Back

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions

This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot.

June 21

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: C2B WP:CATNATION. Nicholas0 (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century Spanish Jews

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, Spain did not exist yet and "Sephardi" already covers the fact that it is on the Iberian Peninsula. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean opposed. This category helps with navigation. 14th-century Spanish people is a category as is 15th-century Spanish people SMasonGarrison 14:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct towns in Russia

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category is a mixture of two completely different entities. One is something that is not a inhabited settlement anymore, sometimes actually ruins. The other is something that used to be a city, but has now been downgraded to a village or hamlet. For the former, we already have a meta Category:Ghost towns by country. The second category can be linked to ru:Категория:Населённые пункты России, утратившие статус города - it has a lot of content, as this is quite a common case in the USSR and Russia. Solidest (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former cities in Russia

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In Russia, there is no distinction between cities and towns. The inclusion criteria have long specified that the category includes both cities and towns, and it is also a subcategory of Category:Cities and towns in Russia. And almost all of the contents of the category cannot be called cities either - they are mainly towns or even smaller settlements (urban-type settlement). Solidest (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although, as far as I can see, in addition to Category:Former cities, there is also Category:Former towns. At the same time, the "cities" branch is rather disorganised, and many of the articles are actually about places referred to as "former towns". Therefore, it may be reasonable to rename both branches to "cities and towns" and merge them. However, unlike the situation in Russia, I am not sure how significant the distinction between a city and a town is (in the context of becoming "former") in other countries. Therefore, I am nominating only Russia here. Solidest (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You rightly noted that there is no city/town distinction on Russia. Instead, all other category/article titles, such as List of cities and towns in Russia by population must be renamed, because this "c & t" naming creates misinformation, suggesting that there are cities and towns in Russia. --Altenmann >talk 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed into what? "cities or towns"? cities? towns? I don't think this creates misinformation, since in reality some places are technically could be called cities and others are smaller towns, both words are still relevant in English. But we cannot make the distinction for each case as it would be OR. And the "cities and towns" wording is still widely used in similar cases, where the local language does not distinguish between terms. But if we had to choose, town would probably be more appropriate in this case. Solidest (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you are saying that it includes urban-type settlements, then the proper name is category:Former urban localities in Russia. --Altenmann >talk 21:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Urban localities" is too vague and unclear a term. It is more likely to refer specifically to "urban-type settlements" – which populated places often turn into when they lose city/town status. Therefore, it won't work. Solidest (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

Category:Former AT&T subsidiaries

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former PepsiCo subsidiaries

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Rio Tinto (corporation) subsidiaries

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former CBS Corporation subsidiaries

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Paramount Global subsidiaries

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former General Motors subsidiaries

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former TelevisaUnivision subsidiaries

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF; per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 23#Category:Former subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volleyball players from Ehime Prefecture

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Kiyosu

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category with just three entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intercontinental relations

[edit]

Nominator's rationale Misbegotten tree, forming unavoidable category loops of the form "Africa -> Foreign relations of Africa -> Africa and other continents -> Afro-Asia -> Africa". More generally these are too loosely related and/or contain too little content to support a category, and invert the standard categorization logic by making broad topics subcats of narrower ones. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems, generally speaking, to be the right way to make such categories. It is similar to the logic behind categories for relations between countries i.e. (skipping a few intermediate steps) "Country A -> Foreign relations of Country A -> Bilateral relations of Country A -> Country A–Country B relations". In the cases where there is a category loop or too little content, it may be possible to fix those through editing rather than deletion. GreekApple123 (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "Eurasia" is a thing, but other than that the categories mainly contains relations between countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many forums of international relations between countries and peoples located on various continents. However, organizing them by continent is only one out of many ways to describe and/or sort these relations, and a rather arbitray one. Place Clichy (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

Category:People on stamps

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These categories contain primarily articles on stamps, not articles on people. This reinstates the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Category:People on postage stamps, which was undone by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_21#"(Artworks/Art)_depicting_(subject)" without sufficient consideration. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish deaths at the Battle of Falkirk

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to limit this to Scottish people. (I'm not opposed to deletion, but at the very least I think that category needs to be renamed) SMasonGarrison 02:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle and PatGallacher: added to nom SMasonGarrison 20:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophers by X subfield and Y nationality

[edit]

