Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 11

July 11

Category:Imperials during the end of the Han dynasty

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19#Category:Imperials during the end of the Han dynasty

Category:Malayala Manorama

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:Malayala Manorama to Category:Malayala Manorama group

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be the same intended scope. I prefer this direction for the merge although the reverse merge might be preferable given the absence of an article about the Malayala Manorama group. Pichpich (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. As Malayala Manorama appears to be about the newspaper only, the proposed merge direction makes perfect sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2023-single-stub

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Template:2023-single-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:2023 single stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: While {{2010s-single-stub}} was broken down by year due to overpopulation of Category:2010s single stubs, that same treatment is not necessary for this decade yet. Created without going through WP:WPSS/P. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Her Pegship (?) 14:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Stub templates - and more especially stub categories - must not be created just in case they may be needed some day. They are created when they are justifiably required, ideally after approval at WP:WSS/P. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Irish trade unionists

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Now_what. Oculi (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Carlow‎ (1) to Category:Activists from County Carlow‎ (2) and Category:Irish trade unionists (19)

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Clare‎ (1) to Category:Activists from County Clare‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Kildare‎ (1) to Category:Activists from County Kildare‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Laois‎ (1) to Category:Activists from County Laois‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Mayo‎ (1) to Category:Activists from County Mayo‎ (2) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Armagh‎ (2) to Category:Activists from County Armagh‎ (2) and Category:Irish trade unionists and Category:Trade unionists from Northern Ireland (3)

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Monaghan‎ (2) to Category:Activists from County Monaghan‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Roscommon‎ (2) to Category:Activists from County Roscommon‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Tyrone‎ (2) to Category:Activists from County Tyrone‎ (2) and Category:Irish trade unionists and Category:Trade unionists from Northern Ireland

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Londonderry‎ (3) to Category:Activists from County Londonderry‎ (2) and Category:Irish trade unionists and Category:Trade unionists from Northern Ireland

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Waterford‎ (3) to Category:Activists from County Waterford‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Wexford‎ (3) to Category:Activists from County Wexford‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Wicklow‎ (3) to Category:Activists from County Wicklow‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Down‎ (4) to Category:Activists from County Down‎ (3) and Category:Irish trade unionists and Category:Trade unionists from Northern Ireland

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Kerry‎ (4) to Category:Activists from County Kerry‎ (2) and Category:Irish trade unionists - I have withdrawn and detagged the ones with 4

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Limerick‎ (5) to Category:Activists from County Limerick‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Meath‎ (4) to Category:Activists from County Meath‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Sligo‎ (4) to Category:Activists from County Sligo‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Tipperary‎ (5) to Category:Activists from County Tipperary‎ (1) and Category:Irish trade unionists

Rationale: There are 218 members in all in Category:Irish trade unionists and 32 counties, ie around 7 per county. Moreover County Dublin has 74, County Antrim (Belfast) has 36 and County Cork has 22, leaving around 66 to be distributed amongst 29 counties. Clearly any attempt to split up trade unionists much further by county is doomed (indeed not one other passes user:William Allen Simpson’s stated minimum requirement of 10, Galway leading the way with 9). In addition to the small numbers, Patricia Ryan (politician), say, is being categorised by place of birth (unsourced), contrary to WP:COP-PLACE. Indeed most of the articles if properly scrutinised do not support the addition of the 'by county' category at all. Oculi (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Merge All for Now with no objection to recreating any that reach 5+ articles for people who were labor unionists in that county. (While WP:SMALLCAT does not give a number, 5 articles has been a more common rule of thumb in CFD than 10.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. This category series is only 9 days old. Ten of the 19 nominated categories have either 3 or 4 pages, meaning that only one more would be needed to reach 5. There is much uncaegorisation of Irish trade unionists, so I expect many more articles to be added to the set in coming weeks and months. Furthermore, I have not yet populated the activist-by-county categories, which will be much bigger, and it will be unhelpful to lose the TU ppl in those larger sets.
  Please note that the nominator Oculi has been reminded many times recently that WP:SMALLCAT is for categories which are "Small with no potential for growth", and tat as with many other nominations by Oculi, he makes no attempt to assess the potential for growth, beyond noting the current ally of articles in in Category:Irish trade unionists. There is no consideration of undercategorisation of TU ppl, or of the rate of new articles. This is yet another blatantly bad faith nomination by a highly-experienced editor w persistently refuses to apply te actual guideline WP:SUBCAT, and who is par of a tag team overtly targeting my work i revenge for my opposing some of his nominations. I would be open to a review of these categories, but this is wildly premature.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Request Please let's focus on the categories rather than other editors, flawed though they may be. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

