Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 16

June 16

Medieval Romanian nobility

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Medieval Romanian nobility to Category:Wallachian nobility and Category:Moldavian nobility

Nominator's rationale: split, as Romania is anachronistic. Wallachia and Moldavia merged to Romania in the 19th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose under the nominator's rationale, figures like Litovoi or Bărbat being "Wallachian" is anachronistic, while Transylvanian figures like Gelou do not fit in the proposed merge. The current category reflects the ethnic background of the nobility and the national historiography of which they are interest. Super Ψ Dro 09:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be fine with having those three articles in a separate Vlach category, but since they are not in the nominated category it is not relevant for this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Vlach" is an exonym encompassing multiple ethnic groups. In such a category would also fit Nikoulitzas Delphinas, who is more commonly discussed in academia regarding the Aromanian ethnic group, or Ivanko (boyar), to whom attributing a precise ethnicity would probably be controversial. In any case, with a "Vlach" category we would be just recreating the nominated category, but with a broader and more vague scope. I consider it superior to group together figures with a clear shared ethnic background and common coverage in the national historiography of a country. The figures I mentioned in my first comment are relevant because they undoubtedly fit in the category even if it hasn't been added to their articles. Furthermore, the use of "Romanian" is not anachronistic as it refers to the Romanian ethnic group here. We also have Category:Slovak nobility for figures that lived in a period when there was no Slovak state for the same reason, as well as Category:Slovene nobility.

If the nominated category is considered problematic, it could just be merged to Category:Romanian nobility. Super Ψ Dro 12:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like this category originally had 7 articles in it before this week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Anachronistic is a trait found quite often at WP. Here[1] are over 100 categories for a country that didn't exist from 1796 to 1917.Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• With establishments specifically the current consensus seems to be that if the subject still exists today then the article can be listed in an establishment of today's country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peaceray (talk) 22:38, 16 June 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:Spiritism

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 "Kardecist spiritism"; no consensus to delete or merge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose keeping Category:Spiritism
• Propose keeping Category:Critics of Spiritism (if not merged at prior CFD)
• Propose keeping Category:Films about Spiritism
• Propose renaming Category:Telenovelas about spiritism to Category:Telenovelas about Spiritism

Nominator's rationale: The word Spiritism is capitalised as a shorthand for a specific view formulated by Pierre Kardec; the main article is disambiguated in Wikipedia to Kardecist spiritism. IMHO the capitalised Spiritism is suitable for Wikipedia categories, but harmonising the inconsistent subcat was opposed at the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Speedy discussion

Category:Telenovelas about spiritism to Category:Telenovelas about Spiritism – C2C within Category:Spiritism – Fayenatic London 09:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. Category:Spiritism is only capitalized because it's the beginning of the category name. The name "spiritism" itself is not proper. See the name of the article Kardecist spiritism for example. Jahaza (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Fayenatic london and Jahaza: shouldn't it become Category:Kardecist spiritism as a matter of C2D? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just repeating my earlier question, shouldn't it become Category:Kardecist spiritism like the article title? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of the specific categories but keep the main one. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearian: I suppose you mean the subcategories to be upmerged to the main category, right? (Instead of deleted.) Marcocapelle (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not what I said, but it is acceptable. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not advise loading 20+ articles about fictional works into the main topic category. If merging, merge them together as "Works about Spiritism" and also to other parents by medium Religious telenovelas and Films about religion, but I see no advantage in doing so. – Fayenatic London 13:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My thinking was that such precision is unnecessary, and the simple capitalised proper noun Spiritism works fine for categories. Kardecist spiritism says that it's also known as Spiritism. However, I see from its talk page that Kardecist spiritism failed a RM last year to move it back to Spiritism. Spiritism in Latin America, which is disambiguated to Espiritismo, is a syncretist practice that originated with Kardec's ideas but is now wider. If we end up going to that level of precision, then Category:Telenovelas about spiritism should probably be renamed instead to Category:Telenovelas about Espiritismo. Several of the articles on films do specifically mention Kardec, so Category:Films about Kardecist spiritism would be a viable category, but the films should probably then be split to Category:Films about Epiritismo. Perhaps the latter should be a parent of Kardecist, otherwise several articles would belong in both. Some other films that are not Latin American would have to be purged and might fit better in Category:Films about spirituality.

In conclusion, attempting precision in these categories looks viable, but I'm not convinced that it would he helpful. I'd still rather retain the looser category names to cover Kardecist and more syncretist ideas. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My thinking is that it might easily be confused with spirituality and Category:Kardecist spiritism will certainly avoid this confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The linked CFD was closed as merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearian: upmerging the subcategories is clearly off the table. Then what was your rationale for proposing deletion? Also, could you comment on possibly renaming to Category:Kardecist spiritism? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Kardecist spiritism, Category:Films about Kardecist spiritism, and Category:Telenovelas about Kardecist spiritism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Bushranger: but unlike some of the films, none only one of the 8 telenovela articles (A Viagem) mentions Kardec. – Fayenatic London 20:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC) ("none" corrected to one 20:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
    • I am reading the articles in the telenovelas category now and it seems that this category can better be deleted altogether. The link with spiritism (whether Karcedist or not) is very thin. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I picked another one and looked for "spirit" in the ptwiki version; this turns out to be a major theme, so I added this to the enwiki article, using an existing citation that does mention Kardec. Perhaps they can all be justifiably documented and categorised as Kardecist after all. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm satisfied now that reincarnationist spiritism is a major theme for the telenovelas, so do not delete the category. I have no objection to using "Kardecist spiritism". – Fayenatic London 10:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peaceray (talk) 22:37, 16 June 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:Songs written by Ray Lewis

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; no consensus to delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Ray Lewis to Category:Songs written by Ray Lewis (songwriter)

Nominator's rationale: While there is no article for this individual, disambiguation seems needed here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I have no problem with that. Good idea. Karl Twist (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This category (the article on the song is another matter) is not needed at all. Populated by 1 entry. Speedy if possible. -- Just N. (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't make sense to delete as Ray Lewis wrote more songs that charted and were hits on the R&B charts. There'll be more coming in due course. Thanks, Karl Twist (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The category can easily be recreated when there is a handful of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion isn't about deleting. It's about renaming! There are already two charting songs in the category. And there'll be more. Karl Twist (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming. There is even another "Ray Lewis" involved in music (who also has a paren-dab'ed redirect to his group; see Ray Lewis (disambiguation)), so this parallel naming with the redirect-name for the correct person helps clarify the nature of the contents of this cat. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peaceray (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was the one who created the cat. I supported the re-naming. I don't know why it's dragging on. Can we please hurry it up when the seven days is up, so it doesn't have to hang around longer than it needs to. It's been nearly a month now. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 13:19, 19 June 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:Works about fictional serial killers

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. This is a nasty discussion. Participants: You are better than this; do better next time. Remember the human at the other end of each username; we are all on Team Wikipedia. With that out of the way, this is a no consensus result. Some editors support merging as nominated. Some support merging Category:Fiction about serial killers to Category:Works about serial killers. Some support renaming the nominated category. Some supported the creation of a new Category:Fiction about real serial killers, maybe alongside a merge. There is no consensus for a change, but, as always, the creation of new categories does not require CFD consensus beforehand. If someone wishes to create a category, they are welcome to do so at any time, but there is nothing preventing its immediate nomination at CFD. In the event such a created category is nominated, I fully expect the discussion to be conducted to a higher behavioral standard. Again, we are better than this. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Works about fictional serial killers to Category:Fiction about serial killers

Nominator's rationale: Category is duplicative and the name is not intuitive. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After seeing !votes expressing the opinion that categorizing fiction about fictional serial killers differently from real ones is actually important, I would say that the best solution to this problem is to create a new category, Category:Fiction about real serial killers, and have it be a subcategory of Category:Fiction about serial killers.

The current approach is a bit fancrufty and feels redundant to me, since fiction is fictional by default and it's expected that a serial killer in a work of fiction is fictional- we don't have a category called Category:Fiction about fictional characters (WP:DUH). Further, as I said below, fiction that features invented serial killers generally does not have the fictionality of its serial killers as a WP:DEFINING trait, as the fictional status of the character is expected. However, fiction that features a fictionalized version of a real serial killer is naturally going to have its featuring of that real individual as a defining trait. Diffusing the category in the inverse direction would be more helpful and encyclopedic.

In short, I still think the categories should still be merged, and then any fictional works about real serial killers should be moved to the new category. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That mirrors the existing Category:Films about real serial killers. And I feel you are correct about how to deal with Category:Works about fictional serial killers. The only reason we would keep that category is for non-fiction works about fictional serial killers. But does that exist and is there a need for such a category? From what I could find, I do not believe so. Οἶδα (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not duplicative, fiction can be about real life serial killers, this category is for works that are about fictional ones.★Trekker (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I see the benefit in drawing that distinction. To my knowledge no other media categories on Wikipedia do this. For example, Category:Cultural depictions of the Mafia might well include works that have both made up mafias (or loose fictional analogues to real ones) and fictionalized versions of real historical mafia members, but we don't have Category:Cultural depictions of the fictional mafia or Category:Works about fictional gangsters, do we? We do have Category:Fictional gangsters for fictional gangster characters who happen to be notable enough for articles, and that makes sense, and the serial killers equivalent already exists. Going further than that feels like WP:CRUFT. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to mention, the name "Works about fictional serial killers" is so semantically vague that it could include works of literary analysis that discusses fictional serial killers, or behind-the-scenes documentaries where creators discuss their motivations and inspirations for writing about certain serial killers, and I don't think either of those is the intention of the category's scope. It feels much simpler to just clarify it's for fictional works about serial killers (who may or may not be real), which is the norm.