List of Nominations
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCLOCATION, not a useful distinguishing trait for philosophy subspecialities, because philosophy is internationally collaborative Psychastes (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Ethicists and Category:Logicians and the associated subcategories have been deliberately excluded because those can be considered an "occupation" in addition to a subfield of philosophy. Psychastes (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suspect that these were created to "split" categories that had become too large. However, I wish that the editors who made these would exercise more discretion doing this in the future, because in this scenario, splitting the category by such a trivial distinction has only made it *more* difficult to determine which pages need diffusion to a category that actually tells us anything useful. Psychastes (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Virtually all of these parent categories also need to be purged, as a result of a persistent vandal who spent the last seven years adding a bunch of ridiculous, inaccurate, and vague categories to philosopher articles. Most of them probably won't be overpopulated when the disruptive WP:OVERCAT is fully purged. I am nominating these all now because I *will* likely inadvertently empty several of them cleaning up this mess. Psychastes (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A dual merge to subcategories of Category:Philosophers by nationality is also almost certainly a bad idea, because the vast majority of these pages are also categorized by Category:Philosophers by nationality and century Psychastes (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Location is defining in its own right" is not the only legitimate grounds for location subcategories — even WP:OCLOCATION explicitly states that location can be used to diffuse an overly-large parent category. These category trees each have thousands of articles across each set of siblings — but that's far, far too large to be useful as one single undifferentiated megacategory, which is precisely why they're diffused by nationality.
    Additionally, OCLOCATION doesn't even preclude subcategorizing things by nationality in the first place — it only speaks to whether Category:American political philosophers would need to be subbed out for state or city, such as "Political philosophers from Missouri" or "Political philosophers from Chicago", and says absolutely nothing whatsoever to tamp down the legitimacy of the basic country level of categorization, so it doesn't even suggest what the nominator is claiming it suggests in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reconsider, this is genuinely making it more difficult to actually categorize these philosophers correctly. there is no meaningful distinction between an "australian" and an "american" and a "british" philosopher of mind, having them all siloed by country just makes the encyclopedia harder to use. Psychastes (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not making anything more difficult at all. It makes the category system easier to navigate and maintain when the categories are small and manageable rather than being unbrowsably massive. And nationality is a useful grouping when it comes to this: for instance, I can absolutely be looking specifically for Canadian political philosophers, and thus need to find George Grant and John Ralston Saul and Charles Taylor and Naomi Klein and George Woodcock, without needing to be distracted by Hannah Arendt or Edmund Burke or W.E.B. DuBois, because I can absolutely have a need to specifically research Canadian political literature rather than the entire worldwide history of political thought. If and when I do need to see other political philosophers from other countries, I can easily navigate my way to that other country's category — but I can absolutely have a need to research and delve into one specific country's literary and intellectual tradition on its own, which I can't do if all political philosophers are grouped together into one unbrowsably massive megacategory instead of country-specific subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please see my comment about WP:OVERCAT - none of these categories have "thousands" of articles diffused across them to begin with, and most of the categorizations are spurious, but I don't think a single one crosses 1000 even ignoring that. Psychastes (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly don't misquote me. I didn't say that any one of these categories has over a thousand articles in it individually — I said that the trees have over a thousand articles under them collectively. If you upmerged all of the "political philosophers" categories here to Category:Political philosophers without differentiation, for instance, then that category would have over a thousand articles in it, because the number of articles collectively filed across all of the subcategories adds up to over a thousand articles — the fact that the country-level categories exist to subdivide the parent category is the reason why the categories are individually smaller, not any sort of contradiction to what I said. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also it strains credulity to suggest that anyone using the encyclopedia cares about whether a political philosopher is specifically from Missouri, please do not make categories like this Psychastes (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely what OCLOCATION says, because it's what OCLOCATION is about. That's precisely the point I was trying to make: that OCLOCATION militates against that, and does not militate against this. OCLOCATION says we shouldn't subdivide a country-level category into state-level or city-level categories willy-nilly, and does not say that we can't subdivide anything into country-level categories in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is not fully international per se, it is very well imaginable that e.g. French or German philosophers know much better what is written in their own language and build further on that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The differenciation might be less significant today in the West, but having Dugin as a Russian political philosopher or any of the Enlightenment guys listed as French, German or English is quite important given these people respective political contexts at the time: they did not philosoph out of a vacuum. Superboilles (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cui Jian