RD & BHG side conversation

@RevelationDirect: when editors tag-team to abuse the CFD process by systematically misrepresenting guidelines and vindictively targeting the work of other editors, then it is important that this info is presented to the CFD discussion. In 17 years at CFD, I have never before seen anything remotely like this. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) @BrownHairedGirl: This is a difference of opinion over the WP:SMALLCAT guideline; it's not worth throwing out WP:5P4 with the bath water. And I'm also trying to do better here; I struck a part of my comment in another nomination that was about you and not the category. (Sorry about that, btw.) Why don't we both lower the temperature? - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC) No it is not a difference of opinion. There has been a systematic efforts by a tag team (in which Oculi is one of the two main players) to radically misrepresent WP:SMALLCAT and to use that misrepresented guideline vindictively. WP:SMALLCAT is unambiguously restricted (inter alia) to cats which are "Small with no potential for growth", and it is being systematically abused by editors (including you) who wholly ignore the "no potential for growth" part. The way to lower the temperature is to stop tag-teaming, and to withdraw the vindictive nominations. I welcome your striking of one of your comments[1], but I note that on that page you have not even struck your bogus allegation in that discussion that I had threatened the closer (an allegation which you also made elsewhere) or you appalling !vote to merge on the grounds that one editor would not commit to populating the nominated categories, or your false allegations of WP:POINT disruption. If you really want to lower the temperature then stop pouring petrol on fires and stop enabling the tag team and stop being an attack dog for the tag team. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Suggestion @BrownHairedGirl: This is feeling more like a User talk page conversation between two editors so I'll move this conversation there. I don't want issues between us to inadvertently distract from discusison of the categories. (And that goes for both of us.) How about we collapse this whole exchange and the 2nd half of your iVote and leave other editors with a clean CFD discussion?- RevelationDirect (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Collapsing everything after my initial reply above. (Feel free to expand this to the 2nd half of your iVote and my reply, or feel free to remove it.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• • How is this different from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_17#Category:Rugby_union_players_from_Monaghan where the nominator appeals to WP:SMALLCAT? It seems to depend very much on who created the category (or made the nomination). Oculi (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Query Are they not part of an established tree structure? Do they not have potential for growth? Should there not be consistency in the application of the SmallCat exception? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cannibals

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19#Cannibals

Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Battles involving the Austrian Netherlands to Category:Military history of the Austrian Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: rename, "battles involving" is not the right phrase, because the Austrian Netherlands was part of the Habsburg monarchy and thus was not a war party in its own right. "Military history" suits better. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Workplace bullying

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19#Category:Workplace bullying

Category:XFL (2001) venues

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19#Category:XFL (2001) venues

Category:Infobox road instances in Victoria

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Infobox road instances in Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not linked from anywhere and does not have any description to what it is for. Unclear if even used anywhere still. Gonnym (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought the name was pretty self-explanatory, but I've been surprised by less. It's a tracking category, for instances {{Infobox road}}, for articles whose subject is located in Victoria. Sure it's empty now, but that doesn't mean it will always be empty. –Fredddie™ 00:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Admittedly there is a whole tree of these categories, but can't we limit it to one category for Australia as a whole? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Tracking category of what exactly? What maintaince do entries in the category require? Again, the category isn't even linked from anywhere, so how do editors know there is something that needs fixing? Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If it's just to see what pages are from Victoria, hastemplate:"Infobox road" insource:/state[ ]*=[ ]*<value>/ or something similar can be used to find usages. Gonnym (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as there is apparently no maintenance required. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comments - This seems part of the structure of Category:Infobox road instances by country. And I don't like the idea of removing just one of the subcats of: Category:Infobox road instances in Australia. That said, I agree with Marcocapelle, that all the subcats could probably be UpMerged to the Australia cat. They are all not currently tagged though, so for now, Keep, so as to not break things. - jc37 09:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Beauty pageants for married contestants

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Beauty pageants for married contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (2 P, 1 C about one of the 2 Ps). WP:NONDEFINING. Ever since Miss Universe started allowing married contestants, this is not a defining difference between it and rival pageants anymore. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Update I populated the category so it's now 4 pages + 1 C about one of the 4. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep The revised article count is still questionable under WP:SMALLCAT but since, historically, the vast majority were for singles, this seems defining to me but I appreciate other viewpoints. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• UpMerge to Category:Beauty pageants (and diffuse to whatever appropriate subcats at editorial discretion). Every member has Mrs. in the title. I don't think there's any confusion about these. - jc37 09:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• My earlier delete vote should now be read as merge/disperse per Jc37. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose Upmerging is a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Germanic folklore

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

The result of the discussion was: split and purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose upmerging the not-by-country children of Category:Germanic folklore (Category:Germanic legendary creatures, Category:Norman folklore, Category:Scandinavian folklore and Category:Sagas) to Category:European folklore
  • Propose merging the by-country children of Category:Germanic folklore (the rest) to Category:European folklore by country
• Purge all "by country" children from Category:Indo-European folklore

Nominator's rationale: WP:CROSSCAT between language family and the Category:Folklore by country tree. I think I won't have to explain anymore why we shouldn't mix up country and language family, will I? Anyway, the by-country children of Category:Germanic folklore should be merged to Category:European folklore by country (where they already are), the not-by-country children of Category:Germanic folklore should be upmerged, because they are evidently European, but not necessarily "Germanic". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Split Category:Germanic folklore to Category:European folklore and Category:European folklore by country; purge all "by country" children from Category:Indo-European folklore, per nom. "Germanic" is currently no longer used as an ethnic term (in contrast to the early middle ages), it now only refers to language family. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just checking: should we put the not-by-country Category:Germanic legendary creatures, Category:Norman folklore, Category:Scandinavian folklore and Category:Sagas in Category:European folklore?

  And the by-country cats in Category:European folklore by country? Then I agree with you. (I'll update the rationale, which is currently a bit unclear). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Right. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

    Done. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comments - Just so I'm clearly understanding, no subcats are being deleted in this process, correct? If that's the case, then Support Merging, per above. - jc37 09:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Correct. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Purge/merge per the updated rationale, which follows Marcocapelle's proposition. Language family and ethnicity are two different things. Place Clichy (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diasporas by destination country

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 20#Category:Diasporas by destination country

Category:Diasporas by origin country

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Diasporas by origin country to Category:Diasporas by country of origin

Nominator's rationale: This may have been created as a counterpart to Diasporas by destination country, but "by country of origin" is more natural in English, following Category:Country of origin. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note that the contents are by country, and there is a separate Diaspora by ethnic group, so we do not need to consider "Diasporas by national or ethnic origin", unless there is any interest in merging the two. – Fayenatic London 13:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support, even for me as a non-native English speaker it is obvious that the proposed name is more natural English. (This may be the first time I am voting on a matter of language.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diasporas by continent

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Diasporas by continent to Category:Diasporas by continent of origin

Nominator's rationale: This is to specify the direction of travel of the contents. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Rename, the current name is ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dual internationalists (football)

• Propose renaming Category:Dual internationalists (football) to ?
• Propose renaming Category:Dual men's international footballers to ?
• Propose renaming Category:Dual internationalists (women's football) to ?

