Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/Today

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

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

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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

[edit]
  1. 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.
  2. 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.)
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

[edit]

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

Discussion for Today

[edit]
This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025_April_21


April 21

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Anthropomorphic horses

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I looked through random 30% of the pages in category. None of them says that the ghorse there is anthrophomorphis, and what is more none of them look like anthropomorphic. Here there are anthropomorphic horses. On the other hand all of them see to be Category:Talking animals. Meaning that this categorization is pure speculation of a wikipedian and it must be dismantled into category:Fiction about talking animals. p.s. there even no horse-headed egyptian god to justify the category. --Altenmann >talk 22:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that there is a difference between being a "talking beast" and being an anthropomorphic one. (Horace Horsecollar would be an example in this case.) A key disinction is that the latter requires representation in visual media (or some very clear description in the text). So I would support first pruning the whole tree of Category:Anthropomorphic animals, and see what is left. I also would suggest pruning articles that are about stories, rather than about the animals themselves. - jc37 22:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spillover of the Sudanese civil war

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: the cat to claim to be about Spillover of the Sudanese civil war, but the clashes there are about South Sudan (a different country from Sudan), which has its own political turmoil that has been exacerbated with the arrest of the vice president. Also nothing in the articles added to this cats talk about how this is linked to the Sudanese civil war FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy seasons

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kuna people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Articles for Guna people and Guna language now both have the updated spelling, so for consistency the categories should be updated as well. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of KAJ

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All redirects to the group's page. Consensus is to not have "musicians by band" categories unless at least two members have their own articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I suppose all three members will soon have their own articles (as they do in sv fi he). So it should be deleted until they actually do become their own articles? Cogitato (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the articles for the individual members should exist before the category. If you're permitting, this can be speedy deleted per {{db-g7}}. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superisliga players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Metal Ligaen players which is the article name of the league and older category. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collection of the Nationalmuseum Stockholm

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Previously a speedy discussion, see Category talk:Paintings in the Nationalmuseum Stockholm. For the first case, NM, the article is at Nationalmuseum, the lead does not use "the Nationalmuseum", and the article sometimes use it. It may need a disambiguator, as Nationalmuseum may be created in other Germanic languages (and Swedish-speaking countries), but I'm starting here. For the second case, MM, "the" is not used within the article. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nature reserves in Håbo Municipality

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: One article in each category; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in Sweden by county

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: City was an administrative status Sweden that existed until 1971; there were around 130 cities in total at the end. It has occurred merges and name changes of the counties since the status was removed. The proposal is a reverse of creation of these categories in 2022 because it is not useful to categorise these "former" cities by current counties and the categories are small. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional ice hockey leagues in Belgium

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: One article or article and eponymous category in each category; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations in Sweden opened in 1856

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: One article in each category; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Alby, Botkyrka

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 1–2 articles in each category; does not help navigation. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in Illinois by city

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Priors of Great Malvern

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently only one article, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish expatriates in the Republic of Venice

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently only one article, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events by country

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, with very few exceptions this is all about organized events. After renaming the category can be moved under Category:Organized events by location. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Västanfors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A neighbourhood in Fagersta. Only three out of five articles mention Västanfors. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in Lublin

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holy Roman Empire in fiction

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per nom. The subcats are clear in the title that they are "works" cats, so they can be in the main cat, not needing this intermediary. - jc37 08:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hebrew names of Jewish holy days

[edit]
Upmerge to category:Jewish holy days Pointless category. The articles are not about names, but about holidays. --Altenmann >talk 04:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cemeteries in Katsina State

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 03:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hausa-language literature awards

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 02:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violence against women in the Pitcairn Islands

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Underpopulated category. SMasonGarrison 02:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Active churches in Turkey

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. There isn't an Category:Active churches SMasonGarrison 02:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethiopian Civil War nurses

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category is underpopulated SMasonGarrison 02:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American radicals