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Minimal content to have an eponymous category; subcats sufficiently link to and from one another. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more content to this category. SKBNK (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this category already has sufficient content. SKBNK (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anticonvulsant stubs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This stub category has less than 60 mainspace articles in it - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all, as it is best for stub templates and categories to be as specific as possible. Element10101 AIW WPI TOLT ~ C 21:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proslavery activists

[edit]

Option A
Nominator's rationale: rename aligning with the category description on the category pages. Most people in these categories were not an activist.
Option B: delete all per WP:OPINIONCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Television series about serial killers categories

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The television series contained within Category:Television series about fictional serial killers outnumber the series contained in the main Television series about serial killers category, evidencing that there are more television series about fictional serial killers than real ones. The shows in question are not defined by being about fictional serial killers. It would be more helpful, per WP:NONDEFINING, to diffuse the category in the inverse direction. As such I propose that the articles contained in Category:Television series about serial killers be recategorized to Category:Television series about real serial killers, while Category:Television series about fictional serial killers should be moved to Category:Television series about serial killers, and then Category:Television series about real serial killers should be made a subcategory of Category:Television series about serial killers.
Additionally, this would be consistent with the convention used within Category:Serial killer films, which has Category:Films about real serial killers as a subcategory.
See also the related nomination for Category:Works about fictional serial killers. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motile cells

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Motile is a synonym of "having movement". 174.138.213.2 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Executioners by nationality

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one of two articles in each of these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Early colonists in America

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, "early" is quite vague and in practice this category has been populated with 17th-century people, which makes the two categories coincide in purpose. One may wonder if the name of the target is well chosen, but let's leave that for a different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lampriformes stubs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Lampriformes; there are only 30 mainspace articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Four categories are being proposed for merger into the parent category. Any one of them would be fine, but any combination of two would trip the parent over 200 articles in the category. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galaxiidae stubs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Galaxiidae; there are only 38 articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Four categories are being proposed for merger into the parent category. Any one of them would be fine, but any combination of two would trip the parent over 200 articles in the category. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Osmeriformes stubs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Osmeriformes, as there are only 26 articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Four categories are being proposed for merger into the parent category. Any one of them would be fine, but any combination of two would trip the parent over 200 articles in the category. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Synbranchiformes stubs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Should also be merged into Synbranchiformes; there are less than 60 mainspace articles in this stub category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Four categories are being proposed for merger into the parent category. Any one of them would be fine, but any combination of two would trip the parent over 200 articles in the category. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish-American gangs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Functionally the same as Category:Jewish-American organized crime, which is associated with the topic's main article Jewish-American organized crime and includes coverage of gangs (including subcat Category: Jewish American gangsters]] Longhornsg (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not change Looking at the gang parent categories and the organized crime parent categories finds they are different in general, and the Jewish categories are no different than the rest of ethnic categories here. Looking at the child categories and articles here just confirms this. No special treatment is warranted here. Hmains (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is "special treatment"? How are the two categories different? Longhornsg (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the special treatment is that it would then fit into the current gang parent category: Category:European-American gangs and its parents. This is about gangs and it belongs into the gangs category tree. Thanks Hmains (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athletes by country subdivision

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded one-item category * Pppery * it has begun... 01:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judaic studies

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Match the main article Jewish studies. Jewish studies, not Judaic studies, is the preferred academic name for this field, see for example UCL Institute of Jewish Studies, British Association for Jewish Studies, AAJR uses "Jewish studies", Association for Jewish Studies, World Congress of Jewish Studies. Longhornsg (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Struthio