Nominator's rationale: These categories should have a consistent naming scheme, though I am unsure of what the best titles would be. Note that there is no article titled Dual internationalists (football) or Dual internationals (football), which makes using the disambiguation format seem somewhat strange (though maybe it is the clearest option). The article on the topic is located at List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams. As this is not a country-specific category, the renamed categories should contain "association football" to follow the naming scheme of the Association football players category tree. Also note that "internationalists" is used nowhere else in the footballer category tree, nor does any football article use it in the title. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Some possible options for the parent category:

1. Category:Dual internationalists (association football)
2. Category:Dual international association football players
3. Category:Dual association football internationalists
4. Category:Dual internationalists in association football
5. Category:Dual international players in association football

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comments - I don't think "Internationalists" is a commonly-used term in football (apart from in Scotland, randomly) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Chris, and so think 'Category:Dual international association football players' is the best proposal? GiantSnowman 10:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment we should definitely clarify "association football" (there are multiple football sports), and I've never heard of "internationalists" before, so most readers wouldn't understand it either. Category:Dual international association football players or Category:Association football players who have been capped for two senior national teams would be sensible- the first is more WP:CONCISE, but the second matches the list name. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Rename Category:Association football players who have played for two senior national teams would be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several alternative names have been provided. Which is best?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 and 5 of nominator are both fine (with "international players"). Later suggestions are not concise enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Option 2 and Option 5 are the best, although Option 2 sounds better for me in my opinion. Ivan Milenin (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

    But to this point, I'd say Rename to Category:Dual men's international footballers (for the men's) and the Category:Dual women's international footballers (and for the women footballers). Ivan Milenin (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment, general Oppose "Dual internationalist" is the actual, and commonly recognised, term (IDK, google it) and should be preserved. I strongly oppose any proposal that does not include it. I have heard "men's football dual internationalist" a lot and would perhaps support any rename based on such phrasing. I also fiercely oppose any proposal that basically invokes a descriptive sentence, they are generally poor and should only be reserved for categories that really need it, and this really doesn't. Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by clarification note: yes, most players for national teams are "internationals" - Harry Kane could be called an England international men's footballer. I don't know why it becomes "(dual) internationalists" when it's more than one nation, perhaps there's something related to the history there, but it is AFAIK. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Question to User:Kingsif: in which variant of English is the term "dual internationalists" commonly used, apart from Scots which has been mentioned earlier? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  All? British, at least, and when Gio Reyna was discussed as a potential England player so I imagine American, too. I can't say I've ever spoken about the subject with Scottish people. Perhaps that's where it came from - Scots playing for England and vice versa was common in the early days - but it's now become the actual term on the whole. Kingsif (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2, second choice option 5. Internationalist seems more unclear to me, even if it is the actual term. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Royal houses of the Netherlands

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

The result of the discussion was: manual upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Royal houses of the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Belgian royal houses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category description: The Royal houses, of which members ruled the Kingdom of the Netherlands and/or its constituent parts. Well, there has been only one: Category:House of Orange-Nassau. All other children are neither "royal" nor "the Kingdom of the Netherlands and/or its constituent parts". The Kingdom was founded in 1815, longer after these counties and duchies had been abolished in 1795. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale (Belgium): Added "Belgian royal houses", because same problem. Either you count Category:House of Belgium as a sibling or as a child of Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Belgium) (currently it is both; one is a continuation of the other). That makes a WP:SMALLCAT of 1 or 2 items, because the other 3 children are neither "royal" nor "the Kingdom of Belgium and/or its constituent parts." Because Belgium was established in 1830, when the County of Flanders and Duchy of Limburg were long gone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• NB WP:SMALLCAT refers to articles, not subcats. All articles in the subcats are also in their parents via WP:SUBCAT. There are plenty of valid categories with only 2 subcats, eg those split into male/female such as Category:Actors from Brussels. Oculi (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Purge until one subcategory is left, then merge to parent categories, per nom's rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep in each case. For the (northern) Netherlands before 1795, the House of Orange-Nassau held a position, something like a hereditary president. However post-1830 Netherlands and pre-1795 United Provinces have much the same extent, so that a good solution is to ignore the complications of the intervening period, with the Batavian Republic and then United Netherlands. Similarly, post-1830 Belgium is much the same territory as pre-1795 Austrian Netherlands, previously Spanish, though the Bishopric of Liege was added. We do not like anachronism but in this case it provides a good solution. We commonly use the current name as parent for categories that include the same place under a previous name, e.g. DRC/Zaire; Burkino Faso/Upper Volta. This solution is not all that different. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• This ignores the main point of the nominator: there has only ever been one royal family in each. Other families in these categories aren't royal. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Nederlandse Leeuw and Pppery: with deletion do you mean the same thing as I said? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle Yes; purging + upmerging the remains (Category:House of Orange-Nassau & Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Belgium)) seems a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. I would describe that as deletion and a manual recategorization, rather than a purge and merge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  The logs record upmergings as a "merger" rather than a "deletion", I recently learnt from Fayenatic. Upmerging is therefore often preferred in order to preserve metadata. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  PS: Fayenatic said: There is never any harm in (up)merging to a category that is already a parent; that has the same effect as deleting, except that the text in the deletion log entry will say that the category was merged rather than deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Veo cómo cantas

