WP:CFD/T

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page

Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or to be created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy category at the bottom.
Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_August_6

August 6

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Fictional female sex workers

Propose merging Category:Fictional female sex workers to Category:Fictional sex workers

Nominator's rationale: Made by a disruptive user obsessed with making gender/occupation combinations, and it's not clear how this particular combination is defining in fiction at all. I think we're good with just the occupation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Army Air Forces officer trainees

Propose merging Category:United States Army Air Forces officer trainees to Category:United States Army Air Forces personnel

Nominator's rationale: Non defining category. These are effectively people who didn't become officers Mason (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they served in the Army Air Forces, but were neither officers nor enlisted. The recommended parent cat is essentially a container cat with subcats only. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review what defining mean. @FieldMarine (It'll help you make better counter arguments). They may indeed be United States Army Air Forces officer trainees (a.k.a. neither officers nor enlisted), but that's not how these people are regularly described. Mason (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They cat description summarizes what the cat represents, and that is reflected in how they are described in the articles with the cat. There are many types of officer trainees depending on what program of entry they sign up for (ROTC, OCS, Aviation Cadet, etc.) but as a whole, the group is a distinct classification in the U.S. military. Of note, in the case of Aviation Cadet, they often held the rank for extended period of time, as did Midshipmen in the Navy. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Template:Category diffuse does not intend to fully prohibit articles directly in the category. A few exceptions is ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Breeds originating from Indigenous people

Propose renaming Category:Breeds originating from Indigenous people to Category:Mammal breeds originating from Indigenous people

Nominator's rationale: rename for clarification. Also, I have just added this to the tree of Category:Mammal breeds. An alternative could be to upmerge the category to Category:Mammal breeds and Category:Indigenous culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. What about Breeds/Mammal breeds domesticated by Indigenous people? The current name and the proposal both sound really awkward to me. Mason (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mammal breeds domesticated by Indigenous peoples – "peoples" plural per the article title Indigenous peoples. Ham II (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with "peoples". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kevin Costner albums

Propose deleting Category:Kevin Costner albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There has only been one item in this category for the last sixteen years. Overcategorization. Nicholas0 (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:ALBUM but rename to Category:Kevin Costner & Modern West albums per Kevin Costner & Modern West. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philippine Sports Commission

~~Propose deleting~~ Category:Philippine Sports Commission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded eponymous category that contains nothing apart from the main article. Paul_012 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In light of the population of the category since the nomination, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination (though it should continue as there has also been another delete !vote). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At the time of nominate, indeed the category contained only the eponymous article. I have since added applicable entries to the category. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete, I can't think of any other example of buildings and structures categorized by who maintains them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian conservative liberals

Propose deleting Category:Asian conservative liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Conservative liberals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Liberal theorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These categories are extremely vague. An extremely CFD on classically similar categories have been purged Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_3#Classical_liberals Mason (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about Category:European conservative liberals and subcategories? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Marcocapelle's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiple citizenship

Option A: rename Category:Multiple citizenship to Category:Multiple nationality.

OR: option B: rename Category:People with multiple nationality to Category:People with multiple citizenship.

Rationale: consistency. Until other arguments weigh in, option B is the preferred option per article title Multiple citizenship. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars

Propose merging Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars to Category:Venetian–Genoese wars

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there are land battles for these conflicts as well, even if we don't yet have articles on them. E.g. the Siege of Acre (1257-1258) which launched the War of Saint Sabas, or the Siege of Alghero, or the Siege of Negroponte (1351), which was actually under the category propose for deletion until the nominator changed it to the inappropriate category on naval battles. Constantine ✍ 11:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. We might even upmerge its subcategory Category:Naval battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars to Category:Venetian–Genoese wars as well. As this was a series of 4 separate wars rather than a single war, other parents such as Category:Battles by war arguably do not apply. NLeeuw (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 out of 4 wars in this series already have their own subcategories, in which those same battles are also grouped:

(first war) Category:War of Saint Sabas‎ (1 C, 10 P)

(second war) Category:War of Curzola‎ (1 C, 3 P)

(fourth war) (Category:War of Chioggia‎ (1 C, 3 P)

If we upmerge as proposed, then we'll have these battles grouped both in Category:Venetian–Genoese wars and in these 3 subcategories. Per WP:DIFFUSE, that's not very practical. Would it be worth upmerging those subcategories as well to avoid duplication? Aside from the battles and the main articles of the 1st, 2nd and 4th war, the only other contents are "People of the Xth war" subcategories, which we've also already covered in Category:People of the Venetian–Genoese wars. In short, there's a lot of duplication going on here. I'm not sure which solution I would find most elegant, but I'm considering this alt proposal:

Category:Venetian–Genoese wars: contains main articles Venetian–Genoese wars, War of Saint Sabas‎, War of Curzola‎, War of the Straits, War of Chioggia‎, and all other articles we can't diffuse;
- Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars: contains all battles including land, naval and siege battles. No subcategories by war.
- Category:People of the Venetian–Genoese wars: contains all people of all four wars. No subcategories by war.