  To name yet more examples, we've got Category:Fiction about death, Category:Fiction about crime, Category:Fiction about incest, Category:Fiction about murder, Category:Fiction about snipers, Category:Cultural depictions of presidents of the United States, and so forth, but we do NOT have subcategories in those called Category:Works about fictional deaths, Category:Works about fictional crimes, Category:Works about fictional incest, Category:Works about fictional murderers, Category:Works about fictional snipers, or Category:Works about fictional presidents of the United States. We do have a Category:Fictional presidents of the United States, and Category:Fictional murderers, and so on, and these also make sense for notable characters meeting that description, but having the "Works about fictional" categories is just unnecessary and confusing, and highly likely to significantly overlap with the "Fiction about" categories and thus pointlessly increase the burden of maintenance. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is quite confusing. I would rather propose to merge Category:Fiction about serial killers to Category:Works about serial killers. There is already a non-fiction subcat in there. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't we just go with the merge and keep both the fiction and non-fiction subcategories? I feel like that be the simplest solution and make the most amount of sense, and also harmonize the category with the various "fiction about X" categories. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would we want to merge into Category:Works about serial killers, which already neatly contains fiction and non-fiction subcategories? Merging would only jumble up the parent. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Fiction about serial killers to Category:Works about serial killers, per Marcocapelle, and per WP:OVERLAPCAT. - jc37 07:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not certain I understand the logic here. I don't think it would be bad to eliminate the fiction subcategory, if that's really determined to be the best way to go, but if that's the case, then Category:Works about fictional serial killers category should also be merged with Category:Works about serial killers, as it overlaps in scope with Category:Fiction about serial killers for the reasons I've already laid out. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify to your point, there's a difference between an invented fictional character and a real-life serial killer. So there's no need to merge Category:Works about fictional serial killers. That said, a work of fiction about a real-life serial killer, would be a fictionalised version of that person as a character. So I'll agree it's tenuous at best. - jc37 08:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean yeah I do see the distinction, I just don't really see the usefulness in drawing the distinction, is what I mean.

  To give some background as to why I started this, I was assigning categories to Saeko: Giantess Dating Sim, an article I created about a video game which happens to feature a serial killer (a fictional one in a fantasy context with no connection to any real serial killing case). I put it in Category:Fiction about serial killers because this was intuitive to me and made sense with the other categories- it's a work of fiction, it has a serial killer, there you go. Then I noticed that the "fiction about" category only had two other articles directly in it, wondered why, and noticed the "Works about fictional serial killers" category.

  I briefly wondered if I should recategorize the article there, but I felt like that didn't make a lot of sense, since it's not like the work is defined by the serial killer being fictional- it's a fictional work about the serial killer, whose fictivity is necessarily implied by the work being a fiction, no? And then after some consideration I brought it here.

  I dunno what the most satisfying solution for everyone would be (although I still feel my proposal would be the best and simplest solution), but definitely something should be done here to avoid the confusion I encountered over these two categories. Maybe a merge of one to the other, maybe a merge of both to the larger parent category, maybe a renaming, but something. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• At least rename to Category:Fiction about fictional serial killers, to clarify the category scope. As it stands, it seems as if the category is supposed to contain works like Dissecting Hannibal Lecter: Essays on the Novels of Thomas Harris—non-fiction works providing real-world analysis of such characters—which is not the case. Neutral on merging per nom. Oppose merging Category:Fiction about serial killers to Category:Works about serial killers, as it unnecessarily destroys a useful subcategorisation layer, especially as that category is not the subject of this discussion and has not been tagged. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think if it's really that important to diffuse fiction featuring real serial killers from fiction featuring purely fictional ones, then we should have a category called Category:Fiction about real serial killers as a subcategory of Category:Fiction about serial killers, which would be much more useful. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge at least, works about fictional serial killers and works about real ones are very different beasts... this is probably not the best way to have this named, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've amended my nomination statement with my proposal for Category:Fiction about real serial killers in light of the consensus seeming to swing in the direction of agreeing that this diffusion is important. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is starting to creep towards Category:Fictional characters based on real people, part of the Category:Historical fiction tree. The more I look at these categories, the more I am leaning towards listification/deletion of all of the fiction-related serial killer categories. For one thing, we have the shaky definition of what a serial killer is, which really needs explaining for every entry. There's a suggested definition at Category:Fictional serial killers, but that's american-centric, and doesn't necessarily apply to the entries. And then we get into the muddy waters of legal systems. What's the presumed legal system in a work of fiction? If not stated by the author, any determination we make would be WP:OR. What about societies where such rule of law does not exist? What about fantasy worlds? We really should not be getting into defining legal terms and applying them to characters. That's simply WP:OR. At best, these should be lists, so that the term usage can be explained in the context of the work of fiction. - jc37 12:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I'm wrong, but I was kind of under the impression that the common English definition of "serial killer" was someone who commits a series of separate killings at different times, distinct from someone who kills a lot of people simultaneously. I was sort of going by that general colloquial definition when categorizing the article. Most reputable dictionaries I was able to find, including Britannica, seem to support this general definition. I think it's reasonable to just go by that; We can't reasonably expect every writer and reader of fiction to be familiar with any and every legal system, so it's best to adhere to a general, commonly understood layman's definition and hash out edge cases on the talk pages of specific articles. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If these were real people, there is no way we would categorise them unless they were convicted of the crime. We have Wikipedia policy to follow. And even if we set aside WP:BLP, which is strict on such things, we still have WP:OR. But let's even set that aside for a moment. Your "general colloquial definition" would apply to most soldiers. And even if we don't include war-related actions, how about a character like Punisher or Wolverine? How about Conan? Are these serial killers? Is Hercules? Is Thor? Think about all of the stormtroopers killed by Han Solo, or Luke Skywalker. And these are just humani-form characters. How about Lotso from Toy Story 3? Or the various Computer AIs in The Terminator series or The Matrix series? Is Scar from The Lion King? And speaking of animals, how about all the butchers out there? Is killing cattle a serial crime? How much sentience is required for it to be a crime? Who decides? Consider also Soylent green - was serial killing involved there? How about Logan's Run? How about Silent Running? Or how about the Hal9000 in 2001? And really, these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. There's also the problem of perspective. The targets (and supporters thereof) of a ninja-assassin might consider the character a serial killer. But would those supporting (or giving orders to) the ninja-assassin consider them a serial killer? Would mob bosses consider one of their enforcers a serial killer? Whose perspective should we take into account when making these determinations? Which brings us back to WP:OR. We're picking winners here. And we shouldn't be doing that. Every example needs clear explanation and context. And that means a list, per WP:CLN. - jc37 14:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If these were real people, there is no way we would categorise them unless they were convicted of the crime ...Well, they're by definition not real people, so we don't have to worry about WP:BLP, like, at all. I guess someone could draft Wikipedia:Biographies of fictional persons, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

  Anyway, a defining trait of "serial killer" is that the killings are murder, which isn't just killing someone but has the specific qualifier of "without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention", and that they're committed by non-state actors without external material forces (money, power, competition, etc) motivating their killings, and the article on the topic has a pretty healthy amount of material answering all these questions with reliable sources. To answer in a little more detail, though, I'm not familiar with all your examples, but a lot of these, I'd classify as mass murder (or self-defense, in the case of Luke Skywalker. Maybe not in Han Solo's case, but y'know, mostly self-defense).

  A lot of this is determined by the framing of the story, and categories on Wikipedia should categorize articles about fictional stories based on how reliable sources describe the story and its framing of the characters (when it's not a WP:SKYBLUE situation). Since we're WP:NOTTVTROPES, we don't need to waffle over literalist questions like these; the actual answer here is that reliable sources describe Patrick Bateman as a serial killer, and do not describe Batman as one, so the former gets categorized as that accordingly, and the latter does not. You might as well say "who's really a villain in a story? that's subjective, you know and we don't want to mislabel someone as a villain." Well, yeah, obviously, there's no obvious and unambiguous villains in real life. It's a fictional construct, not a coherent ethical standard. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even by your definition, there is a difference between serial killing an mass murder. Length of time in between being a factor. Hence none of the examples are mass murder.

  And you haven't addressed the problems of definition. characters not from the American judicial system. Characters from fantasy, from mythology, animals, aliens, sentient/sapient robots, AIs, and so on. How do we define a serial killer? Is it based upon the actions of the character, or upon the definition of serial killer in the jurisdictional area that they reside or in the area that they committed the killing in? All of these things need explaining. Hence, a list.

  I didn't use Batman as an example. Take a look at Punisher. Would you consider Frank Castle a serial Killer? Why or why not?

  Looking at the current members of those categories, are there sources which call each of them a serial killer? or are we Wikipedians making that arbitrary determination based upon our choice of definition?

  Agreed about Category:Villains. There could very well be an argument for its deletion. But at the moment, we're discussion serial killers.

  And so far, you haven't addressed the WP:OR issues inherent here. - jc37 20:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did in fact already address the OR argument.

  the article on the topic has a pretty healthy amount of material answering all these questions with reliable sources
  the actual answer here is that reliable sources describe Patrick Bateman as a serial killer
  hash out edge cases on the talk pages

  I feel like we're getting really, really off-track here. I didn't nominate the category for deletion, I didn't nominate the group for deletion- I nominated the one category for merging. The question at hand here is not whether or not categorizing fictional serial killers, or stories about serial killers, is valid, the question is and only is, is the scope of Category:Works about fictional serial killers overlapping with Category:Fiction about serial killers?