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 20#Category:Veo cómo cantas

Category:French presidency

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:French presidency to Category:Presidencies of France

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. The proper category in the proper category tree is the one in plural form, so merge the singular category "French presidency" created in 2022 into the plural category "Presidencies of France" created in 2017 -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge, this is an obvious duplicate. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Belgium)

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Belgium) to Category:House of Belgium
  • Alt Proposal: Rename Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Belgium) to Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Belgium, 1831–1920)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Alt proposal: Rename in order to better distinguish the pre-1920 and post-1920 period. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: Neither category appears to know what its "main article" is. Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Belgium) points to:

• Belgian monarchs > List of Belgian monarchs
• House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Belgium) > House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha#Kings of the Belgians
• List of Belgian royal consorts
• Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Category:House of Belgium points to:

• House of Belgium > Monarchy of Belgium#Royal family

These are all related but different topics. It's a bit of a mess. What exactly are we trying to categorise here? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support alternative, agree that more clarity is useful, but the name House of Belgium is only being used since 1920. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, so historically it is correct not to use it before 1920, but then we need to make clear distinctions between before and after. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as is. There was never another House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to rule Belgium, so disambiguating by dates is not necessary. If you wish to stress that this category should be used exclusively for the 1830-1920 period, this is typically the kind of things to be precised in the category description, not in the category name. The current format is consistent with Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Bulgaria) and Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (United Kingdom), the latter of which also renamed itself to House of Windsor for the same reasons. A purge is probably necessary to keep e.g. Baudouin of Belgium out of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha category, which would solve the OVERLAPCAT issue. Merge as second-best option, but then keep parent Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha for the merged category. Place Clichy (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• In retrospect Place Clichy has made a fair point. I am also considering the fact that Category:House of Belgium is a subcategory of Category:House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Belgium) so everyone post 1920 should not be directly in the parent category anyway, per WP:SUBCAT. There is no particular need to stress that it goes until 1920. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per Place Clichy and Marcocapelle's reasoning. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm prepared to Withdraw if nobody else thinks this is a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Regional WikiProject user templates

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose splitting Category:Regional WikiProject user templates to Category:Geographical WikiProject user templates, Category:Country WikiProject user templates and Category:Regional WikiProject user templates

Nominator's rationale: For clarity and consistency with e.g. Category:Country WikiProjects. If not split, it should be renamed to Category:Geographical WikiProject user templates. – Fayenatic London 12:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Rename or split per nom. If the latter, we may also need a continent subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: I see no need to split up this category. I chose the term "Regional" because it is all encompassing. A region need not be a national subdivision. Most of these templates invoke Template:User in region. While well intentioned, I feel these changes will only add confusion. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail

• We never use the word "region" to refer to countries or nationalities, it is exactly this word that causes the confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry. Countries and nations are clearly geographic regions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Buaidh's definition. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. - looking at Region, this term is far too vague to use for such categorization. - jc37 10:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Regional interest user templates

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Regional interest user templates to Category:Geographical interest user templates
• Propose renaming Category:Regional citizenship user templates to Category:Citizenship user templates

Nominator's rationale: Clarification. The contents include countries and continents as well as the sub-national and sub-continental areas that we call regions. – Fayenatic London 12:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: A region is any geographic area from a continent to a tiny enclave. A region need not be a national subdivision. Geographical can mean anything having to do with geography, e.g. GPS and geodesy. I used the term "regional citizenship" to include provincial and territorial citizenship as well as traditional national citizenship. Most of these templates invoke Template:User in region. While well intentioned, I feel the proposed names will only add confusion. Your aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 19:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• We never use the word "region" to refer to countries or nationalities, it is exactly this word that causes the confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry. Countries and nations are clearly geographic regions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Buaidh's definition. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. - looking at Region, this term is far too vague to use for such categorization. - jc37 10:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Political websites by continent

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:Political websites by continent to Category:Political websites

Nominator's rationale: merge, even if fully populated (which it isn't currently), it is easier to navigate when each continent is directly in the parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep as is. This merge would remove these from Category:Politics by continent. Fram (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - "as is" just has 2 continents, which will greatly disappoint those who arrive via Category:Politics by continent (or via Category:Websites by continent). Not clear why the creator (User:Fram) does not complete the set. Oculi (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Suggest merging all children to Category:Political websites by country next I would not be opposed to merging all 4 children next: "African" is empty, "North American" is a 2 C SMALLCAT (surprise, surprise, it only has "American" and "Canadian"), and the children of "Asian" and "European" are themselves all between 3 C/P and 8 C/P. As such, the "by continent" grouping has no substantial navigational advantages over Category:Political websites by country (which basically has the same contents), but is needlessly more complicated by splitting those few "by country" cats across continents. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alcohol and health

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:Alcohol and health to Category:Health effects of alcohol

Nominator's rationale: The two categories cover the same topic. TadejM ^{my talk} 14:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not all articles of Category:Alcohol and health fit Category:Health effects of alcohol, e.g. CAGE questionnaire does not. I guess the solution is to move part of the articles manually from Category:Alcohol and health to Category:Health effects of alcohol. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Marcocapelle. These two categories overlap substantially. As you have pointed out that some articles don't fit Category:Health effects of alcohol and there is no need to have almost duplicate categories, my alternative proposal would be to move the content to Category:Alcohol and health, which can then be a subcategory of Category:Health effects by subject. Such naming is common in that category, so this should not be an issue. --TadejM ^{my talk} 05:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• That does not solve the problem. Not all articles of Category:Alcohol and health fit the tree of Category:Health effects by subject, e.g. CAGE questionnaire does not. I still think the two categories can exist next each other, i.e. Category:Alcohol and health as parent of Category:Health effects of alcohol. The overlap can be solved by moving part of the articles from Category:Alcohol and health to Category:Health effects of alcohol. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Both but Selectively Move Some Articles to the Subcategory The nominator is right that a lot of articles in the parent category belong in the subcategory like Alcohol-related dementia, Alcoholic liver disease & Zieve's syndrome. But there are lot of others that aren't health effects like Dry January, Sobrietol & Paddington alcohol test. (Beer goggles probably doesn't belong in either category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems the best way to go. --TadejM ^{my talk} 11:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Bamburgh

