Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mohanabhil (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 20 August 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 18
August 20 >

August 19

Category:Health and disability rights organizations in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: It seems to be the common Wikipedia norm for UK relevant categories (e.g. Category:Disability organisations based in the United Kingdom) to use the spelling "organisation" over "organization". Helper201 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums about the Moon

Nominator's rationale: After removing four of the seven entries (The Dark Side of the Moon, Harvest Moon (album), Music Out of the Moon, Pink Moon) because they all appear to have been added based solely on their names, the remaining three-entry category seems a bit too small to be worth keeping separate, and thus I propose an upmerge. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nationalist terrorism

Nominator's rationale: This is a bit of dead-end category that also has the problems associated with general "terrorism" labelling. Most of the contents would be better sorted into some sort of "Political violence" type of category. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very unclear scope and it is likely that it has been misused. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political violence in the Byzantine Empire

Nominator's rationale: Seems somewhat needless - the assassinations can just be classified as such. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Almost every medieval empire saw violence. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nationalist terrorism in Europe

Nominator's rationale: This category is a mixture of terrorism categories and categories and articles related to various forms of more nuanced nationalistic violence. It should be merged into Category:Political violence in Europe, which is the more all-embracing and less labelling terminology. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-communist terrorism

Nominator's rationale: "Anti-communist terrorism" seems to just be a euphemism for right-wing or far-right terrorism. Suggest merging to "right-wing terrorism" as the broader target of the two. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Category:Mỹ Lai massacre can be categorised as Category:Right-wing terrorism. Then again, maybe it shouldn't be in this tree to begin with. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, we should just make Category:Right-wing terrorism a parent of this category. But not all right-wing terrorism is aimed against communism or communists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mỹ Lai massacre should be under war crimes, not here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already under Category:Vietnam War crimes committed by the United States, were it should be actually. I've removed the terrorism categories, which are the wrong tree. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball players suspended for drug offenses

Nominator's rationale: Categorization by a non-defining characteristic. WP:TRIVIALCAT User:Namiba 14:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it were defining, it would be commonly mentioned in the introduction of the articles, which it is not. I just surveyed 20 random articles in the MLB category and their suspensions are mentioned in 3 introductions. In the vast majority of cases, being suspended for a drug offense is a mere footnote.--User:Namiba 21:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baltic archaeological cultures

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:NPOV WP:OR. The question whether these archaeological cultures were "Baltic", "Slavic", a mix or something else is hotly contested, and 4 out of 5 articles say so explicitly. Kolochin culture: The culture has been identified either Balts and Slavs. The presence of Baltic river names in the area has lent support to the former theory. People living to the south of the Kolochin culture are however believed to have been Slavs. Milograd culture: Their ethnic origin is uncertain, but likely to be either Baltic or Early Slavic. etc. We shouldn't be categorising items by language family if we've got nothing but archaeological findings that point to multiple possibilities, which are explicitly admitted; that would be Wikipedia taking a POV on a contested issue. Moreover, the "Baltic" part has almost nothing to do with the Baltic states geographical region, because the finds are all from outside this region (Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Russia etc.). Only Brushed Pottery culture is in Category:Archaeological cultures in Lithuania and Category:Archaeological cultures in Latvia (not even Estonia). Follow-up to precedents named in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, as well as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Category:Archaeological cultures by ethnic group. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, only Western Baltic culture was clearly Baltic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure about that one either. It is poorly sourced, making lots of claims about centuries before any text written in a Baltic language has been attested, and it is improperly linked to other articles. E.g. I'm not sure what the difference is between nl:West-Baltische cultuur (unsourced) and nl:West-Baltische grafheuvelcultuur (unsourced), which is linked to de:Westbaltische Hügelgräberkultur. Are these the same concepts? Different concepts? A lot of this also seems to be based on that rather outdated 1963 book of Marija Gimbutas, the American-Lithuanian archaeologist and anthropologist who came up with the Kurgan hypothesis that sought to associate burial mounds on the Pontic–Caspian steppe with the proto-Indo-Europeans. Although it is the most widely accepted hypothesis, it remains a hypothesis. It shouldn't lead Wikipedians to jumping to all sorts of conclusions. Just like the Hallstat culture is often associated with the Celts, but it's not that clear cut, essentially every archaeological culture has been associated with some language family or ethnic group based on little more than extrapolation of sources written centuries later back in time and place. Much of this is pseudo-scholarship or at best speculative. Wikipedia shouldn't participate in it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The people of an archaeological culture are a defining characteristic of that archaeological culture. WP:CATDEF defines a defining characteristic as "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". The Milograd culture, West Baltic barrow culture, Western Baltic culture, and other cultures contained in this category are consistently and commonly characterized as Baltic in modern archaeological literature. Below is for example an exert from the The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age:

    • "Similar pottery found in the middle Dnieper region is attributed to the Milogrady culture... Other shared features are barrows, albeit without stone settings, and a settlement model based on small hillforts. These common features have led to the West Balt barrow culture being considered an effect of the migration of Milogrady population groups to the Baltic Sea region. The West Balt barrow culture population is also classified as a western faction of the Balts, which was the first to break away from the community of Balt-Slavs in the middle of the first millennium BC..." – Haselgrove, Colin; Rebay-Salisbury, Katharina; Wells, Peter S., eds. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191756931.

As described in the The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age, these cultures had a material culture characteristic of Balts, were closely interconnected to one another, and emerged and spread as a result of movements of Balts. They are therefore characterized Baltic in modern archaeological scholarship. WP:CAT states that "the central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia" so that readers and editors "can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." This category provides our readers and editors with useful navigational tools to get an overview of a set of closely interlinked articles on a topic, which helps users acquire more learning and editors improve Wikipedia further. There is lots of potential for improvement on Wikipedia's coverage of Baltic archaeological cultures, and this category helps facilitate such improvements. Deleting this category will be a definite disimprovement for both readers or editors. I'm pinging some active editors on the topic (Antiquistik, Ario1234, Skllagyook, Tewdar, Austronesier, Hunan201p, पाटलिपुत्र, Taromsky, Miki Filigranski, E-960, Turaids, SeriousThinker, Cukrakalnis) in case they have an opinion. Krakkos (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modern archaeological literature is, in fact, sharply divided on the very concept of archaeological culture, which is central to culture-historical archaeology, but widely rejected by processual archaeology. The latter are especially critical of the culture-historical approach's tendency to link stuff found in the ground to the languages spoken by prehistoric people who couldn't read or write and didn't leave any written sources behind. Culture-historical proponents may classify lots of things however they like amongst themselves; that doesn't mean their conclusions represent the consensus in the entire field of archaeology, particularly when processualists reject their very methodology. For the rest, the same counterpoints apply here:
  1. The text itself is ambiguous. For one, I see no evidence that Milogrady culture is considered "Baltic". Second, These common features have led to the West Balt barrow culture being considered Okay, but Template:By whom?. Anyone can write that they personally consider it to be so, but does this hypothesis carry a consensus? I don't think so, otherwise this would have been worded more strongly, e.g. These common features have led to the common acceptance of the West Balt barrow culture as a society of Baltic-speaking people, or something. The West Balt barrow culture population is also classified as a western faction of the Balts Again, Template:By whom?. If a bunch of culture-historical proponents are just referring to each other's books and ignoring the likely fact that all processualists reject their conclusions, then we do not have a consensus in an entire field; we've got a hypothesis with a small amount of agreement amongst one school of scholars.
  2. The articles currently don't say so. It would be helpful to put that information there instead of trying to convince people of it here at CFD.
  3. You can refer to dewiki articles, but they don't count here. Without a clear indication whether any of the 5 articles in the category really qualifies as "Baltic" alone, and not "Slavic" or "Germanic" or "Celtic" or whatever, this category will fail to be WP:CATSPECIFIC, remain WP:ARBITRARY WP:NPOV WP:OR, and we soon run into WP:SMALLCAT territory.
In the end, what is WP:DEFINING for these finds is stuff like pottery, barrows, albeit without stone settings, and a settlement model based on small hillforts, not supposed language families which were not attested in surviving written sources until many centuries later. That all remains in the realm of speculation amongst culture-historical proponents, whilst the processualists look on, shaking their heads and considering whether they should ignore it, or once again respond by explaining that one cannot infer language family or ethnicity from a bunch of pottery shards (without any writing on them) found in the ground. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Krakkos:@Joy:, a lot of common, valid categories which were used for many years on Wikipedia are being deleted/merged per proposition of one editor whose proposition is often supported by only one and same editor. Often there's no discussion. The topic about all these categories is very complex and deserves a proper discussion also because the propositions aren't following the mainstream neither the editor is an expert on the topic. However, this is worst possible period for such complex discussion/consensus building because it is summer, a lot of editors who would be active to participate aren't available. Myself have a lack of time to follow all categories discussion's, but arguably Oppose all propositions for now. I think all this activity about categories proposed by Nederlandse Leeuw, which is in good faith, should be postponed for September or October because the changes are possibly making serious disimprovements. Cheers.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Germanic archaeological cultures