  I guess you've already expressed that you don't think so. In response, I discussed how to clarify the scope of the "fiction about" category and diffuse it appropriately with a more encyclopedic and helpful subcategory, and you're discussing that not only should it not exist in the first place, but that all of its parent and subcategories should also not exist, which is a bit much.

  If you think there's an issue with the premise of categorizing fictional characters in this way, I suggest you make a separate discussion nominating this group of categories for deletion. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I presume we would be relying on whether reliable sources refer to both the real people or the fictional characters in the given fiction as serial killers. Otherwise, yes, that would be WP:OR. For real people, that is done when they are convicted. For fictional characters, the same considerations do not apply. Punisher, for example, is only really characterised as a vigilante who commits mass killings. Who decides? Reliable sources. Not Wikipedians. For example, reliable sources for Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile such as the NY Times describe it as being about serial killer Ted Bundy. Reliable sources also describe the fictional protagonist of American Psycho as a serial killer[2][3]. Can the same be said for Punisher, Wolverine, Conan, Hercules, Thor, Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Lotso, The Terminator and The Matrix AIs, Scar, Soylent Green, Logan's Run, Silent Running, Hal9000? No. I understand this is a bit confusing with the category names and all, but I feel we are overcomplicating it trying to investigate stuff like "What's the presumed legal system in a work of fiction?" Categories are supposed to reflect characteristics that are WP:DEFINING i.e. ones that "reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to". These WP:OR questions are interesting but ultimately unrelated to our job of categorisation. Οἶδα (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @PARAKANYAA: In theory, you are correct. But in practice, all of the "Works about fictional serial killers" are actually works of fiction about serial killers. Where are the non-fiction works are about fictional serial killers? Οἶδα (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that doesn't exist, but not the other way around. Which is the problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you referring to the potential Category:Fiction about real serial killers, or am I mistaking your point? Οἶδα (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really care what happens as long as there is a distinction between two things

  • works about fictional serial killers (which will all be fictional)
  • works about real serial killers (both real and fictional)

  PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge and creation of Category:Fiction about real serial killers. We generally should not be creating categories for "about fictional" [thing]. I think people in this discussion are missing SilviaASH's point here that the fictionality of a work's serial killer not being a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The same goes for Category:Serial killer films, which you would understand is not diffused to Category:Films about fictional serial killers, but is to Category:Films about real serial killers. A good example of an appropriate exception would be the category Category:Films about fictional popes, in which the fact that the pope is a fictional creation serves as a defining characteristic. The same goes for Category:Films about fictional presidents of the United States. When a work of fiction features a serial killer based on a real individual, that real-world connection defines it (reliable sources commonly and consistently identify the character as being based in reality and identify the serial killer in question), whereas the fictionality of one does not to meet that standard. To emphasise this, consider the following quotation: "In the first trailer for Netflix’s “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile,” Hollywood heartthrob Zac Efron struts around as Ted Bundy, the infamous serial killer responsible for the sexual assaults and deaths of at least 30 women in the 1970s."[4] This is usually compounded by several sources investigating the actual events and the film's relations to it. Now consider the other side. I do not find similar treatments in reliable sources, in which they expound on the character and define it by its fictionality. I concur with SilviaASH's amended proposal of handling these categories. The issue I see in the suggestion you made above PARAKANYAA is that it appears to advocate for the creation of categories for non-defining characteristics. Making such distinctions requires they be defining, meaning that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the works as having the characteristic. Οἶδα (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - One thing that I think is being missed here is that a "real person depicted in fiction" isn't a "real person. At that point, they are a fictionalized version of the real person. (And this without wading into whether people from pre-history, myth, or legend, are "real", like King Arthur or Moses. And then there's things like Stephen Colbert (character) or the potrayal of Joan Crawford in Mommy Dearest. Or how about characters that the author has stated is an account of a real person (either under their name, or under a psuedonym), such as found at Cambridge_Five#In_popular_culture. Treating fiction as real is a slippery slope. - jc37 13:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a relevant point but nevertheless a separate issue to the main topic being discussed here. Are you suggesting your position has changed based on what I outlined above? If so that is worth clarifying. Because whether "about real" is the most accurate way of saying it is based on actual events is something I likely I agree with but, again, is not the topic at hand. It appears that Category:Films about real serial killers and Category:Songs about real people are the only two existing categories that use "about real". We can easily amend this to the more precise more frequently-used phrasing "based on real", i.e. Category:Fiction based on real serial killers.

  I think the points you raised here are interesting theoretical questions but what I said above bears repeating: Categories are supposed to reflect characteristics that are WP:DEFINING i.e. ones that "reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to". These questions you are asking are interesting but ultimately unrelated to our job of categorisation. Discussing the complex nature of a "real person depicted in fiction" effectively becoming a fictionalized version of the real person is simply not relevant to our job here. You are suggesting things that would require WP:OR, which you appear to understand already. Whether we categorise a film into Category:Films shot in Paris is not based on whether the Eiffel Tower appears on screen. It is based on it being mentioned in the article and verified by reliable, secondary sources. Drawing conclusions not evident in references is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic. And again, Who decides? Reliable sources. Not Wikipedians. We are not journalists or historians. Wikipedia editors do not decide whether someone was real. That is the ___domain of reliable sources and scholarly consensus. For borderline historical figures or disputed accounts from pre-history, myth or legend, such as King Arthur or Moses, we err on the side of caution: if sources do not commonly define the work as being based on a real person, we should not categorise it that way. As for Stephen Colbert, that appears to be a rather exceptional instance of a real person's satirical/fictional alter-ego. Though evidently a significant portion of the article deals with the character's basis on the real person. In the case of Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest, the extent to which a memoir or biographical film is true is also not something we should be wading into. They are nevertheless based on a real person. Cases of obvious fabrications, as confirmed in reliable sources, are rare exceptions. But remember, categories must be verifiable and defining, meaning there is verifiable information in the article that supports the inclusion in the categories. All these questions must be dealt with in their respective articles. Categorisation follows the article.

  "Treating fiction as real" is not what we are doing here. We are taking the common, defining characteristic of a fiction's connection to a real individual (as explicitly stated in reliable sources) and treating it as valid for categorisation, and ignoring characteristics that aren't (WP:NONDEF). Everything else, while intellectually engaging, is beyond the scope of how categories are supposed to function. Fictional works that feature fictional serial killers are not consistently referred to in reliable sources as featuring fictional serial killers. Their fictionality is incidental. But when fictionality is defining, categorisation based on such traits can apply. Οἶδα (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "...the extent to which a memoir or biographical film is true is also not something we should be wading into." - but that's exactly what this category is begging for - deciding whether it is true that the character is a serial killer. Remember that all parts of the category inclusion criteria need to be true. In this case, whether the character is based upon a real person. And then we have the muddy question of whether the intended members of the cat are to be characters which are serial killers, or whether they are characters which are based upon real people which have been determined to be serial killers. Setting aside whether Winnie-the-Pooh is based upon a real "person" (a real stuffed animal) - It's the situation of Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey. A character which I don't think anyone would call a serial killer, in another work of fiction which "could be" called a serial killer. But then, even then we have an issue because what if the work itself doesn't call the character a serial killer? So we have a character. which is based upon another character, which is based upon a real life stuffed animal owned by the real life Christopher Robin. And based upon this, does the main article Winnie-the-Pooh get categorised here, if only one version of the character meets the criteria? And, this gets very complicated when you wade into the multiverses of DC Comics and the character Superman...

  And Category:Works about criminals kind of disproves your other assertions. I look at its subcats and there is no distinction between whether an entry is "based on" a "real" person or not. Nor is the question of fictionalised characters addressed. The whole thing is either WP:OR, or very close to it. It is Wikipedia editors (presumably well-meaning to be sure) who decide that an article belongs in a category. Based upon what criteria? Is the only place that a character can be determined as an X type of criminal, inside the fictional work? If Some reviewer were to call the Joker a serial killer, would we categorise the article under serial killers? Or would it be required to be noted inside the work of fiction? What do we do if reference works differ in their interpretation of the work? For example, would the character in My Last Duchess be categorised as a murderer? Who decides? The work itself does not come out and say it, yet however... This is what I was referring to with Punisher, above. If the work itself doesn't call the character a serial killer, are they? If no revewers call the character a serial killer, are they? How about if only 1 revewer out of the thousands of reviewers of the many works with the charater, decides to call the character a serial killer, does the characte's article get categorised here? Therein lies the problem: weight. Such things require explanation. And that means - per WP:CLN - this should be a list, at best, not a category. We know that interpretation of fictional works - and the characters therein - can vary wildly between reviewers/analysts/etc. So if we pick one over another, we are picking winners. Which brings us back to WP:OR.

  And yes, this is a problem whenever we decide to categorise characters based upon an in-universe attribute. But this is different from whether a work declares that a character has blonde hair, or works as a miller, or habitates in a certain country. It's a subjective term being subjectively applied to a character. It just begs explanation on eother side of it. Which, per WP:CLN, we cannot do in categories, so a List is preferrable. - jc37 20:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but what exactly is your argument here? Your massive, barely comprehensible wall of text does not clarify anything whatsoever, and your aside about Winnie the Pooh (Pooh is not based upon a real "person") is completely irrelevant and diversionary. You seem to have completely missed the point I was making earlier when I pointed out to you that Wikipedia is not TV Tropes.