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Kings and earls of Bamburgh. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Bamburgh to Category:Earls of Bamburgh
  • Alt compromise: keep: Category:Rulers of Bamburgh; add parent Category:Monarchs in the British Isles

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parents Category:Anglo-Saxon earls and Category:Earls of Northumbria. I've boldly renamed the main article to Earls of Bamburgh already. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Alt compromise rationale: It's a bit difficult to say what their actual titles were, and Category:Monarchs in the British Isles is better for the early "rulers" of Bamburgh, while Category:Anglo-Saxon earls and Category:Earls of Northumbria are better for the later "rulers" of Bamburgh. Adding an extra parent may be a better idea than renaming the category (supported by Deacon of Pndapetzim and Marcocapelle). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose this. They are not 'earls' until relatively late, in the tenth century they go by the titles 'king' 'prince' and 'high reeve' depending on the source, the use of the title 'earl' emerges late when they more or less accept their status as part of a larger English kingdom (the title 'earl' itself isn't used in that conventional sense in England until about c.1000 anyway). There is something about this in their various articles, but that's why the main article title is not 'Earls of Bamburgh' either. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would it be a better idea, then, to rename the main article and this category to Monarchs of Bamburgh? Since they can be kings, princes and (semi-)independent earls, and "rulers" is too vague? And are parents Category:Anglo-Saxon earls and Category:Earls of Northumbria even correct if the earliest "rulers" of Bamburgh weren't "earls"? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Alt rename to Category:Monarchs of Bamburgh, as more specific. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Those parents aren't incorrect, since some of them are given the title 'earl', at least by modern historians. To be honest the ambiguity of the word 'ruler' seems to be perfect for the article's topic, I don't see any advantage in 'monarch', esp. as there is a suggestion that rulership of the polity may have been shared c.920 when 'the sons of Eadwulf' are among the rulers who meet Edward the Elder at Bakewell and since the later rulers, say post-Uhtred d. c.1018, definitely don't seem to be sovereign 'monarchs' in the late medieval sense, they are likely subject to the king of England (an Edward the Confessor) and possibly also the ealdorman of Northumbria (e.g. a Siward or Tostig). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm ok, that's good to know. Then perhaps rather than looking for an overarching parent category, we should put this category (and the main article) into several categories which may only partially apply? E.g. Category:Monarchs in the British Isles for the early "rulers" of Bamburgh, and Category:Anglo-Saxon earls and Category:Earls of Northumbria for the later "rulers" of Bamburgh? (We do not have to take the "mon-" in "monarch" too literally in cases of power-sharing between, say, two kings, or a king and a queen regnant; that would make categorisation overcomplicated.) This seems to be a good compromise to me. How about you @Deacon of Pndapetzim and @Marcocapelle? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm don't think I'm all that fussed what categories get put at the bottom of this article, but I should point out that we don't really know when they stopped being 'kings' and started being 'earls', as you'll know the evidence doesn't always allow the kind of clear and decisive EITHER/OR interpretation well suited for, say, Wikipedia categories. Also, maybe it's just me, 'monarch' sounds a bit high for these types of early medieval rulers, would any modern writer ever use such a grand term for kings of Brega or kings of the Rhinns? I'm a bit puzzled why the word 'ruler' is allegedly problematic by comparison. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As a historian, I agree with what you say about the uncertainty of what to call something or someone when the sources are ambiguous, and not trying to put historical persons into boxes in which they do not fit.

As a Wikipedian, I must insist on WP:CATSPECIFIC, and that clarifying which kinds of persons this category is grouping should be unambiguous enough, as part of the Category:Rulers process.

My compromise suggestion seeks to strike a balance between these two considerations. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would be ok with this alternative too. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Still nothing wrong with the word 'ruler'. Srnec (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm prepared to make an exception in this case. Rather than renaming the category, I've proposed to add Category:Monarchs in the British Isles as an extra parent as a compromise. Would that be acceptable for you? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Kings and earls of Bamburgh. I'm looking at Template:Anglo-Saxon status and at high-reeve, and it sounds like that title, though a leader, is a nobleman under an earl (a sort of a steward, apparently?). And so, I don't know if we should even call them "rulers". As for "monarch", I agree that that seems a bit out of place here. - jc37 10:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Kings" seems fine, given none of them appear to have been women, so "monarchs" won't be necessary per MOS:GNL. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Category:Kings and earls of Bamburgh is perfectly fine as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I support "kings and earls" too. How about you @Deacon of Pndapetzim and @Srnec? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  The main article is 'rulers' and, given the variety of titles, that seems best. Srnec (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from the Kingdom of Ireland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 20#Category:People from the Kingdom of Ireland