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I have no idea what is the difference between struthio and ostriches and which way to merge, but now the categorization is absolutely random. --Altenmann >talk 09:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As there are 4 "Public Research Organisations" in New Zealand, the category will at most contain 4 articles plus 1 eponymous one, only 2 of which currently exist. Gjs238 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about the discussion @Gjs238. I'm not wedded to having the category but I made it because we have one for Crown Research Institutes, which are being replaced by PROs. The research institutes category contains a number of different types of organisation - individual labs, institutes at universities, CRIs and PROs, which I think is quite messy and difficult to navigate if you don't already know what these things are (there's also a lot of existing and historical orgs with Wp pages missing from the category, which I've put on my to do list to address). So having a subcat for the things we can cleanly delineate (like CRIs and PROs) made sense to me.
Also noting that three PROs currently exist - the third is being rebranded from a reorganised Institute of Environmental Science and Research. I hadn't added the category to that page yet as I was hoping for more info to come out that would help me decide if it should be dealt with as a section on the existing page, or if the reorganisation is drastic enough to merit a new organisational page (I've added the cat now, though, for what it's worth). We know at the moment that this current government plans four PROs but there is no reason to suspect that the number wouldn't change in the future.
I don't hang out in category discussions much so will leave the decision up to you, but thought these considerations might be useful. For future reference, what's the minimum number of pages for a viable category? DrThneed (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input on the "mutliple merge" proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly from Crown Research Institute, Crown Research Institutes are soon to become Public Research Organisations.
If correct, perhaps it is best to wait for this change, then merge Category:Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand into Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand.
Gjs238 (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you merge them, what are you calling the category? The pages will not all be Crown Research Institutes or all Public Research Organisations but a mixture, so neither name works. (@Nurg and I already discussed this above and came up with a suggestion if you'd like to refer to that?) DrThneed (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand contains articles about Public Research Organisations in New Zealand...
and the former are soon to be renamed the latter...
then should we not be left with 1 category, Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand containing articles about Public Research Organisations in New Zealand? Gjs238 (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

Category:State elections

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, aligning with parent Category:Politics of country subdivisions, a more general name because not in every country a subdivision is called "state". Marcocapelle (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an interesting proposal. To me the word subdivision does not only mean state, it can mean anything on a local level. I think state elections refer to Category:State politics. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think subdivisions include a lot more than just "States", so the separation is valid. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of creating a separate category -Samoht27 (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So am I. Moondragon21 (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposal to create a new category instead of renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A new category is a good idea. Perhaps Category:Elections in country subdivisions could include Category:Local and municipal elections and Category:State elections. Moondragon21 (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for further comment on rename vs. creating a new category. If no further comment, consensus to rename is likely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Aren't big church, union or sports associations councils also elections by country subdivisions? The only legitimate contents of such a category are indeed state subdivisions (e.g. Counties, Cities, sub States like California). -- Just N. (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Justus Nussbaum: no, church, union or sports associations councils aren't also country subdivisions. Proper country subdivisions are states (e.g. US, Germany), provinces (e.g. China, Netherlands), prefectures (Japan), etc. Why would we need to take states apart from provinces and prefectures? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Digital Literacy

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. Delete or merge. Gjs238 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-fiction books by Jilly Cooper

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-fiction books just go in the "books by" category, no need to have a subcat --woodensuperman 15:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communications authorities

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Clearer name.

Some things thrown in here are like government 'propaganda' media company regulators but if it's like telecom regulators or cable company regulators that should be 'Electronic communications authorities'. CaribDigita (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't it become Category:Telecommunication authorities, similar to Category:Telecommunication? Marcocapelle (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am actually seeking comment for proposing that get renamed also to "Cat:Electronic Communications" as well to get rid of this arbitrary weirdness of some- countries being "Cat:Communications in (country name)" while others are "Cat:Telecommunications in (country name). 1) Example: :Category:Telecommunications in the United Kingdom but then if you look inside the Pacific bloc. Everything inside Category:Communications in Oceania by territory or dependency is filed under ":Category:Communications in (country name)". This could all be flattened to a single tree of "Electronic Communications in (blank)" some countries have no "telecommunications" networks - Some have ripped all there legacy telecommunications networks out and now only have electronic "Communications" networks left. "Telecommunications" is archaic. Today, the true legacy phone ("telecommunications") companies like AT&T are ripping out their own PTSN networks and replacing it with the same fiberoptics and copper like cable companies. Or Fiber directly to premises. And further the legacy cable companies, now sell digital broadband phone services too. Meaning traditional phone companies now sell TV, and traditional tv providers now sell phone. They're all electronic communications companies now regardless of their history. And the lines are bluring. Companies like Meta/Facebook are now launching fiberopitics cables across the seabed but they aren't "Telecoms" in the true sense of the word. CaribDigita (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would/should be a redirect right now because there's no reason to have both "Telecommuncations" & "electronic communications". But there's two categories still. That's the point I am making about the current category space there should just be one common one. Also "Amateur Ham Radio" can be under the Electronic Communications umbrella/ whereas it doesn't technically fall under "Telecommunications". Same for all satellites. Also Aircraft /airport homing beacons.. Some satellites are for example are ONLY weather satellites or other earth monitoring and don't do "telecommunications" (i.e. GPS only transmits- it's not designed to be a lot of two-way telecommunications) but all that could could fit under a neater sub-"Cat:Electronic communications".