  We have processes and norms for what to do if sources disagree. Editors assess the consensus of the sources at their discretion, and if there is a disagreement, we decide by local consensus. If only one source of many suggests a trait is defining, we generally don't include it in the categories, because that would be WP:UNDUE.

  We don't obsess over fictional minutiae unless we have sources that do so. Some works and characters are defined by being referred to as serial killers in sources. Some are not. To answer more thoroughly:

more detailed per-article answers

Winnie-the-Pooh is not defined by the Blood and Honey film, and sources do not define the character that way, so Fictional serial killers is not a defining trait for him. Blood and Honey is defined as a slasher film in sources. Category:Slasher films and its subcategories are parented by Category:Films about serial killers. This categorization is completely irrelevant to the main Winnie-the-Pooh article. The Joker is already categorized as a fictional serial killer. If you disagree, take it up at Talk:Joker (character). If one reviewer calls The Punisher a serial killer, maybe that can be noted in his article if it's WP:DUE, but it's not enough to merit considering "fictional serial killers" unless many more sources note him as such, and then a consensus for categorizing him this way is established. I don't know about My Last Duchess, but it looks like it's categorized as being about domestic violence, so, I dunno. Maybe that's justified by sources. Maybe that's a mistake. Again, discuss that at Talk:My Last Duchess.

• In general, I think the rationale that we cannot have the category because It just begs explanation is a weak justification for removing these categories. We don't need the category to give the context to justify the inclusion of one or another thing. That's why we have the articles, by definition. To explain things. To give context to a topic. If someone wants to find out why a character is considered a serial killer, they can, like, go read the article? And hopefully the article clearly explains why. This is not complicated. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest that you then should take time to read WP:CLN. "Needing explanation", very much is a determination for whether something should be a category or a list. - jc37 22:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't need that much explanation. You're the only one who seems to think it's as complicated as you're making it out to be. If you truly think that all such categories should be removed, because of your bogus reasonings, I suggest that you go on over to Category:Fiction about crime and nominate it, and all its subcategories, for deletion. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hyperbole isn't an argument. And still doesn't address the subjectivity of the determinations you are making. - jc37 23:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not made subjective determinations of the nature that you are implying. You challenged the viability of determining whether or not "serial killer" is a defining trait for a particular fictional character- tangential to the matter at hand, but whatever. In response to you, I and Οἶδα stated straightforwardly that the way in which we determine this is by how reliable sources refer to them.

  You responded by pointlessly pontificating on the issue from an in-universe perspective, and quickly bloated the discussion with irrelevant sophistry. As Οἶδα aptly described it, massively overcomplicating this issue with intellectual ponderings like these. You are begging for and doing your own WP:OR.

  You have critically failed to substantively respond to our counterarguments, and have instead continued stubbornly repeating the same points with very little variation. I don't mean to be rude, but I am honestly finding it difficult to not see your responses as diversionary and counter-productive. Again, Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. I suggest you listen to and actually respond to what we are saying, instead of just stubbornly repeating the same refuted talking points with no new arguments. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am going to be unwatching this page, and all the categories, and ignoring this discussion from here on out. I have made all my arguments. I don't have time for this. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "...repeating the same points..." - actually, I have presented different examples and further explained in several different ways. That you don't like the responses isn't something I can help.

  I think one of the fundamental issues here is a possible misunderstanding about what categories are, and how they are intended to be used. It's part of why I keep pointing to WP:CLN.

  Categories aren't "descriptve tags", they are groupings of related articles. We aren't categorising a character. We are categorising an article. So, for example, if an article covers many variant versions of Superman, then that article could be categorized in several ways.

  And so (one of) the basic problems here is that if we are going to categorise articles together as related to "serial killers", then "serial killer" needs a unified definition. We are grouping articles together. And if that definition varies - and it does - then categories are not the way to group these things, because the very term being used as criteria to group them, varies. So a list is needed as explanation, to explain how this term applies to the entries in question. And that's where it seems like both of you are missing it. It isn't just whether a reviewer or the text uses the term, it's whether the term means the same thing in how it is applied to each entry. If the application of the term needs explanation, then cateories are not the way to go.

  And as I have shown, we are running into issues with suggesting that all applications of the terms are equal. And not just "serial killer", but also with "real people", as I already noted.

  And neither of you have shown that these should be categories. Indeed, many of your responses actually support that this should be a list, not a category. And saying that "you" think something doesn't need (much) explaining, doesn't mean that they don't need to be explained.

  Indeed, even the article serial killer notes that the definition of the term isn't set. The references talk about "most common usage" being 3, but the FBI definition being 2 people (based upon a survey of 135 experts). And that's just on the question of numbers of dead. On something like this, where the references do not agree upon definition, categories are typically not the best way to group articles.

  Anyway, again, I would suggest reading WP:CLN (and WP:CAT for that matter) for more info about when things should or shouldn't be a list or category. - jc37 00:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, you've posted more than enough examples and explanations, all impressively convoluted and ultimately off-topic and meaningless in the context of the actual proposal. Drowning the discussion in a stream of speculation and rhetoric isn't equivalent to making a relevant or policy-aligned argument. You haven't clarified anything. You've only made the conversation harder to follow by refusing to engage with the central rationale.

  And you avoided even responding to me below and just repeated the same needless hairsplitting that detracts from the purpose of categorisation on Wikipedia. According to WP:CLN, the distinction between categories and lists is primarily in their function and content, not on endless hypothetical definitional debates and perceived complexities powered by original research. We are not here to philosophise endlessly about the precise ontological nature of “serial killers” or the metaphysical status of fictional versus real people. Categories are designed to group articles with shared defining characteristics to provide easy navigation and systematic organisation. This is exactly what the category in question accomplishes: grouping articles about works based on real serial killers, a defining trait consistently documented by reliable sources. The convoluted hypotheticals you are raising about “multiverses” or cases like Winnie-the-Pooh's stuffed animal origins do not change that fundamental principle. They are distractions that insert original research and subjective interpretation where none belong. Your approach seems to want to paralyze this process by endlessly demanding that the category contort itself around contrived ponderings and tangents that have no relevance to the actual scope or application of the category.

  The claim that this should be a list rather than a category misunderstands the purpose of categories as outlined in WP:CLN. Lists are annotated with comprehensive commentary about each item and thus are suitable when the relationship between items is complex, variable, or requires extensive clarification that a category cannot provide. Your argument conflates the tangential complexity of interpreting the term "serial killer" with the question of whether the category is appropriate. While the definition of "serial killer" may have some historical debate (what doesn't?), that complexity belongs in the article prose at Serial killer, not in our categorisation decisions. Categories are meant to group articles that share defining characteristics, not to provide exhaustive explanations or academic nuance. That's precisely what's happening here. The works in question share a clear, verifiable trait: being based on real serial killers, which reliable sources commonly and consistently identify. They are explicitly stating this. No significant variety or ambiguity. You are clearly not satisfied by the reality of this.

  The suggestion that lists are preferred here because of all of these interpretive differences you have diverted the discussion to is absurd. Lists are not a substitute for categories per WP:CLN. The two coexist but serve a different editorial purpose. If every category had to withstand your level of abstract rumination and calls for exhaustive theoretical consistency, we would have almost no categories at all. The categorical grouping based on defining, sourced characteristics aligns with Wikipedia's content organisation principles. Theoretical definitional ambiguity should not undermine a policy-compliant categorisation system. You are constantly ignoring reliable sources and instead begging for WP:OR here, which is wildly inappropriate. You are doing a job that is not the job of Wikipedia editors. If you cannot properly assess or even fathom the simple prominence of viewpoints in the real world as illustrated in reliable secondary sources, which categories are an extension of, then you need to seriously consider your editorial responsibility. It is the job of Wikipedia editors, above all else, to accurately summarise reliable sources in compliance with content policies and guidelines. Not to satisfy our owns minds and all of its wanderings. It is not our job to introduce uncertainty that does not exist in reliable sources.

  Your responses continuously circle back to original research, ignoring and distorting the policy guidance and the framework we must follow. This endless cycle of diversionary debate has done nothing but bludgeon the discussion. In my six years of editing Wikipedia, I have never encountered anyone so persistently obfuscate a discussion's topic and entangle it in a web of musings, unwilling stay focused on the core issue. Your contributions to this discussion have consistently derailed meaningful progress by substituting substance with speculative diversions and rhetorical obstruction. I unfortunately cannot tolerate this persistent bludgeoning any longer and must also ignore this discussion from here on out. Truly outrageous. From an admin no less. The proposal nevertheless stands firmly on Wikipedia policy and precedent. Οἶδα (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• but that's exactly what this category is begging for - deciding whether it is true that the character is a serial killer.

  No it is not. A category is merely a reflection of an article's content. And I was referring to the fact that a memoir is non-fiction whether it is possibly exaggerated or not. Unless it is a debunked fabrication, as confirmed by sourcing, it is nevertheless based on a real person.

  Remember that all parts of the category inclusion criteria need to be true. In this case, whether the character is based upon a real person. And then we have the muddy question of whether the intended members of the cat are to be characters which are serial killers, or whether they are characters which are based upon real people which have been determined to be serial killers.

  Again, not our job. Who decides? Reliable sources. Not Wikipedians. We are not journalists or historians. Wikipedia editors do not decide whether someone was real or whether they were a serial killer. That is the ___domain of reliable sources and scholarly consensus.