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:NPOV WP:OR. The question whether these archaeological cultures were "Germanic", "Slavic", "Celtic", "Baltic", "pre-Indo-European", a mix, or something else is hotly contested, and many articles say so explicitly. Moreover,Germanic peoples says: Scholars generally agree that it is possible to refer to Germanic-speaking peoples after 500 BCE.[5] Anything before that should be disqualified already, such as the Battle Axe culture (ca. 2800–2300 BCE), which is way too early to say anything about language. "Age" articles such as Nordic Stone Age do not belong in the archaeological cultures tree in the first place. Every single article in this category admits that there is disagreement on how to group this or that archaeological culture, and "Germanic" is always just one of the terms in the mix. See for example Dębczyn culture#Identification; lots of options, no definite conclusions. We shouldn't be categorising items by language family if we've got nothing but archaeological findings that point to multiple possibilities, which are explicitly admitted; that would be Wikipedia taking a POV on a contested issue. Follow-up to precedents named in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, as well as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 2#Category:Archaeological cultures by ethnic group. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, ethnicity is too disputable. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The people of an archaeological culture are a defining characteristic of that archaeological culture. WP:CATDEF defines a defining characteristic as "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". The Jastorf culture, Oksywie culture and other cultures contained in this category are consistently and commonly characterized as Germanic in modern archaeological literature. Below is for example an exert from the The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age:

    • "The issue of the presence of Germanic tribes in central Europe, especially its eastern part, used to provoke heated debate among archaeologists. Nowadays it is generally accepted that the first archaeological unit whose population can be considered Germanic with a high degree of certainty is the Jastorf culture... In a late phase of the early pre-Roman Iron Age, the Jastorf culture found itself in the zone of Celtic influence... brooches modelled on La Tène types appear in grave assemblages in place of traditional pins... In the third century BC, for obscure reasons, the population of the Jastorf culture began to expand towards the south and east. The main axis was the Elbe, which naturally oriented the migration in a southerly direction. However, this path was blocked by the Celts occupying territories north of the Danube. Thus, the migrant Germanic population of the Jastorf culture only reached the north-western edge of the Czech basin... Besides peripheral groups of the Jastorf culture, abundant testimonies of the migration of this population are found... [I]n the middle Dniester region, they form a distinct cluster of settlements and cemeteries distinguished as the Poieneşti-Lukaševka culture. Its clear parallels to the Jastorf culture, such as the presence of vessel forms similar to specimens from the western Baltic area, or characteristic objects such as the crown neck-rings just mentioned, leave no doubt that these relics represent a Germanic population... The Oksywie culture played a singular role in the history of studies on the ethnogenesis of Germanic peoples." – Haselgrove, Colin; Rebay-Salisbury, Katharina; Wells, Peter S., eds. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191756931.