  • Further comment:
  • Part of what I am envisioning in the grand scheme is flatten all of this into Electronic Communications.
    Then underneath you can have electronic communications by type:
    • Cat:Radio broadcasting(radiostations)
    • Cat:Television broadcasting(television stations)
    • Cat:Wireless/mobile providers
    • Cat:WANs / LANs (notable ones)
    • Cat:SONETS
    Also "Cat:Electronic communications standards by name": 802.11x, GSM, CDMA, Bluetooth, etc.
    "Cat: Electronic communications equipment manufacturers by type":
    • Telecom: Polycom, Nokia, Ericsson, etc.
    • Network and Switching equipment > Wireless Routers, Mobile phone towers, SONET, Wi-FI, etc.
    • Electronic communications regulators. i.e. FCC, OFCOM, etc.
    • Electronic communications standards consortia: Bell Labs, Cable Labs, EU's GSMArena, etc.
    A complete and total refresh and neatening up of everything electronic communications in essence. I am hoping it might revive new spirit to clean up and edit under this topic. CaribDigita (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situation in category space isn't much different from article space, we have:
Everything that does not fit Telecommunications can stay in Communication. If you want to create Category:Telecommunications authorities under Category:Communications authorities just go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 22:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primitive painters

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: these seem to be overlapping. SMasonGarrison 13:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Naïve art and Primitivism explain, they are not the same. Naïve is art produced by untrained artists. Primitivism is trained artists imitating the style of naïve art or idealizing and aestheticizing Primitive art. --Jahaza (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Jahaza's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 22:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works set in cities

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent to the Works tree. Normally "in fiction" categories contain "works set in", "fictional people" and "fictional locations". But in the above cases there are only works. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One obvious problem with the proposed names: some of the items in these categories are not "set in" the places, but merely filmed there, with the locations standing in for somewhere else (real or fictional). Petra stands out as a perfect example of a place that is frequently used as a backdrop not as Petra, but as an imaginary location that may or may not be more clearly named or described. The problem, then, is what to name the category. "Depictions of" or "Portrayals of" might be problematic where a location isn't meant to represent itself; i.e. Toronto used to represent Metropolis, a London neighborhood used to depict nineteenth-century Dublin, etc. (although between the two, "depictions of" sounds less problematic because the actual place is "depicted" in a sense, even if it's standing in for somewhere else; I think that "portrayed" might also be capable of that meaning, but it seems less intuitive).
Perhaps "Fooburg in film and television" as a subcategory of "Fooburg in media" or "Fooburg in fiction"? But those categories wouldn't be limited to "fictional" appearances. Not sure that matters as a subcategory as long as some of the entries are fictional (whether or not they're intended to represent Fooburg—the defining criterion would be that it's in fiction). I note that written works shouldn't have this issue: they don't need to use one location to stand in for another; even in media such as graphic novels or comic books, the artist can draw the correct location or a completely original one (though photonovels of visual media using a stand-in location would be an exception). P Aculeius (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This problem can be resolved easily by purging article Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen from Category:Petra in fiction. The article is in a ridiculous number of "shot in" categories anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That presumes that only one place is or is likely to be categorized based on its appearance as a different or generic location, and that it will only occur once... I'm reasonably certain that Petra has been used many times in various works of significance without any intention of it representing Petra. And so have many other places that might be identifiable to persons familiar with the backdrops, though not to general audiences.
    Purging a category of items in order to justify renaming it seems counterintuitive; it's not renaming, but changing the scope of the category. In this case categories intended to include depictions of places in fictional works would be expanded to include non-fiction, but at the same time restricted to exclude works that depict the place as a stand-in for somewhere else. So a painting of Tangier would be included, but a movie shot in Tangier but set in Baghdad or Marrakesh would not.
    The proposal seems to proceed from the fact that "Fooburg in fiction" doesn't include "fictional people" or "fictional locations", but just "works". Obviously we wouldn't expect real places to include "people" or "fictional locations" as subcategories—there might be exceptions—but the lack of certain subcategories doesn't seem to justify changing their scope so that they can't include things they normally would, but ought to include many things that they currently should not. P Aculeius (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking further comment to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal holidays