  Setting aside whether Winnie-the-Pooh is based upon a real "person" (a real stuffed animal) - It's the situation of Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey. A character which I don't think anyone would call a serial killer, in another work of fiction which "could be" called a serial killer. But then, even then we have an issue because what if the work itself doesn't call the character a serial killer? So we have a character. which is based upon another character, which is based upon a real life stuffed animal owned by the real life Christopher Robin. And based upon this, does the main article Winnie-the-Pooh get categorised here, if only one version of the character meets the criteria? And, this gets very complicated when you wade into the multiverses of DC Comics and the character Superman...

  I am sorry jc37, but you are massively overcomplicating this issue with intellectual ponderings like these. You are begging for and doing your own WP:OR. Categorisation follows articles, not original research. If an article is categorised based on its original research, that is an article issue, not a category issue. The category can be removed as quickly as it was added.

  I look at its subcats and there is no distinction between whether an entry is "based on" a "real" person or not.

  Such as? Such diffusion must constitute a defining characteristic. And I am seeing many categories for cultural depictions of individual (real) people and many "biographical" (real) categories. How does this "disprove my other assertions"?

  Based upon what criteria? Is the only place that a character can be determined as an X type of criminal, inside the fictional work? If Some reviewer were to call the Joker a serial killer, would we categorise the article under serial killers? Or would it be required to be noted inside the work of fiction? What do we do if reference works differ in their interpretation of the work?

  All of this is answered at WP:DEFINING: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic".

  Who decides? The work itself does not come out and say it, yet however... This is what I was referring to with Punisher, above. If the work itself doesn't call the character a serial killer, are they? If no revewers call the character a serial killer, are they?

  If no reliable sources commonly and consistently call the character a serial killer, they are not.

  How about if only 1 revewer out of the thousands of reviewers of the many works with the charater, decides to call the character a serial killer, does the characte's article get categorised here?

  You know this constitutes WP:UNDUE. Why are you even asking?

  We know that interpretation of fictional works - and the characters therein - can vary wildly between reviewers/analysts/etc. So if we pick one over another, we are picking winners. Which brings us back to WP:OR.

  For non-defining characterstics, yes. For defining characterstics, no. WP:UNDUE requires that an article represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. We are not "picking over another". We are giving appropriate weight to viewpoints in articles, and categorising based on the defining characteristics commonly and consistently referred to within those viewpoints. Wikipedia articles reflect the prominence of viewpoints in reliable sources, not every conceivable nuance or interpretive complexity. If reliable secondary sources consistently describe a character as a serial killer, and that aspect is significant enough to be included in the article, then categorisation is appropriate. We are not expected to resolve all edge cases or construct philosophical frameworks around category inclusion. Just to follow the weight of sourced content. Οἶδα (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peaceray (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As an aside, it's interesting to see someone writing large blocks of text, turning around and accusing someone else of writing large blocks of text. But if one wishes to assert that I can be verbose at times, I'll plead guilty. Nothing new there.

  And yes, I could have gone through and parsed each of their assertions, but I was trying to be nice - they seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about categories and their usage. Instead, I chose to try to explain how - from different angles, and for different reasons - a category with criteria of "fictional" + "serial killer" has problems.

  I think the main thing that they are missing is that this is a category. And the purpose of a category is to group pages, in order to assist with navigation. And because the members of a category are grouped equally, there is no way to note weight. Indeed, the mere act of adding a page to a category can give something more "weight". Things like WP:DUE apply when you can explain an extry. But while that's possible on a list, it's not on a category. Much of this is laid out in WP:CLN. Hence why this - at best - should be a List, not a category.

  A fundamental problem is well-established practice for category usage. For example, we don't categorize an article under "serial killers", unless the subject of the article has been convicted of the crime. And this is regardless of whether a verifiable reliable source may call the person in question a serial killer.

  So in the case of fictional serial killers, we have rather large problems. In a fictional universe, the laws in different locations (or even in differing unverses) may not be the same. And how "crime" is defined may vary, as may whether one is "convicted" of the crime, and how being "convicted" is defined. So grouping 2 characters from different universes and calling both of them "serial killers", is incorrect, because it's merely WP:SHAREDNAME at that point. What about characters where they were convicted of the crime, but the third-party omniscient narrator establishes that they were wrongly convicted. Should they be included in the category?

  Besides that, looking over the category in question, I'm not finding a lot of entries that meet the criteria even of that for being serial killers.

  This just bleeds WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

  Anyway, I explained much more about these things above, and I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 21:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  it's interesting to see someone writing large blocks of text, turning around and accusing someone else of writing large blocks of text.

  Dishonest reframing. I fully acknowledge my verbosity. Let me make this very clear: the concern here is NOT verbosity, but the persistent substition of policy-based reasoning with abstract philosophizing and original research, with which you have repeatedly diverted the discussion from its actual purpose. There is a difference. Stop pretending otherwise as deflection. Everything else you wrote here is just more repetition of the same exhausting arguments from above including the suggestion that I do not understand the function of categories. You also did not substantively engage with the points I made in both of the exhaustive replies to you above. In a sad situation like this, all I can do is repeat:

  The claim that this should be a list rather than a category misunderstands the purpose of categories as outlined in WP:CLN. Lists are annotated with comprehensive commentary about each item and thus are suitable when the relationship between items is complex, variable, or requires extensive clarification that a category cannot provide. Your argument conflates the tangential complexity of interpreting the term "serial killer" with the question of whether the category is appropriate. While the definition of "serial killer" may have some historical debate (what doesn't?), that complexity belongs in the article prose at Serial killer, not in our categorisation decisions. Categories are meant to group articles that share defining characteristics, not to provide exhaustive explanations or academic nuance. That's precisely what's happening here. The works in question share a clear, verifiable trait: being based on real serial killers, which reliable sources commonly and consistently identify. They are explicitly stating this. No significant variety or ambiguity. You are clearly not satisfied by the reality of this.

  The suggestion that lists are preferred here because of all of these interpretive differences you have diverted the discussion to is absurd. Lists are not a substitute for categories per WP:CLN. The two coexist but serve a different editorial purpose. If every category had to withstand your level of abstract rumination and calls for exhaustive theoretical consistency, we would have almost no categories at all. The categorical grouping based on defining, sourced characteristics aligns with Wikipedia's content organisation principles. Theoretical definitional ambiguity should not undermine a policy-compliant categorisation system. You are constantly ignoring reliable sources and instead begging for WP:OR here, which is wildly inappropriate. You are doing a job that is not the job of Wikipedia editors. If you cannot properly assess or even fathom the simple prominence of viewpoints in the real world as illustrated in reliable secondary sources, which categories are an extension of, then you need to seriously consider your editorial responsibility. It is the job of Wikipedia editors, above all else, to accurately summarise reliable sources in compliance with content policies and guidelines. Not to satisfy our owns minds and all of its wanderings. It is not our job to introduce uncertainty that does not exist in reliable sources.

  You say that you "could have gone through and parsed each of my assertions" and yet you refused to do just that. Doing so would have forced you to confront how your own assertions distort and contradict Wikipedia policy, instead of overcomplicating the issue to continue evading it. You are not "being nice". You are insulting me by assuming I lack the awareness to understand what you are doing here. You successfully bludgeoned the discussion into no consensus and you're still doing it two weeks later. Apparently, restraint was too much to ask. You cannot, in good faith, believe that reviving this and extending it into a new comment with the same repetitions does anything to advance the discussion. Against my better judgment, I am replying. You got your engagement. Thanks for clarifying nothing and wasting my time. I trust this exchange has, for my part, run its course. You're, of course, free to continue circling the same points without me. Οἶδα (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want, I suppose. But I was indeed trying to be nice. I'll insert my responses in the following in brackets [] in small, bold text. Collapsing the response in a box below. - jc37 01:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