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The term "radical" has a specific relation to classical radicalism. In the United States, that ideology was represented by the Radical Republicans, which already has Category:Radical Republicans contained within this one. Instead, the three political figures whose articles are tagged with this category are only united as Progressive Era reformers despite huge differences in their views. For example, Eugene V. Debs is tagged with Category:American anti-capitalists, while Henry George has Category:American anti-communists. With poor defining characteristics, this category can be vaguely labeled onto anyone involved in far-left or far-right politics and should be deleted accordingly for using "radical" as a subjective descriptor. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose. Deleting the category would isolate the child category Category:Radical Republicans. Your concern seems to be equally applicable to the parent category Category:Radicals and sibling categories, like British radicals, German radicals etc. SMasonGarrison 02:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input as the category creator! To clarify, if deleted, I would want Category:Radical Republicans to be a direct child of Category:Radicals rather than orphaned. The header text of Category:Radicals clarifying that "radicalism does not refer here to the American English sense of the term as a left or right-wing 'radical', but to the contrary to the political tradition of Radicalism" highlights why a category for American radicals is uniquely confusing, especially when the country's distinctly radical politicians already have their own category. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at several threads on Talk:Classical radicalism, it seems there is currently no consensus as to what the name of the page should be. So until that is squared away, it's difficult to decide what the name of the related categories should be. It would appear that Category:Radicals is an ambiguous name as-is, and probably needs some sort of modifying word or parenthetical. And until that is resolved, I'm not sure we can address this subcat as to whether it is appropriate categorisation or not. - jc37 06:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean support (with re-parenting of the subcategory), it looks as if it is not a defining characteristic of the three articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters by work

[edit]

Ok, so we have three trees all doing effectively the same thing:

And in looking at these: "by medium", is really "by medium of work", which we tend to categorise as "by work". And "by franchise", is really just "by related works".

These just create unnecessary intermediary layers between parent and child cats; and also broad segmentation of topics, which is a bane to navigation for our readers.

This is severe WP:OVERLAPCAT.

These trees all need cleanup. Elements of fiction (and related cats) are scattered everywhere. And the first step, I think, is that we need to unify under a single naming standard. Once we do that, we should be able to more easily clean up a lot of the mess.

So this is a test nom to see what we can decide about the "by work", "by medium", "by franchise", and "by franchise and medium", trees. I think they all need to be merged to a single tree of a unified name. What do you all think? - jc37 18:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of different options are on the table; rename? Keep? Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Franchise/medium
Continent/country
  • I think the best course of action is then to delete Category:Fictional characters by franchise and medium and use Category:Fictional characters by franchise to hold Category:Film characters by franchise. I am not sure about anything else. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for drawing the chart : )
    It illustrates how the "by franchise" and "by medium" layer are duplicative, and could both be replaced with "by works" (as you note above).
    So, in this chart, both FC by medium and FC by franchise would be merged to FC by work. And FC by franchise and medium deleted/upmerged to FC by work
    Sci Fi chars by franchise (also part of the genre tree) renamed to SFC by work.
    Film chars by franchise renamed/merged to Film chars by work
    And the trees become a bit more straight-forward, and easier for the reader's to navigate. And it also (re-)unites various articles that should be part of the trees, which aren't, as Marcocapelle noted above.
    Once this is done, cleanup will be MUCH easier : ) - jc37 23:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this also mean eliminating the "by continent" category levels, since there are only seven of them? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not proposing anything about "by continent" as far as I know. I'm merely looking at the fiction elements trees and see a spiderweb over varying choices of "how" to categorise them over the years, and was looking to unify them a bit, to the single term (works) that we seem to have settled on for films, literature, video games, etc. Due to how they are currently separated, "like" isn't being categorised with "like". They are being strewn across various similar trees. The godfather one is just an obvious example. And having a parent to hold cats that have "franchise" in the name", just segments things even more.
    But if you mean it as an analogy, I think this is different than "continent". A continent is a geographical region. Countries are created boundaries upon this geographical region. (Though I suppose it could be argued that Eurasia is arbitrarily divided). So I don't know if they are a similar situation. Especially, since we don't seem to have genres of continents : )
    Kidding aside, I'm not sure how you're intending the comparison. There are just a lot of ways in which these character cats are being subdivided, I think removing these two layers, aids navigation. We will still have subcats of FC in film, but they just will be categorised a tier (or 2) up. This will be helpful as we look at how these cats intesect with other trees as well. Which should also make it less confusing for editors who are trying to add things into the tree(s). - jc37 07:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to merging the trees — I think that point sums up nicely why we have continent categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jc37, StarTrekker, and LaundryPizza03: would you mind if we relist this discussion once more? I think, at the very least, that we need to confirm or clarify or summarize our positions before anyone else will be able to close this discussion. I suppose being WP:INVOLVED does not necessarily prevent us from relisting. Personally I got lost after 14 February but I am certainly willing to have a look at it again when things are more clearly presented. Or alternatively we close this discussion as no consensus and start an entirely fresh discussion that is hopefully more easy to follow. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Uninvolved, but I am taking Marcocapelle's suggestion. I am going to ping all participants and ask them for their current views on the categories. If you support a merge, which categories should be merged to which other categories?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jc37, StarTrekker, LaundryPizza03, and Marcocapelle: what are your current thoughts on what, if anything, should be merged, and to which targets? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge the 3 nominated categories into Fictional characters by work, per nom (per WP:OVERLAPCAT), for the reasons laid out in the discussion. Basically these are unnecessary intermediary layers, and worse, they act as blocks to trees, and make it a.) more difficult to categorise pages appropriately, and b.) make it more difficult for the reader to find what they are looking for and c.) make the trees rather into an incompletely patchwork where some articles are not getting categorised appropriately due to "a". This streamlines the trees and will make cleanup of the various trees far easier. - jc37 05:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my oppose. I do not see how this categorization scheme is any more difficult or hindering for navigation than any other. If there are cases where franchise or medium doesn't make sense there is nothing stopping anyone from creating Fictional characters by work as another category.★Trekker (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavery of Native Americans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories SMasonGarrison 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag those categories; apologies for neglecting to do so earlier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: Thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine SMasonGarrison 02:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airstrikes by perpetrator