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant as we already have Category:January observances until Category:December observances. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many holidays or festivals are tied to the time of the year, not a particular calendar month. Think of lunar holidays, they aren't tied to any specific month in a calendar year and that is only one example. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pppery: if that were the case a split between Northern and Southern Hemisphere would not be needed. But in fact I do not see any articles that fit summer holidays in both hemispheres. The holidays are simply defined by a date (on any calendar). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 22:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Skyscraper hotels by country and city

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need for all these layers as Category:Skyscraper hotels in China et cetera are almost completely empty on categories. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

Medieval Romanian nobility

[edit]

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]
"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]
  • 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]

Category:Works about fictional serial killers

[edit]

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]
  • 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.
    • 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]

Category:Association football lists by club

[edit]

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]

Category:Songs by arranger

[edit]

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. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century American judges by state

[edit]

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]

Category:Lists of science fiction television characters by series

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: They seem to perform the same function --woodensuperman 15:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of places in the United Kingdom

[edit]

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]

Category:Modules subject to page protection

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I have always felt that this is a redundant category exclusively used in {{module rating}} and that this category probably is better off merged. If one needs to truly get a list of all protected modules this exists. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 14:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danish sport by year and month

[edit]

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]
  • 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]

Category:People from Takahama, Aichi

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

Category:People on Irish postage stamps

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Being on a postage stamp is not a defining characteristic. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Hi @Kaffet i halsen: I created the category but I don't understand your rationale. Can you explain, please, what you mean by "defining characteristic"? By my reading, when someone features on a postage stamp, that indeed is a defining characteristic.
Or, to put the question by comparison, how do you think this category is less defining or less important or less useful than such categories as these, for example?
Category: Burials at Montparnasse Cemetery
Category: Deaths from emphysema
Category: Deaths from ulcers:: Category: Expatriates in Croatia
Category: Eyepatch wearers
Category: Irish former Christians
Category: Stabbing survivors
Category: Writers of pessimistic fiction
How is wearing an eyepatch or dying of an ulcer more "defining" than being honoured by a nation's postage stamp? Thank you. Spideog (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having". Reliable, secondary sources would commonly and consistently mention that a person was buried a Montparnasse Cemetery. Meanwhile, the article John F. Kennedy doesn't mention Kennedy is on an Irish postage stamp. That there are 43 lists of people on postage stamps and not 43 categories with people on postage stamp is perfectly valid as a list is a better way of conveying this information. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the expats category, I'd !vote to get rid of all your examples. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS especially with the tons non-defining categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:. I noticed this category earlier today because it got added to one of the articles I work on occasionally: Oliver Goldsmith. It seemed interesting and valuable to me to know that he got that nod from the Irish authorities who decide on such things, and it also seems interesting and noteworthy to see who else got that honor. I like this category. I realize the fact that I personally like it may not be all that important in the overall Wikipedia scheme of things, but I do thing it is interesting and valuable. Novellasyes (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. None of these people is particularly known for being on a stamp. By all means create lists instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others, this is interesting and noteworthy information and it's a common category. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's review WP:NONDEF: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place." This is not a defining category for John F. Kennedy, because reliable sources almost never mention it when talking about him. I can see how it might be defining for some people, mainly those whose principal claim to fame is that they were on an Irish postage stamp.
So I'm OK with all you philatelists wanting to have and use this category, but I reserve the right to remove it from some articles, even if the person involved seems to fit the category. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to ask, then, why we have the likes of the various religious categories, when WP:CAT/R and WP:BLPCAT aren't widely enforced? Category:American (or English, or French, or...) person who had a priest sprinkle water on their head when they were a baby and had no say in the matter and who haven't really mentioned their religion, if any, anywhere, since is also not a defining category, but it seems to be in absolutely widespread use. There are many more similar examples. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with that content area, but as I say to anyone who poses WP:OSE-type questions like this - who's to say those are correct either? Do we know those would survive their own deletion discussion? Or if they have survived a deletion discussion, then what were the reasons presented there? Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting myself, off topic
I attribute a lot of the biography category issues (excluding BLPs) to over-reliance on obituaries. I've written maybe half a dozen for my family all of which identified their religion, even if they weren't practicing, and they were printed in otherwise reliable American newspapers with no disclosure that a family member wrote them. Even with obits written by a reporter with a byline the cultural expectation is to be super gentle, with occasional exceptions. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Philately to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spideog (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Ireland to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spideog (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, @Novellasyes:. You articulated the supporting case for this category, viewed from the WikiProject Philately perspective, more incisively than I did. The point of this category is best appreciated from the perspective of that project rather than appraising it from the viewpoint of biographical articles. Prior comments raising the question of "defining characteristic" seem to have minimised the utility and legitimacy of the category under discussion based on a lack of appreciation of the category's legitimacy within WikiProject Philately.
I had hoped that members of WikiProject Philately would become aware of this discussion and contribute from that project's perspective, but my attempt to call their attention to the conversation has failed; it seems the project Talk page is not checked often by project participants. Spideog (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

