Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 25

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 19:17, 31 May 2023 ((BOT) Fix page header. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/CFDClerk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< March 24
March 26 >

March 25[edit]

Category:Non-German units of the Waffen-SS[edit]

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: Procedural delete. Duplicate concurrent discussions. Restore status quo ex ante. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate existing categories Category:Foreign volunteer units of the Waffen-SS and Category:Foreign conscript units of the Waffen-SS; introducing incorrect nomenclature. All units of the Waffen-SS were German, only some were based on foreign volunteers or recruits. Using the term "non-German" suggests that units of other armies served in the Waffen-SS. Marcelus (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is objectively wrong. The nomenclature I am using is very accurate and comes directly from WP:RS.
David T. Zabecki, World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia (2015), 677:
The non-German units of the Waffen-SS, principally the larger formations, had a good, in some cases outstanding, war record. [1]
Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly doesn't explain anything, because it is one thing to use such an adjective in the context of a longer essay, another to use it in a category name. Besides, this doesn't explain the doubling and purging of categories that use the more precise adjective "foreign" Marcelus (talk) 23:04, 25 March 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:1919 crimes by month[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. One article. No merge is needed since the article is in the parent categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In fact all sibling categories until 1999 may be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 25 March 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.

Sports events by month[edit]

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 and delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More nominations
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. All month year categories contain just one article. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. In fact all sibling categories until 1899 may be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The overall category covers 2½ centuries, and it would be confusing and unnecessary to have the first half century (or century) structured differently from the rest@! Hugo999 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what happens with this sort of categories all the time. When going far enough back, decades suffice instead of years. When going even further back, centuries suffice instead of decades. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as per WP:SMALLCAT. The fact that there are more notable events in the 20th/21st centuries doesn't mean that we should just blindly follow that categorisation for the 19th century when there are way fewer known notable events. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 30 March 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.

Fires in the United Kingdom by year[edit]

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 all, then delete Category:Fires in the United Kingdom by year. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, follow-up on this earlier nomination, most year categories contain only 1 or 2 articles and hardly anyone reaches 5 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302, Lenticel, Hugo999, Aidan721, and William Allen Simpson: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If adopted the articles should also be in the category XXXX disasters in the United Kingdom (some articles may be in that category already) Hugo999 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, in the beginning they are all also in disasters, but not consistently throughout the tree. I will add it as a third merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — although I'm uncertain why we need any per year by continent parallel tree.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom --Lenticel (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all for exactly the same reasons as the 1861 one which I nominated. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 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:2022 American Athletic Conference baseball season[edit]

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 to Category:2022 NCAA Division I baseball season and Category:American Athletic Conference baseball seasons. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, as it contains only one article. The article is on the final tournament rather than the season as a whole, so this does not quite fit the speedy criterion WP:C2F. – Fayenatic London 15:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:07, 25 March 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:Song dynasty politics[edit]

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 to Category:Song dynasty. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with currently one subcategory and one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:07, 25 March 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:Palestinian people[edit]

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 to Rename/Merge. Feel free to "start fresh" with a follow-up discussion (as noted below), as appropriate. - jc37 04:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Differentiate between this category and Category:Palestinians. Skovl (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, the benefit of the rename as stated by nom is obvious, I can't think of an objection right away, but I might change my mind if anyone would raise a serious objection. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Skovl changed the definitions before nomination, copy and pasting the definition from Palestinian people to Palestinians. That's why things became confused.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let me rephrase. If discussion is needed, we should start from scratch. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:37, 1 April 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:Thai-language singers of South Korea[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to have been manually emptied, then soft redirected to Category:Thai-language singers of South Korea, but the target category contains no such members, so this is a misleading redirect. Paul_012 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nominator notes, the target category (Category:Thai-language singers) contains no Korean singers. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:41, 25 March 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:List of AA Films distributed Hindi Dubbed films[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 8#Category:List of AA Films distributed Hindi Dubbed films

Category:Seleucid rulers[edit]