As described in the The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age, these cultures had a material culture characteristic of Germanic peoples, were closely interconnected to one another, and emerged and spread as a result of movements of Germanic peoples. They are therefore characterized Germanic in modern archaeological scholarship. WP:CAT states that "the central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia" so that readers and editors "can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." This category provides our readers and editors with useful navigational tools to get an overview of a set of closely interlinked articles on a topic, which helps users acquire more learning and editors improve Wikipedia further. Deleting this category will be a definite disimprovement for both readers or editors. Krakkos (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is all very interesting, but:
  1. a high degree of certainty is not certain. The source openly admits there is uncertainty and La Tène ("Celtic") influence to be found in the Jastorf culture. Are we also going to categorise it as Category:Celtic archaeological cultures then?
  2. WP:WTAF. The articles in question currently do not say so. I would recommend you to summarise this information in the article space first. Especially the Oksywie culture speculates out loud about its supposed connections with Pomeranian culture (currently categorised as "Slavic"), La Tène culture ("Celtic"), and "Western Baltic languages", without providing reliable sources. The word "Germanic" is nowhere to be found in the main body, only in the template and the category at the bottom. The contents of the article give no reason for that at all. .
  3. You would have to agree that, at the very least, all pre-Jastorf archaeological cultures (pre-500 BCE) will have to be purged from this category, because the first archaeological unit whose population can be considered Germanic with a high degree of certainty is the Jastorf culture. That doesn't leave many items in practice. Reihengräber culture#Ethnicity shows that there is no consensus on the ethnicity of this one, with disputes about how to categorise it, and whether that is scholarly useful to attempt at all. And you can point to articles on German-language Wikipedia, but they don't count here. We could still delete this category per WP:SMALLCAT if Jastorf (and maybe Oksywie) is all you've got.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Wielbark culture of the lower Vistula region can be equated with the Goths... The Oksywie culture played a singular role in the history of studies on the ethnogenesis of Germanic peoples... In the early first century AD, a cultural change occurs in the region of the lower Vistula and the Baltic coast east of the river mouth. Cemeteries of the Oksywie culture grow richer... These changes provide a basis for distinguishing a new archaeological unit, the Wielbark culture. Its formation in the area previously dominated by the Oksywie culture is largely attributable to Scandinavian influences... Towards the end of the second and in the early third century AD, the territorial focus of the Wielbark culture changed decisively... [B]urial grounds typical of the Wielbark culture now appeared east of the middle Vistula, in Mazovia and the Lublin upland, and even further south-east, in Volhynia. The same period saw the formation in southern Ukraine of the Chernyakhov culture, which displays close links to the Wielbark culture. These developments imply that a major group of the Wielbark culture may have abandoned its homeland and headed south... This migration seems to find an echo in the ancient texts... [R]emarkable convergence of texts and archaeology permits us to identify with some certainty the population of the Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures as Goths." – Haselgrove, Colin; Rebay-Salisbury, Katharina; Wells, Peter S., eds. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of the European Iron Age. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191756931.

  • "[A] clear ethnic identification of these finds is supported... The Celts, Balts, Germans, and Slavs successively became front-stage actors in the processes described by archaeologists studying the following phases of the Iron Age... In the south, "Pomeranians" met Celtic newcomers, who had settled in Silesia in the fourth century b.c. About a hundred years later the next wave of the La Tène culture bearers settled in Little Poland. Farther north a small Celtic colony existed... Pomeranian societies were replaced by two groups of the Proto-Germanic Jastorf culture, expanding from its cradle in Jutland and northern Germany. It probably was this new influence that prompted further development, resulting in the formation of two new cultures... Of these two, the Przeworsk culture was the more successful in its territorial expansion and the more durable (lasting more than six centuries). It originated somewhere in central Poland in the second half of the third century b.c. During its early phases it developed under the strong influence of Celtic traditions... Even stronger was the Jastorfian impact in the north, where the Oksywie culture formed in the lower Vistula region... This culture later gave birth to the Wielbark culture, identified with the Goths... The decline of the continental Celts allowed for the vigorous expansion of Germanic peoples. Germanic ethnicity is ascribed to two archaeologically distinct cultures that dominated Polish lands during the early Roman Age (a.d. 1–150). The Przeworsk culture expanded east and south, where it replaced societies attached to the Celtic traditions... This chronological clarity also pertains to studies of the northern neighbor of the Przeworsk culture, the Wielbark culture. This culture represents societies that gave birth to the famous tribes of Goths and Gepids, who migrated southeast in the second half of the second century a.d... During the younger phase of the early Roman Age (c. a.d. 80–150), the new Luboszyce culture emerged in the region of the middle Oder River. It showed strong affiliations with both the Przeworsk and the Wielbark cultures. Retreat of the latter group toward the southeast opened the way for a stronger influence emanating from the Elbian region in eastern Germany, which led to the formation in western and central Pomerania of the De˛bczyno group, known for its late Roman "princely" burials. The late material culture of this area shows Scandinavian connections." – Crabtree, Pam J.; Bogucki, Peter I., eds. (2004). Ancient Europe 8000 B.C.--A.D. 1000 Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World. Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 9780684806686.