Years in the 19th century in pre-existing Romania

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge to decade categories, mostly single-article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just notice that the previous years and decades had been nominated for deletion and sometimes already deleted, I wasn't informed despite having created a number of these. Anyway, these are as always really helpful for navigation and there is no reason to get rid of them. Adding more articles to them instead would be more helpful. I'll repopulate some of the deleted ones as well, no good reason to dismantle this. This crusade against all these history categories should really stop, it has been going on for years and now apparently more sneaky than ever. E.g Category:1817 establishments in Romania was created by me, but Marcocapelle didn't even have the basic decency to drop me a note about them.
Speedy keep and trout the nominator please. Fram (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that, as is sadly usual with these kind of nominations, they only look at the current state, not at the potential. Often new articles can quite easily be added to these cats, and the gaps between them can partially or completely be filled as well. These cats are not by definition limited to what is now in them, but have potential. Fram (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's where something like WP:MFN comes in. They can be re-created if there are enough articles to justify splitting the decade categories into individual years, but for now there's no need to do so. I'd argue the current categories are actually less helpful for navigation, because instead of going to "1850s establishments in Romania" and seeing all the relevant pages, you have to open each of the individual year categories to see the articles within. – numbermaniac 15:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, WP:OCYEAR: "However, avoid creating a category tree of individual by year categories with very few members (see also #NARROW). In that situation, consider grouping them by the next tier up." Kaffet i halsen (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But these are also part of e.g. Category:1834 establishments by country, which is a pretty wide tree where it makes no sense to remove (or regroup) the countries with so far fewer entries. It's easy to navigate and at the same time indicates biases or gaps (e.g. in this case Romania, large country, long chequered history, but fewer entries than might be expected; partially because articles have not been properly categorized, partly because we lack many articles on notable Romanian buildings, companies, groups, ...). Fram (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Having a whole series of WP:NARROWCAT subcategories does not aid navigation and the phrase "growth potential" is no longer a part of WP:OC, by consensus. No objection to later recreation though if the actual article count grows substantially, per WP:MFN. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

Category:Pages using infobox deity with color param

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: dose not track anything useful PharaohCrab (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be in use behind the scenes. ("This is a tracking category. It is used to build and maintain a list or lists of pages—primarily for the sake of the lists themselves and their use in article and category maintenance. It is not part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme.") --Northernhenge (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there are 65 articles in the category - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Craven District

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The local government “district” has been abolished. The geographic/cultural area is ancient (see Craven in the Domesday Book) so membership of the category still has significance. I was going to suggest Craven, England but – given the existence of other Cravens in England, I’m suggesting Craven, Yorkshire (even though historically it extended beyond the county boundary). Northernhenge (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents by continent

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

Category:Rouen geography stubs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I found this French arrondissement geography stub category that don't have the word "arrondissement" in there. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:04, 18 May 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... 16:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It, and the two following nominations, refers to the arrondissements in the article Arrondissements of the Seine-Maritime department, and not only the cities themselves – a larger area than the category and eponymous article refer to. It would be more cohesive to rename it (and probably all other arrondissements) to Category:Arrondissement of Rouen geography stubs et cetera after the articles (Arrondissement of Rouen) and remove the three from Category:Rouen, Category:Le Havre, Category:Dieppe (these are the only three, at least in Normandy, that are put into the city category). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Le Havre geography stubs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I found this French arrondissement geography stub category that don't have the word "arrondissement" in there. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:04, 18 May 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... 16:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dieppe geography stubs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I found this French arrondissement geography stub category that don't have the word "arrondissement" in there. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:02, 18 May 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... 16:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the page above is empty, the Lua module has exceeded the post-expand include size limit due to mass nominations or too many open discussions. In this case, you can still see all the open discussions as a list of links from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions; assistance closing discussions would be appreciated.

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search