Might this work better than the proposal of nom? NLeeuw (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss further merges but shall we do that in a next nomination? We don't need a trainwreck. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. I guess we could always rename the naval battles subcategory to just battles if we decide to go with my alt proposal. Your proposal is an okay first step. NLeeuw (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Great Britain by period

Propose deleting Category:Millennia in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:1st millennium BC in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:1st millennium in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:3rd millennium in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:Centuries in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:1st century BC in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:1st century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:2nd century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:3rd century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:4th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:5th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:6th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:7th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:8th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:9th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:10th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:11th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:12th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:13th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:14th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:15th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:16th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:17th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:18th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:19th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:20th century in Great Britain
Propose deleting Category:21st century in Great Britain

Nominator's rationale: delete, presumably the consequence of the deletion of Category:History of Great Britain in this earlier discussion is that its subcategories should also be deleted. I will follow up with decades and years later.

@Omnis Scientia, Ham II, Johnbod, Nederlandse Leeuw, and PearlyGigs: pinging participants to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, let's see how this tree works. Category:Centuries in the United Kingdom has child cats Category:19th century in the United Kingdom‎, Category:20th century in the United Kingdom‎, and Category:21st century in the United Kingdom‎. That means I support a Just delete for Category:19th century in Great Britain, Category:20th century in Great Britain, and Category:21st century in Great Britain as being entirely duplicative. But for the 18th century and earlier, I'll take another look first. NLeeuw (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kingdom of Great Britain can largely replace Category:18th century in Great Britain; perhaps a merge? Before 1707, most by century categories are just redundant layers for Xth century in England, Scotland and Wales. An exception to this pattern are things like Category:11th-century churches in the United Kingdom and Category:16th-century architecture in the United Kingdom. Strictly speaking, there was no "United Kingdom" before 1707, so there were no events happening in a UK that didn't exist yet. But that's not really what the category is saying: it is saying that churches and other buildings preserved to this day, and located in what today is the UK, date from the 16th and 11th century, respectively. In that case, these building subcategories only vaguely say anything about events in the 16th and 11th century (namely, construction in century X of building Y), and more about buildings in the UK today that stem from that time. I don't know. I'm not very found of these "establishments" categories anyway, as they all too frequently lead to these sort of anachronisms, and we may well wonder how WP:DEFINING it all is. Thoughts?

More on topic, I think I am overall in favour of the proposal to delete these categories, unless merging is a better idea. NLeeuw (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, NLeeuw. Category:11th-century churches in the United Kingdom presents the sort of exception that epitomises the whole problem. First, it has only article, St Tugual's Chapel, which is on Herm in the Channel Islands. As far as I can tell, there is no other chronological category that could hold the article. Its other categories are Category:Herm and Category:Churches in the Channel Islands. I think we need to look at all articles in these GB/UK categories and decide if they need any kind of chronological categorisation. Personally, I think St Tugual's Chapel does not, because of its location. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Channel Islands aren't in the United Kingdom; they're Crown Dependencies. The chronological category for that chapel should be Category:11th-century churches, unless the date can be narrowed down to a decade or a year. Ham II (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I had forgotten about the crown dependency status. Makes the categorisation even more awkward and silly. NLeeuw (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Incidentally, its parent Category:11th-century architecture in the United Kingdom is a redundant layer, we might as well upmerge that right away. NLeeuw (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Leaning Keep as these categories cover the island of Great Britain, and are analogous to the Category:History of Ireland tree for the island (not the Republic) of Ireland. This avoids the anachronism of using "United Kingdom" for centuries before the 19th. (The categories for centuries in the UK start at Category:19th century in the United Kingdom.) Category:History of Great Britain by period has subcategories for ancient, medieval and early modern history; that is less anachronistic than if they were in the United Kingdom category tree.

The problem with Category:History of Great Britain was the scope (the period 1707–1800, which made it indistinguishable from the scope of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain); in my opinion it should be recreated, with the scope being the history of the island. Ham II (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I don't think re-creating the category will solve the underlying problem. The comparison with Category:History of Ireland is tempting, but I think the island of Ireland can much more easily be taken as a scope, as both the Republic and Northern Ireland are relatively recent phenomena that lead to few ambiguities for categorisation.