Most the archaeological cultures in the category are discussed in the two quotes above. As one can see the Germanic character of these cultures is repeatedly emphasized in scholarship. These cultures were closely connected to one another, were materially similar, and their development were closely connected to activities of Germanic peoples. The category is a good tool for getting an overview of the topic and understanding this interconnectedness. This is helpful for both readers and editors, and thus serves Wikipedia's purpose well. Krakkos (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English and British monarchs

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and consistency with article names. Векочел (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename either per nom or else to e.g. Category:Edward VI (England) to clarify that England is a disambiguator rather than part of the name. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They need a disambiguator. Categories are different to articles. In an article, you can clarify the scope; that's more difficult to do in category space. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are to use the disambiguator, we should also title Category:Henry VIII as Henry VIII of England, Category:Queen Victoria as Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, etc. Векочел (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laurel Lodged: what do you think of my alternative above? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems unhelpful. Including brackets in URLs can lead to broken links when copypasted outside Wikipedia. It also doesn't really improve what we've already got.
      Right now I Oppose as I see no navigational benefit from renaming. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The alternative is acceptable. Who pastes URLs of categories? Doesn't happen. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State attorneys

Nominator's rationale: Same thing, more or less; they even have the same subcategories. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:District attorneys in North Dakota

Nominator's rationale: Wrong job title, at least according to the articles in the category. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Software Hells

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by shared name, resulting in a WP:SMALLCAT for just two things. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the two articles already link to each other directly, there is no navigational benefit in creating this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century women rulers

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these medieval women. I'm suggesting a split into no fewer than 9 new categories. Follow-up to Category:5th-century women rulers (Split), 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well; the "7th-century women rulers" CfS, the "8th-century women rulers" CfS, the "9th-century women rulers" CfS, the "10th-century women rulers" CfS, and the "11th-century women rulers" CfS are still ongoing.
Proposed split into 9 new categories
Women regents
Empresses consort
Queens regnant
Queens consort
Princess consort
Duchesses consort
Countesses regnant
Countesses consort
Ladies regnant
Currently non-viable categories and doubtful cases
Princess regnant (2)
  • Constance of Antioch. Recommend: Princess regnant, but princess consort also acceptable
  • Melike Mama Hatun. Anatolian beylik. Recommend: Princess regnant, but queen regnant also acceptable
Duchesses regnant (2)
Doubtful cases
For categorisation purposes, I count (pun intended) margravines, landgravines and viscountesses as "countesses". Two women were princess regnant and two were duchess regnant, but that's not enough for a new separate category for the time being. I recommend classifying them as "consort" for now, and also putting the duchesses regnant in Category:Duchesses regnant. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queens of Cyprus

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hereditary Princes of Hesse-Rotenburg

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for just one person. This would be fine if there were five of these, but it does not facilitate navigation of the Wikipedia to obsessively categorize everything down to microcategories of one. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royalty of the Crusader states

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer, 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:13th-century kings of Jerusalem

Nominator's rationale: 5 of them were women as queens regnant. Per grandparent Category:Monarchs of Jerusalem, we should use "monarchs" for both queens regnant and kings, instead of male-only "kings". All three of these "by century" cats should be re-parented to Category:Monarchs of Jerusalem. The Category:Kings of Jerusalem should only be populated with men. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to monarchs. Wikipedia should use gender neutral terms when possible and to make categories more consistent. --Aciram (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch movie series

Nominator's rationale: I just created "Dutch film series" but now I realise there is also "Dutch movie series" created in 2015. I think the word "film" is better suited and it's also what we use for other European countries, see Category:Film series by country. Simeon (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by wildfires

Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_19&oldid=1171360939"