it's interesting to see someone writing large blocks of text, turning around and accusing someone else of writing large blocks of text. Dishonest reframing. I fully acknowledge my verbosity. Let me make this very clear: the concern here is NOT verbosity, but the persistent substition of policy-based reasoning with abstract philosophizing and original research, - [not abstract. Concrete examples. And as noted what you are suggesting is WP:OR, actually, but we'll get to that.] - with which you have repeatedly diverted the discussion from its actual purpose. - [The purpose of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is to discuss categories. It isn't limited by what way you want a discussion to go.] - There is a difference. Stop pretending otherwise as deflection. Everything else you wrote here is just more repetition of the same exhausting arguments from above including the suggestion that I do not understand the function of categories. You also did not substantively engage with the points I made in both of the exhaustive replies to you above. In a sad situation like this, all I can do is repeat: The claim that this should be a list rather than a category misunderstands the purpose of categories as outlined in WP:CLN. Lists are annotated with comprehensive commentary about each item and thus are suitable when the relationship between items is complex, variable, or requires extensive clarification that a category cannot provide. - [Among other reasons, but I'll just address the one you yourself just stated: "variable". If real life sources do not agree upon a definition, that is variable. And fictional ones? Obviously they do not. Note, for example, that even Category:Fictional serial killers specifically states that category members are ones which meet the FBI's definition. And that's one definition out of many. But even with that, explain why fictional characters which do not fall under US law are members, if we are relying only upon the US FBI's definition for inclusion. And of course, we are presuming that the fictional US universe has the same body of laws that the real-life fictional universe has. Which we all know is not necessarily true. To presume they do, is WP:SYNTH, or in other words, WP:OR. The definitions are variable. And a category's inclusion criteria must be clear from its name. serial killer is not clear in definition. It has variable definitions. So we cannot group individuals together who may or may not meet varying definitions of a term. And by the way, go look at the category contents of Category:Fictional serial killers. Are you comfortable saying that reliable sources have called all of those fictional characters serial killers? Or are they merely there because some enthusiastic Wikipedia editor counted to 2 (or 3) and decided to include them? yes, it's WP:OR. And all this without even going into the guideline that we only categorise articles of individuals convicted of the cime in question. Are you suggesting that this has happened for all these characters in all these works?] - Your argument conflates the tangential complexity of interpreting the term "serial killer" with the question of whether the category is appropriate. While the definition of "serial killer" may have some historical debate (what doesn't?), that complexity belongs in the article prose at Serial killer, not in our categorisation decisions. -[Incorrect. If the article shows that there is more than one way a term is defined or applied, then that term is not appropriate as a criteria for categorisation.] - Categories are meant to group articles that share defining characteristics, not to provide exhaustive explanations or academic nuance. - [Right, and if that is necessary - as in this case - then the grouping should be a list, not a category.] - That's precisely what's happening here. The works in question share a clear, verifiable trait: being based on real serial killers - [No. First, that's not a "trait" of a work. Also, the works in question may have a fictionalised version of a real-life person, but they are not about the serial killer in question. And that's been noted by others above, who are suggesting that a rename to include the word "real" in the category title to try to soften the ambiguity here. Do you think Once (Pearl Jam song) is based upon a real person? How about Propnight? How about Hierro (TV series)? I could go on and on with examples from these categories.] - , which reliable sources commonly and consistently identify. They are explicitly stating this. No significant variety or ambiguity. You are clearly not satisfied by the reality of this. - [Because your assertion is false, as I just noted.] The suggestion that lists are preferred here because of all of these interpretive differences you have diverted the discussion to is absurd. Lists are not a substitute for categories per WP:CLN. The two coexist but serve a different editorial purpose. If every category had to withstand your level of abstract rumination and calls for exhaustive theoretical consistency, we would have almost no categories at all. The categorical grouping based on defining, sourced characteristics aligns with Wikipedia's content organisation principles. Theoretical definitional ambiguity should not undermine a policy-compliant categorisation system. You are constantly ignoring reliable sources and instead begging for WP:OR here, which is wildly inappropriate. - [I'm not doing any of that, as noted. I'm pointing out the problems with your assertions, and have been, all along.] - You are doing a job that is not the job of Wikipedia editors. If you cannot properly assess or even fathom the simple prominence of viewpoints in the real world as illustrated in reliable secondary sources, which categories are an extension of, then you need to seriously consider your editorial responsibility. It is the job of Wikipedia editors, above all else, to accurately summarise reliable sources in compliance with content policies and guidelines. - [No, we don't "summarize" in categories - because we can't, as noted in WP:CLN. We merely group "like" things based upon unified criteria. No variable or divergent or ambiguous criteria.] - Not to satisfy our owns minds and all of its wanderings. It is not our job to introduce uncertainty that does not exist in reliable sources. - [The uncertainty is already there, whether you wish to see it or not.] You say that you "could have gone through and parsed each of my assertions" and yet you refused to do just that. Doing so would have forced you to confront how your own assertions distort and contradict Wikipedia policy, instead of overcomplicating the issue to continue evading it. You are not "being nice". You are insulting me by assuming I lack the awareness to understand what you are doing here. You successfully bludgeoned the discussion into no consensus and you're still doing it two weeks later. Apparently, restraint was too much to ask. -[As noted, I was attempting to "be nice", especially since - in reading your words - you were starting to shift into a seeming ad hominem mode. Which I don't think would be good for anyone.] - You cannot, in good faith, believe that reviving this and extending it into a new comment with the same repetitions does anything to advance the discussion. - [I'll admit to be an advocate for such naive hopes. One never knows when another might see through the clouds of misunderstanding towards comprehension. So I think it's worth trying.] - Against my better judgment, I am replying. You got your engagement. Thanks for clarifying nothing and wasting my time. I trust this exchange has, for my part, run its course. You're, of course, free to continue circling the same points without me. Οἶδα (talk) 06:31, 28 June 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:Films directed by Mariah Carey

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films directed by Mariah Carey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Mariah Carey has directed just one movie to date, so unless she does more directing in the future, I doubt a category is warranted per WP:Overcategorization#Narrow intersection. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC) — Lost in Quebec (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of WilliamJE (talk · contribs). --woodensuperman 14:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the established tree for works by creatives, i.e., authors with one book, etc, etc. Even the now deprecated WP:SMALLCAT used to have an exception for this, and this has remained in practice. I'm sure there's a guideline for this somewhere still in existence too. It's not a narrow intersection either, this is the main WP:DEFINING characteristic of the film. --woodensuperman 15:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I brought up narrow intersection because there's nothing else that intersects her and directing movies. There's no useful purpose of having a category that only contains a singular entry and seems unlikely to contain more in the foreseeable future. Even upmerging to Mariah's main category is more understandable than keeping this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Have a look at the parent cat to this and other similar categories, you will find a great many categories with only one entry. The parent category is a container category so it cannot be upmerged to Category:Films by American directors for example. See it as an index of every film by director, regardless of how small the category. As a comparison, see also Category:British novels by writer or Category:Albums by artist and you will also find many categories with single articles. We have always made an exception here, there is no reason to treat this any differently. --woodensuperman 17:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Also, Category:Films by director (and subcats) seems awfully close to performers by performance. And, imagine categorizing someone who works for a financial institution by the individual contracts that they have worked on. Or lawyers or judges by all of the cases that they have worked on. Or senators by all the bills they have worked on, etc. Director articles tend to have filmographies, which tend to be more complete than a category. Unless every film that a director has directed has their own individual article, the category in question would always be an incomplete subset of the films directed by the director. - jc37 21:34, 26 June 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:Buildings and structures in Sweden by municipality

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 except for the ones singled out which can be brought to a new nomination. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Buildings and structures in Sweden by municipality
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Degerfors Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Örebro County and Category:Degerfors Municipality
• Propose deleting Category:Buildings and structures in Habo Municipality
• Propose splitting Category:Buildings and structures in Hedemora Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Hedemora and Category:Buildings and structures in Dalarna County+Category:Hedemora Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Jönköping Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Jönköping County and Category:Jönköping Municipality
• Propose splitting Category:Buildings and structures in Karlskoga Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Karlskoga and Category:Buildings and structures in Örebro County+Category:Karlskoga Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Kristinehamn Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Värmland County and Category:Kristinehamn Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Kungälv Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Västra Götaland County and Category:Kungälv Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Mullsjö Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Jönköping County and Category:Mullsjö Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Örebro Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Örebro County and Category:Örebro Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Storfors Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Värmland County and Category:Storfors Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Sundsvall Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Västernorrland County and Category:Sundsvall Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Umeå Municipality to Category:Buildings and structures in Västerbotten County and Category:Umeå Municipality
• Propose deleting Category:Churches in Sweden by municipality
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Habo Municipality to Category:Churches in Jönköping County and Category:Habo Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Jönköping Municipality to Category:Churches in Jönköping County and Category:Jönköping Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Churches in Mullsjö Municipality to Category:Churches in Jönköping County and Category:Mullsjö Municipality
• Propose merging Category:Listed buildings in Hedemora Municipality to Category:Listed buildings in Dalarna County and Category:Buildings and structures in Hedemora
• Propose merging Category:Bridges in Vaxholm Municipality to Category:Bridges in Stockholm County and Category:Vaxholm Municipality

Nominator's rationale: To reduce the number of levels of Category:Buildings and structures in Sweden to Category:Buildings and structures in Sweden by county and Category:Buildings and structures in Sweden by city. The nominated categories are often sparsely populated as most buildings and structures are in a populated place. Category:Buildings and structures in Sweden by city is more developed than this category tree. For the cases of Hedemora and Karlskoga, there would be sufficient amount of articles to create a Category:Buildings and structures in Hedemora and a Category:Buildings and structures in Karlskoga. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peaceray (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support except Category:Churches in Habo Municipality and Category:Churches in Jönköping Municipality which are very well populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 17 June 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:Romanian bullfighters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Romanian bullfighters to Category:Bullfighters
• Propose merging Category:Mozambican bullfighters to Category:Bullfighting in Mozambique and Category:Bullfighters

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. Underpopulated category. ^SMason_Garrison 22:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 17 June 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:Anarchist anthropologists

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 to delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Anarchist anthropologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't see how this intersection with occupation is defining. ^SMason_Garrison 21:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anarchism in this sense is an academic lens. Most of those in this category write about the intersection of anarchism and anthropology.--User:Namiba 14:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But is there something specifcal about this intersection? Why not Anarchist scientists or Anarchist academics? ^SMason_Garrison 22:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If other intersections make sense, go for it. David Graeber is often described as an anarchist anthropologist in reliable sources Politico. Graeber has also published on the subject Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. As has Pierre Clastres [5].--User:Namiba 00:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this is the same reason we have Category:Libertarian historians, Category:Feminist historians, and Category:Marxist historians and so on. These are academic frames as well as political movements.--User:Namiba 14:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Namiba. Made some convincing points. -- Just N. (talk) 09:19, 20 June 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:Serbo-Croatian place names