Category:7th-millennium BC people

• Propose upmerging Category:7th-millennium BC people to Category:Ancient people
• Propose upmerging Category:6th-millennium BC people to Category:Ancient people
• Propose upmerging Category:4th-millennium BC people to Category:Ancient people
• Propose upmerging Category:3rd-millennium BC people to Category:Ancient people
• Propose upmerging Category:2nd-millennium BC people to Category:Ancient people
• Propose upmerging Category:1st-millennium BC people to Category:Ancient people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layers. The 4 March 2023 "Rulers by millennium" already found that all such "by millennium" categories were already in "by century" categories. The "by period" categories Category:Ancient people and Category:Medieval people are, however, commonly accepted umbrellas. Although technically ancient history conventionally only starts at 3000 BC(E), the Egyptian pharaohs in Category:4th-millennium BC people may already be considered part of recorded history, so they wouldn't fit in a category like Category:Prehistoric people. The remaining two pre-3000 BC cats are both WP:SMALLCATs, and the 3rd- to 1st-millennium BC cats may fairly be called "Ancient people". So all of these can be Upmerged to Category:Ancient people. We can look at the AD/CE millennium cats later, let's just sort these out first. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

3rd, 2nd and 1st millennium BC withdrawn for now for procedural reasons, to simplify our decision-making. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: For the BC children of Category:Deaths by millennium we could of course create Category:Ancient deaths. We've already got Category:Executed ancient people, Category:Ancient murder victims, and Category:Ancient people who committed suicide (currently in CfR, could end up as simply "Ancient suicides"). There seems to be no reason for a "by millennium" tree here either. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep; these are useful for navigation, as there are other topics categorised by millennium. Some of the contents are not categorised by century due to uncertainty, e.g. Barum woman, Minnesota Woman, Stoneyisland Man, Luttra Woman, Agastya, Girl of the Uchter Moor, Category:Book of Judges people, and even more precision would be lost unnecessarily by merging to "ancient people". If this nomination nevertheless gains support, it should be expanded with its "millennium" subcats e.g. Category:4th-millennium BC women, Category:3rd-millennium BC deaths. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think much "precision" is lost when we are talking about thousands of years. It is highly unlikely that the average reader would be looking for someone in Category:6th-millennium BC people to look for Minnesota Woman; but I find it very plausible that they would be looking for her in Category:Ancient people or Category:Ancient women.

  I agree the subcats should eventually follow, that is why I have made a point about "Ancient deaths" already. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: Not redundant: clearly anyone who can be categorised by a century should be so categorised, and not also put into the parent category (and this can be clarified in category notes if necessary), but there are people like Barum woman ("died 7010–6540 BCE") for whom a millennium category remains appropriate. PamD 10:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And looking at the other examples above inspires me to move her to Barum Woman for consistency. PamD 10:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sooo... Barum Woman ("died 7010–6540 BCE") could also have died in the 8th millennium BC, and never even seen the dawn of the 7th millennium BC? So we have a margin of error of 470 years (almost half a millennium), yet it "remains appropriate" to create a "by millennium" category just for her alone, even if it's a WP:SMALLCAT, and even if she may have never lived in it? So much for "precision". This is just WP:OR. She should be in Category:Date of death unknown at the most (unless we want to create a Category:1st-mega-annum BC people/deaths to make absolutely sure she is "precisely"/"appropriately" categorised). This is bordering on the ridiculous.

Lastly, the "30th-century BC women rulers" CfM already confirmed that we don't need to have "by century" categories just for their own sake. If they are SMALLCATs, they can and should be upmerged. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, a new suggstion:

Merge the 7th-4th categories into Category:Pre-3000 BC people. If "technically ancient history conventionally only starts at 3000 BC(E)" (fascinating, I never knew that), then it makes sense to have a single category for those people who are more ancient than ancient history. It then fits into the hierarchy along with the categories for 3rd, 2nd, 1st millennia BC, which should be almost entirely parent categories but will possibly have the occasional "can't be more precise" entry. And we need to sort out what to do with the earliest Pharaohs: the problem seems to be that "ancient (recorded) history" in Egypt goes back further than the conventional definition. I think we do need a category in which the identified individuals from the very distant past can be grouped together and not just bundled in with everyone else born BCE. I am not an ancient historian, but created Barum Woman as part of Women in Red's Women in the Ancient World editathon PamD 19:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@PamD That sounds like a great idea!! Incidentally, I am a historian (although antiquity is not my specialisation), and I've also written about women's history. Barum Woman is a fascinating article, and I thank you for creating it. (Any snarky jokes I made in my previous comment were not aimed at you, just at the current categorisation scheme as a whole). The millennia categories are just not very practical in this domain of time so long ago with very imprecise dates. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: I'm leaning more towards the archaeology alternative now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Dual merge Category:7th-millennium BC people to Category:Ancient people and Category:7th millennium BC per WP:SMALLCAT, and the same applies to 6th millennium BC. Normally we do not have people articles in topic categories but this is an exception that we may allow. The articles are more about an archaeological finding than an actual biography. For the 4th millennium BC and younger it is a too premature nomination, as there are subcategories by millennium involved too. I would recommend to withdraw these and (possibly) initially renominate the 4th millennium BC people categories and subcategories only. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Different merge target: rather than to Category:Ancient people, Category:7th-millennium BC people and Category:6th-millennium BC people should be merged to Category:Human remains (archaeological). So my alt merge proposal is as below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Alt upmerging Category:7th-millennium BC people to Category:7th millennium BC and Category:Human remains (archaeological)
• Alt upmerging Category:6th-millennium BC people to Category:6th millennium BC and Category:Human remains (archaeological)

• What do you think PamD's suggestion:

  "Merge the 7th-4th categories into Category:Pre-3000 BC people"? I think it's a great idea. For the 3rd, 2nd and 1st millennium perhaps you're right. I could withdraw them for now for procedural reasons. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  • It is not a great idea at all. It would mix up archaeology with borderline history or legends. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