Perhaps we should first delete the 19th, 20th and 21st-century categories and go from there? NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should immediately delete the 19th, 20th and 21st century ones which have no articles and only the requisite English, Scottish, and Welsh sub-categories. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be rather artificial if a category tree for the island ended in the 18th century. Could there be a "United Kingdom > Great Britain > England, Scotland and Wales" (plus "Ireland (1801–1923)" and "Northern Ireland", as appropriate) structure for the 19th century onwards? Ham II (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to delete all but I think we need to exercise caution by ensuring that all articles are satisfactorily categorised first. For example, Category:12th century in Great Britain has just one entry, Historia Regum Britanniae. That is a famous manuscript with a wide range of categories but we must ask if it needs one relating to its 12th-century British authorship. It is essentially an English work, despite its title, so should it go into just the Category:12th century in England tree, or also into those of Category:12th century in Scotland and Category:12th century in Wales? PearlyGigs (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say only Category:12th century in England, as place of production. I agree with you. NLeeuw (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially English?! See Historia Regum Britanniae § Sources – the only English one there is Bede; all the rest are Welsh or, in Gildas's case, a Celtic Briton more generally. The place of production is traditionally, but spuriously said to be at "Geoffrey's Window" in Monmouth Priory, Wales. Ham II (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. Reading the "Contents" section of the article, the summaries of the twelve books seem focused on events in what became England, both Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon. Scotland and Wales seem to be other places as in "The Britons (in England) are immediately besieged by attacks from Picts, Scots and Danes"; and "The remaining Britons are driven into Wales". I agree with adding it to Category:12th century in Wales but I think we can exclude Scotland.

Actually, this does underline the need for caution when handling articles in GB/UK categories. Thanks, Ham II. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the contents of the Historia should be irrelevant to categorising its place and time of production. Even if it had 23 entire chapters on Karakalpakstan in the 7th century, but was written in High Wycombe in the 12th century, it still went only into the Category:12th century in England, not Category:12th century in Uzbekistan (nor Category:7th century in Uzbekistan). NLeeuw (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The island of Great Britain has a distinct history, and we should be able to populate these categories. I suggest recreating Category:History of Great Britain. Dimadick (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom. Ham II (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neologisms by year

Propose deleting Category:Neologisms by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: ~~Kinda obsolete, "forgotten" category with a handful of entries.~~ (I tried to find Category:1992 neologisms there and surprized to find none.) Its entries should be included into category:Neologisms by decade. - Altenmann >talk 17:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to nominate the subcategories (as well). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont need to nominate them: they are valid. - Altenmann >talk 18:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I misunderstood your intention. However if the subcategories are valid then so is the parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I was noit clear enough: this parent is redundant (and non-maintained (and-non-maintainable: there are, like, 2000 years, you know :-): they (and many more others) are in the corresponding categories category:Neologisms by decade, see, e.g., Category:2000s neologisms. It6 contains categories by all years: Category:2000 neologisms,... etc. - Altenmann >talk 21:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - In principle it is not any different from all other "by year" categories that we have (and there are many of them). It does need to get populated though. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems you are right; e.g., Category:1943 films etc. are both in Category:Films by year and in Category:Films by decade. Now, who is master of automated tools to do the job? - Altenmann >talk 00:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Valid system of categorisation. Mclay1 (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to explicitly mention that I am withdrawing the nomination, convinced by the discussion, so it may be closed now. - Altenmann >talk 04:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Kenyan male singers

Propose merging Category:20th-century Kenyan male singers to Category:20th-century Kenyan singers
Propose merging Category:20th-century Kenyan women singers to Category:20th-century Kenyan singers

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary diffusion of just 13 pages. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. If there were more on either end, it would make sense, but for just thirteen people it's unnecessary. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unnecessary is not a sufficient rationale. In any case the upmerges should also be to Category:Kenyan male singers and Category:Kenyan women singers respectively. Perspicax (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drag (entertainment)-related categories

Propose renaming Category:Drag (entertainment)-related documentary films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Drag-related documentary films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Drag (entertainment)-related films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Drag-related films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Drag (entertainment)-related lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Drag-related lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Drag (entertainment)-related mass media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Drag-related mass media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Drag (entertainment)-related musicals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Drag-related musicals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Drag (entertainment) television shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Drag television shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not ambiguous as the others can't be related to mass media. Therefore remove the disambiguator ((entertainment)) from the category:Drag (entertainment) subcategories. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming Category:Drag (entertainment)-related lists. Any of the other uses of Drag could have related lists. Unure about the others. Mclay1 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 02:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]