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Serbo-Croatian place names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Demote to parent category:Serbo-Croatian toponyms, which name is the same only in Latinese. --Altenmann >talk 20:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably merge to category:Serbo-Croatian toponyms, rather than straight delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge conceptually the same here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to category:Serbo-Croatian toponyms per Marcocapelle. -- Just N. (talk) 09:24, 20 June 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:Association football lists by club

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) 02:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by club to Category:Association football club-related lists
• Propose renaming Category:Soccer lists by American club to Category:Lists related to soccer clubs in United States
• Propose renaming Category:Soccer lists by Australian club to Category:Lists related to soccer clubs in Australia
• Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by Brazilian club to Category:Lists related to football clubs in Brazil
• Propose renaming Category:Soccer in Canada lists by club to Category:Lists related to soccer clubs in Canada
• Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by English club to Category:Lists related to football clubs in England
• Propose renaming Category:Football lists by German club to Category:Lists related to football clubs in Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by Indian club to Category:Lists related to football clubs in India
• Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by Italian club to Category:Lists related to football clubs in Italy
• Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by Portuguese club to Category:Lists related to football clubs in Portugal
• Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by Scottish club to Category:Lists related to football clubs in Scotland
• Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by Spanish club to Category:Lists related to football clubs in Spain
• Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by Swedish club to Category:Lists related to football clubs in Sweden
• Propose renaming Category:Association football lists by Uzbekistani club to Category:Lists related to football clubs in Uzbekistan

Nominator's rationale: This would be more in line with names of the parent and children categories: Category:Association football-related lists, Category:Bar FC–related lists, and Category:Association football clubs in Foo, as well as Football in Foo/Soccer in Foo articles and categories. The construction exists in Category:Lists related to counties of England and a few other "more complex construction"-related lists. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:39, 16 June 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:Songs by arranger

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) 02:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Songs by arranger to Category:Song recordings by arranger
• Propose renaming Category:Songs arranged by Tony De Vita to Category:Song recordings arranged by Tony De Vita
• Propose renaming Category:Songs arranged by Augusto Martelli to Category:Song recordings arranged by Augusto Martelli
• Propose renaming Category:Songs arranged by Pino Presti to Category:Song recordings arranged by Pino Presti

Nominator's rationale: Songs are written and sung, but like the production of a song, arrangements can vary based on the performance/recording of the song. This would seem to follow along the same lines as Category:Song recordings by producer. Deletion is also an option as the arrangements or arranger are barely, if at all, mentioned in any of the articles except for a couple by Presti. The producer(s) would seem to be the more defining aspect of such recordings. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:36, 16 June 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:Venues of defunct NCAA bowl games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Venues of defunct NCAA bowl games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 17:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete textbook WP:OCVENUE. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:27, 20 June 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:19th-century American judges by state

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) 02:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:19th-century American judges by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be almost complete overlap with Category:19th-century American state court judges. The only subcategories in here that aren't state court judges are Dakota Territory judges and Oregon Territory judges, which I don't think really belong here anyway. We could rename this category to Category:19th-century American judges by state or territory but given that it almost completely overlaps with another category, I don't think that's necessary. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• These categories should also include 19th and 20th century federal judges assigned to federal districts within the states, and the state court judges should be a subcategory of these. BD2412 T 17:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would agree in principle with BD2412, except Category:Judges of the United States district courts isn't currently diffused by century and doesn't seem to be so large as to need diffusion by century. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pppery: I don't think the category needs to be overpopulated to make it useful to distinguish, e.g., 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st century New York federal judges. BD2412 T 01:18, 25 June 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:Lists of science fiction television characters by series

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 2#Category:Lists of science fiction television characters by series

Lists of places in the United Kingdom

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) 23:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Lists of places in the United Kingdom to Category:United Kingdom geography-related lists
• Propose merging Category:Lists of places in England to Category:England geography-related lists
• Propose merging Category:Lists of places in Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Ireland geography-related lists
• Propose merging Category:Lists of places in Scotland to Category:Scotland geography-related lists
• Propose merging Category:Lists of places in Wales to Category:Wales geography-related lists

Nominator's rationale: merge, unclear distinction between the two levels of categories. Note that places is not populated places, which is a clearly separate topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: Agree these are confusing at first sight, but on examining the England categories there's a pattern. 'Lists of places in England' covers articles about a specific place e.g. List of areas in Birmingham, while the 'geography' category is for less specific concepts e.g. List of Church of England dioceses and List of English districts. Wire723 (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMacks (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:43, 20 June 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:Modules subject to page protection

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 3#Category:Modules subject to page protection

Category:Mongolian politicians by populated place

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mongolian politicians by populated place to Category:Mongolian politicians

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:42, 20 June 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.