    Hmmmm I guess the archaeology alternative does make more sense, yes. Good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

    I've withdrawn the 3rd l, 2nd and 1st millennium for now as you suggested. I'm keeping the 4th for now because here archaeology and history start to mix, and we need to decide what to do with that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• I would still prefer to keep, as a consistent structure, but in case there is consensus to merge, wouldn't Category:Prehistoric people be better than "Pre-3000 BC"? The article Prehistory refers to periods ending around 3,000 BC, which is a neat match. – Fayenatic London 16:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would not oppose that, but an article like Iry-Hor would not belong there together with articles about archaeological human remains. Also, I suppose, would this become a subcategory of Category:Human remains (archaeological)? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I said in the rationale Although technically ancient history conventionally only starts at 3000 BC(E), the Egyptian pharaohs in Category:4th-millennium BC people may already be considered part of recorded history, so they wouldn't fit in a category like Category:Prehistoric people. For me, what counts heavily is that we usually know the names of these earliest pharaohs because they were written down = recorded history. That's another reason why I find Marcocapelle's Alt proposal to Upmerge to Category:Human remains (archaeological) so compelling: names like Barum Woman, Minnesota Woman, Stoneyisland Man etc. are all made up by modern researchers, because these people or their communities didn't leave behind any writings with names. Moreover, we've got Category:Bog bodies such as Girl of the Uchter Moor (died c. 764–515 BCE) and Yde Girl (died c. 54 BCE–128 CE) who lived and died in northern Europe amongst prehistoric cultures which were still illiterate, while the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Indians, Chinese, Greeks etc. already had firmly developed written cultures. Putting such people in a Category:Prehistoric people category would be correct for them, but then we can't say that this category only contains people who lived/died before 3000 BCE anymore. Given that we've already got the Category:Human remains (archaeological) tree, and it is contentious to put these people in a "by millennium" or "by century" history category (tree), Upmerging is the logical course of action here. I think Marcocapelle is spot-on. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• OK, Category:Human remains (archaeological) looks quite a good place for Barum Woman (and similar), and is better than the original idea of putting her into a category (Category:Ancient people) which goes right up to 800AD. PamD 16:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Two questions: should Category:Human remains (archaeological) be a child category of Category:Ancient people?, and would identifiably female such remains go into Category:Ancient women (which has only 2 entries not in subcategories), or somewhere else. It feels important to have a categorisation which identifies women in prehistory. PamD 16:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

According to the current proposal, no. We will be keeping archaeological and historical categories separate. Whether the archaeological tree could benefit from a subcategorisation by gender (or perhaps 'sex' is a better term in this context) is a valid question. Although some remains cannot be identified, and some have been misidentified, those that are may probably be categorised as such. Personally I am in favour of it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per navigation and category hierarchy usefulness. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Merge 7th and 6th century millennium to Category:Human remains (archaeological). Keep 4th millennium, which seems to have become large enough as is, and I don't understand how it's redundant. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:19th-century rulers in North America

• Propose renaming Category:19th-century rulers in North America to Category:19th-century presidents of Mexico

Nominator's rationale: Factually what the contents are: they are all presidents of Mexico during the 19th century. We just need to re-parent it from Category:19th-century rulers to Category:19th-century national presidents and Category:Presidents of Mexico. And we need to re-parent child Category:19th-century monarchs in North America to Category:19th-century North American people. See also ongoing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 11#Category:11th-century rulers in North America. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Rename and re-parent per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  What about Chiefs of First Nations? Were they not rulers / monarchs? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  • They are in e.g. Category:Indigenous leaders in Canada and Category:Native American leaders. One could argue that these should become subcategories of Category:19th-century monarchs in North America but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

    Agree with Marco. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:11th-century rulers in North America

• Propose upmerging Category:11th-century rulers in North America to Category:11th-century North American people
• Propose upmerging Category:14th-century rulers in North America to Category:14th-century North American people
• Propose upmerging Category:15th-century rulers in North America to Category:15th-century North American people
• Propose upmerging Category:16th-century rulers in North America to Category:16th-century North American people
• Propose upmerging Category:17th-century rulers in North America to Category:17th-century North American people
• Propose upmerging Category:20th-century rulers in North America to Category:20th-century North American people

Nominator's rationale: All categories only have 1 child: Xth-century BC monarchs in North America. The only exception is Category:17th-century rulers in North America, which has only 1 item: Chief Kairouane. Indirect follow-up to:

• the CfR/CfM 32nd-century BC rulers (Renamed),
• the 31st-century BC rulers CfR (Renamed),
• the 4th-century rulers in Europe CfM (Upmerged), and
• the 1st- to 19th-century rulers in Africa CfM (Upmerged).
• See also ongoing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 11#Category:25th-century BC rulers.
• See also ongoing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 11#Category:5th-century rulers in Asia. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Shouldn't Category:11th-century rulers be a target too? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  • No, the subcategory is already part of Category:11th-century monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:5th-century rulers in Asia

• Propose upmerging Category:5th-century rulers in Asia to Category:5th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:6th-century rulers in Asia to Category:6th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:7th-century rulers in Asia to Category:7th-century Asian people
• Propose upmerging Category:8th-century rulers in Asia to Category:8th-century Asian people

Nominator's rationale: All categories^* only have 1 child: Xth-century BC monarchs in Asia. Indirect follow-up to:

• the CfR/CfM 32nd-century BC rulers (Renamed),
• the 31st-century BC rulers CfR (Renamed),
• the 4th-century rulers in Europe CfM (Upmerged), and
• the 1st- to 19th-century rulers in Africa CfM (Upmerged).
• See also ongoing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 11#Category:25th-century BC rulers.