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: NPOV issues with the term perpetrator -- perpetrator is an inherently value-laden term that assumes criminal activity, whereas combatant is a neutral term used in international law to describe participants in military conflicts. Althistwikibox (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this is strictly necessary, but here's the link to the Wiktionary entry for "perpetrator."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perpetrator
It's inextricably linked to the concept of criminal activity, and not all of the airstrikes are inherently criminal. Althistwikibox (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target? Not seeing any support for the current name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question -- I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know all of the lingo around here. What do you mean by "rename target?" From context, I'm guessing that you're just looking for more consensus on changing the name, but I'm not quite sure. Althistwikibox (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Althistwikibox: Sorry, I just saw this now. By "rename target", I mean that if the category is renamed, what should it be renamed to? "Rename target" is shorthand for the new, post-renaming category name. If you have questions about anything I've said, you are always welcome on my talk page :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does Category:Airstrikes by belligerent party work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holidays

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: split, a holiday may mean an observance day, but holidays may also mean vacation. This category contains a mix of both. Split according to the two meanings and convert Holidays to a disambiguation page. This nomination is inspired by an earlier comment by User:Jc37. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 30 March 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) 00:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Skanör

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Proposed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_30#Category:People_from_Skanör, due to the small size of this category. However, I doubt that there will be enough contents to expand the "People from" subcategory as well because the place has a population of only 7,000, and hence I closed that one as merge. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing objection to a rename if kept, but should it be (manually) merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educators from Los Angeles

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated Subcategory. Lost in Quebec (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This has two subcategories in it (after the nominator removed all of the subcategories of Category:Academics from Los Angeles). This category has been in existence for less than a week. I don't see why the nominator didn't add a few people or nudge me to do it. SMasonGarrison 22:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This editor has been told multiple times by multiple editors that working, going to school, or dying in Foo, doesn't make the person automatically from there. See my talk page[1]. Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the above editor is adding incorrect articles to this category. Two academics, here and here. Plus an article on a teachers strike and a trade union. In fact the two people articles they added only mention the people working in Los Angeles not living there. They may not belong in academics either.Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you try to populate the category? I moving them from the broader "People from Los Angeles" category. SMasonGarrison 19:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The category has been significantly expanded since nomination, but there is dispute to the inclusion of some of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs a broader discussion. Generally I would argue that the tree of people by location and occupation should be limited to the location(s) in which the occupation is exercised, whether the subject lives there or not. Currently the tree is also used for location of birth which is unrelated to occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with having that broader conversation because I agree with Marco's interpretation. But... I don't think it particularly helpful in this narrow category nomination. My goal was to try to diffuse the People from Los Angeles category. SMasonGarrison 02:13, 21 April 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) 00:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FBG Duck categories

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Categories related to artist article recreated after it was deleted by nomination. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slide (FBG Duck song) closes as delete, then both categories will be empty. Also related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBG Duck (3rd nomination). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The linked AFD was closed as keep. Should this category still be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economists from Washington, D.C.

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: After the CfD that merged Category:Economists from New York City, I'm inclined to support the same for this one. It is also a rather small category, at nine pages within a parent that has only three others. I also picked three articles at random, and at least two of them did not work in DC so deletion is also an option. No attempt was made to determine if all pages are within other subcategories of Category:American economists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Lost in Quebec's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think that even though Washington DC is a unique hybrid of state and populated place, it doesn't protect it from being merged for being underpopulated. SMasonGarrison 02:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/Today&oldid=931652817"