Danish sport by year and month

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 as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Danish sport by year and month
• Propose deleting Category:Finnish sport by year and month
• Propose deleting Category:Norwegian sport by year and month
• Propose deleting Category:2021 in Danish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2022 in Danish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2023 in Danish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2024 in Danish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2025 in Danish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2021 in Finnish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2022 in Finnish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2023 in Finnish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2024 in Finnish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2021 in Norwegian sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2022 in Norwegian sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2023 in Norwegian sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2024 in Norwegian sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2025 in Norwegian sport by month
• Propose merging Category:July 1991 sports events in Denmark to Category:1991 in Danish sport, Category:July 1991 in Denmark, and Category:July 1991 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:July 2011 sports events in Denmark to Category:2011 in Danish sport, Category:July 2011 in Denmark, and Category:July 2011 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:June 2011 sports events in Denmark to Category:2011 in Danish sport, Category:June 2011 in Denmark, and Category:June 2011 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2021 sports events in Denmark to Category:2021 in Danish sport, Category:August 2021 in Denmark, and Category:August 2021 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:October 2021 sports events in Denmark to Category:2021 in Danish sport, Category:October 2021 in Denmark, and Category:October 2021 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:September 2021 sports events in Denmark to Category:2021 in Danish sport, Category:September 2021 in Denmark, and Category:September 2021 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2022 sports events in Denmark to Category:2022 in Danish sport, Category:August 2022 in Denmark, and Category:August 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:July 2022 sports events in Denmark to Category:2022 in Danish sport, Category:July 2022 in Denmark, and Category:July 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:June 2022 sports events in Denmark to Category:2022 in Danish sport, Category:June 2022 in Denmark, and Category:June 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:May 2022 sports events in Denmark to Category:2022 in Danish sport, Category:May 2022 in Denmark, and Category:May 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:October 2022 sports events in Denmark to Category:2022 in Danish sport, Category:October 2022 in Denmark, and Category:October 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:September 2022 sports events in Denmark to Category:2022 in Danish sport, Category:September 2022 in Denmark, and Category:September 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2023 sports events in Denmark to Category:2023 in Danish sport, Category:August 2023 in Denmark, and Category:August 2023 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:May 2023 sports events in Denmark to Category:2023 in Danish sport, Category:May 2023 in Denmark, and Category:May 2023 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:September 2023 sports events in Denmark to Category:2023 in Danish sport, Category:September 2023 in Denmark, and Category:September 2023 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2024 sports events in Denmark to Category:2024 in Danish sport, Category:August 2024 in Denmark, and Category:August 2024 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:May 2024 sports events in Denmark to Category:2024 in Danish sport, Category:May 2024 in Denmark, and Category:May 2024 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:September 2024 sports events in Denmark to Category:2024 in Danish sport, Category:September 2024 in Denmark, and Category:September 2024 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:May 2025 sports events in Denmark to Category:2025 in Danish sport, Category:May 2025 in Denmark, and Category:May 2025 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2003 sports events in Finland to Category:2003 in Finnish sport, Category:August 2003 in Finland, and Category:August 2003 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2004 sports events in Finland to Category:2004 in Finnish sport, Category:August 2004 in Finland, and Category:August 2004 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:July 2004 sports events in Finland to Category:2004 in Finnish sport, Category:July 2004 in Finland, and Category:July 2004 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2009 sports events in Finland to Category:2009 in Finnish sport, Category:August 2009 in Finland, and Category:August 2009 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:September 2009 sports events in Finland to Category:2009 in Finnish sport, Category:September 2009 in Finland, and Category:September 2009 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:October 2021 sports events in Finland to Category:2021 in Finnish sport, Category:October 2021 in Finland, and Category:October 2021 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:September 2021 sports events in Finland to Category:2021 in Finnish sport, Category:September 2021 in Finland, and Category:September 2021 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:April 2022 sports events in Finland to Category:2022 in Finnish sport, Category:April 2022 in Finland, and Category:April 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2022 sports events in Finland to Category:2022 in Finnish sport, Category:August 2022 in Finland, and Category:August 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:December 2022 sports events in Finland to Category:2022 in Finnish sport, Category:December 2022 in Finland, and Category:December 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:January 2022 sports events in Finland to Category:2022 in Finnish sport, Category:January 2022 in Finland, and Category:January 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:July 2022 sports events in Finland to Category:2022 in Finnish sport, Category:July 2022 in Finland, and Category:July 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:June 2022 sports events in Finland to Category:2022 in Finnish sport, Category:June 2022 in Finland, and Category:June 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:March 2022 sports events in Finland to Category:2022 in Finnish sport, Category:March 2022 in Finland, and Category:March 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:May 2022 sports events in Finland to Category:2022 in Finnish sport, Category:May 2022 in Finland, and Category:May 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:November 2022 sports events in Finland to Category:2022 in Finnish sport, Category:November 2022 in Finland, and Category:November 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:October 2022 sports events in Finland to Category:2022 in Finnish sport, Category:October 2022 in Finland, and Category:October 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2023 sports events in Finland to Category:2023 in Finnish sport, Category:August 2023 in Finland, and Category:August 2023 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:July 2023 sports events in Finland to Category:2023 in Finnish sport, Category:July 2023 in Finland, and Category:July 2023 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:November 2023 sports events in Finland to Category:2023 in Finnish sport, Category:November 2023 in Finland, and Category:November 2023 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:October 2023 sports events in Finland to Category:2023 in Finnish sport, Category:October 2023 in Finland, and Category:October 2023 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2024 sports events in Finland to Category:2024 in Finnish sport, Category:August 2024 in Finland, and Category:August 2024 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:December 2024 sports events in Finland to Category:2024 in Finnish sport, Category:December 2024 in Finland, and Category:December 2024 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:November 2024 sports events in Finland to Category:2024 in Finnish sport, Category:November 2024 in Finland, and Category:November 2024 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:October 2024 sports events in Finland to Category:2024 in Finnish sport, Category:October 2024 in Finland, and Category:October 2024 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:July 1997 sports events in Norway to Category:1997 in Norwegian sport, Category:July 1997 in Norway, and Category:July 1997 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:June 1997 sports events in Norway to Category:1997 in Norwegian sport, Category:June 1997 in Norway, and Category:June 1997 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:February 2020 sports events in Norway to Category:2020 in Norwegian sport, Category:February 2020 in Norway, and Category:February 2020 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:January 2020 sports events in Norway to Category:2020 in Norwegian sport, Category:January 2020 in Norway, and Category:January 2020 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:March 2020 sports events in Norway to Category:2020 in Norwegian sport, Category:March 2020 in Norway, and Category:March 2020 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2021 sports events in Norway to Category:2021 in Norwegian sport, Category:August 2021 in Norway, and Category:August 2021 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2022 sports events in Norway to Category:2022 in Norwegian sport, Category:August 2022 in Norway, and Category:August 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:February 2022 sports events in Norway to Category:2022 in Norwegian sport, Category:February 2022 in Norway, and Category:February 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:January 2022 sports events in Norway to Category:2022 in Norwegian sport, Category:January 2022 in Norway, and Category:January 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:March 2022 sports events in Norway to Category:2022 in Norwegian sport, Category:March 2022 in Norway, and Category:March 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:May 2022 sports events in Norway to Category:2022 in Norwegian sport, Category:May 2022 in Norway, and Category:May 2022 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:August 2023 sports events in Norway to Category:2023 in Norwegian sport, Category:August 2023 in Norway, and Category:August 2023 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:December 2023 sports events in Norway to Category:2023 in Norwegian sport, Category:December 2023 in Norway, and Category:December 2023 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:May 2023 sports events in Norway to Category:2023 in Norwegian sport, Category:May 2023 in Norway, and Category:May 2023 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:December 2024 sports events in Norway to Category:2024 in Norwegian sport, Category:December 2024 in Norway, and Category:December 2024 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:May 2024 sports events in Norway to Category:2024 in Norwegian sport, Category:May 2024 in Norway, and Category:May 2024 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:February 2025 sports events in Norway to Category:2025 in Norwegian sport, Category:February 2025 in Norway, and Category:February 2025 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:June 2025 sports events in Norway to Category:2025 in Norwegian sport, Category:June 2025 in Norway, and Category:June 2025 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:March 2025 sports events in Norway to Category:2025 in Norwegian sport, Category:March 2025 in Norway, and Category:March 2025 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:May 2025 sports events in Norway to Category:2025 in Norwegian sport, Category:May 2025 in Norway, and Category:May 2025 sports events in Europe
• Propose deleting Category:2003 in Finnish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2004 in Finnish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2009 in Finnish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2018 in Finnish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2019 in Finnish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2020 in Finnish sport by month
• Propose deleting Category:2020 in Norwegian sport by month
• Propose merging Category:August 2019 sports events in Finland to Category:2019 in Finnish sport, Category:August 2019 in Finland, and Category:August 2019 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:December 2019 sports events in Finland to Category:2019 in Finnish sport, Category:December 2019 in Finland, and Category:December 2019 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:February 2020 sports events in Finland to Category:2020 in Finnish sport, Category:February 2020 in Finland, and Category:February 2020 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:January 2020 sports events in Finland to Category:2020 in Finnish sport, Category:January 2020 in Finland, and Category:January 2020 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:July 2009 sports events in Finland to Category:2009 in Finnish sport, Category:July 2009 in Finland, and Category:July 2009 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:July 2018 sports events in Finland to Category:2018 in Finnish sport, Category:July 2018 in Finland, and Category:July 2018 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:July 2019 sports events in Finland to Category:2019 in Finnish sport, Category:July 2019 in Finland, and Category:July 2019 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:June 2018 sports events in Finland to Category:2018 in Finnish sport, Category:June 2018 in Finland, and Category:June 2018 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:November 2018 sports events in Finland to Category:2018 in Finnish sport, Category:November 2018 in Finland, and Category:November 2018 sports events in Europe
• Propose merging Category:September 2020 sports events in Norway to Category:2020 in Norwegian sport, Category:September 2020 in Norway, and Category:September 2020 sports events in Europe

Nominator's rationale: Overly detailed categorisation for countries of this size (amount of articles). There are some months with 5–6 entries but the majority are 1–2 entries and only for some months of a year. There are seldom more than ten articles per year and country. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 27#Category:Swedish sport by year and month. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose : as they are all part of a series; most of them will contain at least four items per year, and some of which are in either the category for “Months in XXXX or not in the appropriate sports category by month for XXXX. Hence “2022 in Finnish sport” contains ten months with “2023 in Finnish sport”, “2024 in Finnish sport” and “2025 in Finnish sport” already containing 4 items per month. Generally “2021 in XXXsh sport” and “2025 in XXsh sport” will contain fewer items because of Covid (2021) and being a current year (2025). Several categories contain more than one item eg "Category:July 2022 sports events in Finland" and "Category:November 2022 sports events in Finland" contain six items each. Hugo999 (talk) 10:07, 20 June 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 Takahama, Aichi

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 3#Category:People from Takahama, Aichi

Category:Afghan pediatricians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Afghan pediatricians to Category:Pediatricians

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with: Category:Afghan physicians.

Also nominating for merge:

• Category:Albanian pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Albanian physicians
• Category:Argentine pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Argentine physicians
• Category:Bhutanese pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Bhutanese physicians
• Category:Burkinabe pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Burkinabe physicians
• Category:Emirati pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Emirati physicians
• Category:Fijian pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Fijian medical doctors
• Category:Gabonese pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Gabonese physicians
• Category:Pediatricians from Georgia (country) with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Physicians from Georgia (country)
• Category:Guatemalan pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Guatemalan physicians
• Category:Honduran pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Honduran physicians
• Category:Jordanian pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Jordanian physicians
• Category:Kosovan pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Kosovan physicians
• Category:Macedonian pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Macedonian physicians
• Category:Malawian pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Malawian medical doctors
• Category:Maltese paediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Maltese physicians
• Category:Moldovan pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Moldovan physicians
• Category:Mozambican pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Mozambican physicians
• Category:Peruvian pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Peruvian physicians
• Category:Portuguese pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Portuguese physicians
• Category:Salvadoran pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Salvadoran physicians
• Category:Sudanese pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Sudanese physicians
• Category:Taiwanese pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Taiwanese physicians
• Category:Thai pediatricians with Category:Pediatricians and Category:Thai physicians LibStar (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:42, 20 June 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:Pentecostalism and society

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Pentecostalism and society to Category:Pentecostalism

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer ^SMason_Garrison 04:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I added two more subcategories in it, but I am not opposing the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:41, 20 June 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:Female Bible translators

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Female Bible translators to Category:Female biblical scholars and Category:Bible translators

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection. Upmerge ^SMason_Garrison 03:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge per nom, but the merge to Category:Bible translators needs to take place manually: most articles are already in some other subcategory of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:40, 20 June 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:Contributors to the Anchor Bible Series

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Contributors to the Anchor Bible Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining ^SMason_Garrison 03:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, having them in the tree of Category:Biblical scholars suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have added both to Category:20th-century biblical scholars. – Fayenatic London 21:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:35, 20 June 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:10th-century hymnwriters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:10th-century hymnwriters to Category:10th-century composers

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Upmerge for now. ^SMason_Garrison 03:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I have added the article to Category:Christian hymnwriters so a dual merge is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as the member page is already in other "writer" categories. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Just N. (talk) 09:40, 20 June 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:Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (Jordan)

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 both * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (Jordan) to Category:Ministry of Planning (Jordan)

Nominator's rationale: these categories are overlapping and very underpopulated. I think that they should be merged. ^SMason_Garrison 04:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have tagged the target too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete's fine with me as well. ^SMason_Garrison 03:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per M. -- Just N. (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both LibStar (talk) 11:47, 22 June 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:Organizations by year of reestablishment

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 delete parents * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Organizations by year of reestablishment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Organizations reestablished in 1942 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Military units and formations reestablished in 1942 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Organizations reestablished in 1949 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT Recently created category with few contents. Gjs238 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete including subcategories per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding the subcats. Also note that the 1942 categories were created by a sockpuppet so can technically be speedy deleted under G5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Military units and formations established in 1942 and Category:Entertainment companies established in 1949, delete parents. Where entities are reestablished, we regularly give them two dates of "establishment". – Fayenatic London 20:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Fayenatic. -- Just N. (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete parents per Fayenatic. Gjs238 (talk) 02:37, 21 June 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.