (talk) 15:53, 4 July 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:Qunitilateral relations

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCNARROW, only one member (in addition to the concerns raised below) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Single-article category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:58, 4 July 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:Quadrilateral relations

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. And it says something about me that my first thought on reading the nomination was confusion about how a criterion for speedy deletion was somehow involved in international relations... HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCNARROW and the specific number of countries involved in an agreement doesn't feel like a defining characteristic at this point. I.e. one could create Category:Octilateral relations for G8, and so on without end. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Of the three articles here and one in a subcategory that's likely to be merged, Indo-Abrahamic Alliance isn't clearly quadrilateral. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:59, 4 July 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:Cuisine of Brisbane

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Cuisine of Brisbane has only 1 eponymous page: Cuisine of Brisbane. That is already in the two other parent categories (Category:Culture of Brisbane and Category:Queensland cuisine), so it's a good idea to upmerge it to the only parent that doesn't have the eponymous page yet. (I initially tried to speedy-delete this cat per WP:C2F, but that was an incorrect procedure, so I'm just making this a full CFD.) NLeeuw (talk) 15:48, 4 July 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:Bangladesh–India–Pakistan relations

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article (Delhi Agreement) and a quadrilateral subcategory that is itself at CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. GreekApple123 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 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:Quadrilateral relations of the United Kingdom

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 to Category:Multilateral relations. (The proposed merge target was merged just to Category:Multilateral relations, and the logical conclusion of that is to merge directly to the merge target, as if this merge happened first and was followed by a second merge.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are Category:CANZUK and a category that is at CfD. If that category is deleted and this one is merged, then Category:Quadrilateral relations by country will be empty and thus deletable per C1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:17, 4 July 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:IHeartRadio people

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cross between WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCASSOC. Of the seven people filed here, one is a business executive who was central to the founding of iHeartRadio, but none of the other six are clearly defined by an association with the company: four are people who are notable as actors, musicians or comedians and oh by the way also had a podcast distributed by iHeart, but aren't notable because of the podcast per se, while the other two articles both completely fail to mention iHeartRadio at all anywhere other than the category declaration itself, and thus can't be defined by a corporate association that nobody's ever been arsed to add even one syllable of content about. As always, we do not comprehensively categorize people for every last company they've ever had any kind of association with whatsoever -- a person's relationship with iHeart would have to be a defining characteristic of their careers to justify categorization as such, but only one person here can actually claim that. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 4 July 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:Anthropomorphic weasels

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: no consensus. No prejudice against an immediate renomination of the entire tree. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article about an anthropomorphic weasel (Tina and Milo). The rest of the entries are either works about weasels, or redirects. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some merit in thinking that separating categories for "Fictional X animals" or "Anthropomorphic X animals" might be a bit too redundant after a while due to the significant overlap. Though it's complicated, especially with the articles about legendary/mythological animal creatures that are also listed in these categories too. Anyways, I am opposed to merging or taking any other actions with this category. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 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:Roads in West Flanders

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 to Category:Transport in West Flanders. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Roads in West Flanders to article List of roads in West Flanders
Nominator's rationale: Small category but a decent list. Gjs238 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename, as suggested by Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marcocapelle's proposal. NLeeuw (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marcocapelle's proposal. Gjs238 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Marco. -- Just N. (talk) 13:55, 15 July 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:Desi 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: merge. Concerns by Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) about "Bengali" are outside the scope of this nomination. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same scope. "Desi" just means "South Asian".
Desi cuisine redirects to South Asian cuisine. Compare how...
Desi music redirects to Music of South Asia;
Desi Muslim redirects to Islam in South Asia;
Desi diaspora redirects to South Asian diaspora;
Desi Canadians redirects to South Asian Canadians, etc. NLeeuw (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, in contrast to the nomination further above on this page this is nor specifically about diaspora. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it isn't. Unlike Category:Bengali restaurants (4 P), which contains 1 restaurant in Dhaka (Bangladesh), 1 in Kolkata (West Bengal), 1 in Bengaluru (elsewhere in India), and 1 in New York (USA). I don't know what to do with this category yet. It is so broad that it can theoretically include any and all restaurants around the world run by people from West Bengal or Bangladesh, or their descendants, or who serve "Bengali" dishes. Can we somehow reorganise this to prevent an WP:ARBITRARYCAT, or recategorise these 4 items to delete this as such? NLeeuw (talk) 08:34, 5 July 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:1590 treaties

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/delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in each of these categories. – numbermaniac 09:13, 4 July 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:1570 treaties

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All these categories only have 1-3 pages in them. Per WP:OCYEAR, merge to their decade categories. – numbermaniac 09:03, 4 July 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:15th-century Flemish engravers

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. underpopulated SMasonGarrison 04:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, tail end of well populated cat, serves no purpose to cut off this one part of the tree. Doesn´t make navigating any easier, and removes this article (and possible other ones that belong in it) from the whole Flemish engravers tree. Fram (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The one article in this category is already in Category:Flemish engravers. – numbermaniac 08:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which doesn´t help to put it into chronological perspective. I don´t get what actual purpose is served by this upmerge when it is part of a larger tree ( a valid reason to have small cats, actually). Fram (talk) 21:46, 4 July 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:People from Nueva Vizcaya, New Spain

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 03:36, 4 July 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:17th-century people from New Spain

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to diffuse this cluster of locations by century. It doesn't help navigation and really isn't defining for people as of how we describe them. SMasonGarrison 03:31, 4 July 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:Nauruan Roman Catholics

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 4 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_July_4&oldid=1303877276"