^* The only exception is Muhammad in Category:7th-century rulers in Asia, which might be contentious.

• If we Upmerge as nominated, he will end up simply in Category:7th-century Asian people, but that seems unhelpful.
• I'm not sure we can categorise him as Category:7th-century monarchs in Asia or Category:7th-century monarchs in the Middle East (the Succession to Muhammad has been controversial up until the present day), even though his successors – the Category:Rashidun caliphs – are.
• Category:7th-century heads of government probably doesn't quite cut it; Abu Bakr may have been the "prime minister" of Muhammad, the latter would arguably have been "head of state" (under certain interpretations of the Constitution of Medina, for example), but there is no Category:7th-century heads of state.
• Some would characterise him as Category:Warlords, but that term carries some negative connotations and is often used by critics of Muhammad/Islam, so I recommend against it for now (I did add Category:7th-century military personnel, which I think nobody will dispute; he is already in Category:Arab generals).
• If we don't know what to do, we can always postpone a decision and simply Upmerge Muhammad to Category:7th-century rulers for now.

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge, redundant category layer. Note that Muhammad already is in Category:7th-century Islamic religious leaders, that may be sufficient. 18:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs)

• It would be sufficient if we agreed he only had spiritual power, but I think most people will agree he also had temporal power. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• I also agree on that but if it is not possible to classify this properly then it isn't. Also it does not seem likely that anyone after reading Muhammed would feel the urge to start reading articles about e.g. 7th-century Byzantine emperors or 7th-century Iranian monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Shouldn't Category:5th-century rulers be a target also? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  • No, the subcategory is already part of Category:5th-century monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle haha someone like me would feel that urge, but admittedly, more so with the Rashidun caliphs, who actually fought (and often defeated) the 7th-century Byzantine emperors (Heraclius) and Sasanian shahanshahs (Yazdegerd III). ;) So just Upmerge as nominated for now? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Sure :-) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:25th-century BC rulers

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Propose upmerging Category:25th-century BC rulers to Category:25th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:24th-century BC rulers to Category:24th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:23rd-century BC rulers to Category:23rd-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:22nd-century BC rulers to Category:22nd-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:21st-century BC rulers to Category:21st-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:20th-century BC rulers to Category:20th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:19th-century BC rulers to Category:19th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:18th-century BC rulers to Category:18th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:17th-century BC rulers to Category:17th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:16th-century BC rulers to Category:16th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:15th-century BC rulers to Category:15th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:14th-century BC rulers to Category:14th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:13th-century BC rulers to Category:13th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:12th-century BC rulers to Category:12th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:11th-century BC rulers to Category:11th-century BC people
• Propose upmerging Category:10th-century BC rulers to Category:10th-century BC people by occupation
• Propose upmerging Category:9th-century BC rulers to Category:9th-century BC people by occupation
• Propose upmerging Category:8th-century BC rulers to Category:8th-century BC people by occupation
• Propose upmerging Category:7th-century BC rulers to Category:7th-century BC people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: All categories only have 1 child: Xth-century BC monarchs. Follow-up to the CfR/CfM 32nd-century BC rulers (Renamed), the 31st-century BC rulers CfR (Renamed), 4th-century rulers in Europe CfM (Upmerged), 1st- to 19th-century rulers in Africa CfM (Upmerged). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: Added 12th to 7th century BC: The 12th and 11th cats have 1 and 2 other children respectively, but can still better be Upmerged. The 10th to 7th cats already got a "by occupation" tree that is to be preferred as a target. I'll stop adding cats for now to keep it simple. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• I support the merge but I want to note that Category:10th-century BC rulers currently contains Category:Queen of Sheba and Category:Theban High Priests of Amun. The first one could probably be categorized as a monarch, though possibly legendary, but I'm not sure about the second one. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Good point. I removed this high priests category from the rulers tree. The high priests were very influential but they were not rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. I was already in doubt about those; this is a good solution. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Han dynasty generals by modern province

• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Anhui to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Chongqing to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Gansu to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Hebei to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Henan to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Hubei to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Hunan to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Jiangsu to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Liaoning to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Shaanxi to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Shandong to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Shanxi to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Sichuan to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Tianjin to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Yunnan to Category:Han dynasty generals
• Propose merging Category:Han dynasty generals from Zhejiang to Category:Han dynasty generals

Nominator's rationale: merge, anachronistic and trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint Ignatius of Antioch

• Propose Deleting Category:Order of Saint Ignatius of Antioch

• Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint Ignatius of Antioch

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD, WP:NONDEFINING and, for the parent cat, WP:SMALLCAT

The Order of Saint Ignatius of Antioch is an award by the Syriac Catholic Church. The Patriarch of Antioch is automatically the Grand Master nearly all of this category consists of those patriarchs who are already well categorized uner Category:Syriac Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch. The only exception is billionaire and Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares whose article does not even mention this award. (No conceptual objection to the parent category but it only contains this subcategory and the main article.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Centenary Medal

• Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Centenary Medal

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:OCAWARD, and WP:DNWAUC

Australia's centennial was in 2001 and, to celebrate, the Centenary Medal was automatically given to every living Australian who was 100 years old. (If you were born on or before 31 December 1901, you go the award; if you were born on 1 January 1902, you were out of luck.) 14,000 additional medals were widely handed out to others that year but the only thing these articles have in common is that they do not treat this award as defining. This creates a comingled grouping including actor Russell Crowe, organic winemaker Gil Wahlquist, prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, rabbi John Levi, Olympian Bill Roycroft, and zookeeper Steve Irwin. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Background We've previously deleted categories for similar anniversary awards here, here, and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)