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:Seleucid monarchs. (non-admin closure) Nagsb (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B: The Seleucids used the title basileus, which is commonly translated as "king". Even though the article is called Seleucid Empire, nobody calls them "emperors". Aside from "rulers", "kings" appears to be slightly more common on Wikipedia (e.g. List_of_kings_of_Babylon#Dynasty_XIII_(Seleucid),_305–141_BC, Seleucid dynasty, List of Syrian monarchs#Seleucid dynasty etc.) and in literature, and it's more WP:PRECISE than "rulers". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As rightly pointed out by StarTrekker and Chiswick Chap, there have been at least 3 Seleucid queens regnant, so I've modified the proposal to "Seleucid monarchs" to make it gender-neutral. Pinging @Marcocapelle: who voted for "kings" already. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support amended nomination per nom. Similar to kings of the Achaemenid Empire who are not called emperors either. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to have been three queens regnant (Berenice Syra, Cleopatra Thea and Cleopatra Selene of Syria). Also another point to note, couldn't "ruler" also refer to regents and such? Not everyone who rules a place is technically a king or monarch, I'm not sure this recent trend of moving all the ruler categories is the best idea in all cases.★Trekker (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per StarTrekker. "rulers" works fine (IIABDFI); or you could use "monarchs" but that doesn't cover regents either. Best stay as you are really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @StarTrekker:@Chiswick Chap: As you are new to the rulers noms (welcome!), I'd like to point you to the Rulers CfD that has been going on for some time. There is broad consensus that a lot of things are broken and need fixing, and what we are doing is working out the details. Although there is no definitive consensus on that top category yet, Marcocapelle, William Allen Simpson and I, as well as others, have been reaching agreements over the last couple of weeks about dozens of underlying categories, and in general that it is best to change "ruler" into something more specific to avoid confusion. Points about which there seems to be broad (but not universal) consensus so far include:
    • "monarch" or "king" is usually more specific and applicable than "ruler".
    • "king" is preferable when the literature is consistent, "monarch" is preferable when the literature is inconsistent, or if there is a significant number of queens regnant, in which case "monarch" becomes the preferred gender-neutral alternative. This last scenario may be the case here, and I'm willing to change the proposal to Category:Seleucid monarchs to resolve it; I don't think it's a good reason to just keep things as they are.
    • "governors" and "regents" are not "rulers", because they are not sovereign or hereditary, even if they are de facto or de jure acting as heads of state (although "head of government" is probably more correct). Whenever the "ruler" in question was actually a governor or regent, they should be recategorised as such. So the points you two (StarTrekker and Chiswick Chap) are making are valid, and taken into account in every nom. Indeed, they are often the reason why we make a nom, because the current categorisation is often incorrectly putting governors and regents in cat trees of hereditary monarchs where they do not belong. Leaving governors and regents in the wrong cats as they are is probably not a good option; we should put them where they belong and that sometimes requires reorganising the categories to make it possible.
    • the term "ruler" is also frequently and confusingly applied to non-hereditary heads of state/govt (in republics, and monarchies with prime ministers and such), which often leads to disputes about who is really the "ruler" of a country (see the Fascist rulers CfD, where the prime minister was considered the "ruler" but not the king, even though technically the king had a higher rank, and both appointed, dismissed and arrested the "ruler" by virtue of that higher authority). This has also led to errors in categorisation, wherein presidents and prime ministers ended up in cat trees of hereditary monarchs. These are all evident problems that can often only be resolved by abandoning the far too ambiguous term "ruler" in favour of more specific terms. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then "Monarch" would be the term of choice, given that 3 of them were queens. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal updated. Thanks for the correction! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:47, 25 March 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:Fictional Australian detectives[edit]

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 to Fictional detectives and Category:Fictional Australian people. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, this category does not have any siblings in the tree of Category:Fictional detectives by nationality, this in contrast to its police detectives subcategory. Move the two articles to Category:Fictional Australian people and Category:Fictional detectives; move the subcategory to Category:Fictional Australian people by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:43, 25 March 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:Qus Markaz villages[edit]

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: speedy deleted per G5. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category of unclear utility. It's not at all clear what a "Markaz village" is in the first place, as none of the articles explain that term and even the disambiguation page at Markaz lists nothing related to Egypt at all, and when I first found the category it was also polluted with a number of illogical entries, including people, companies and redirects back to Qus itself that didn't represent "villages" within the city, but merely alternately-spelled forms of the city itself.
All four of the articles here are already filed in Category:Qus alongside this as it is, so no context will be lost, but they don't need a separate subcategory on this criterion if it isn't clear what the criterion even represents in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:39, 25 March 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:30th-century BC women rulers[edit]

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: triple merge to Category:Ancient women rulers, Xth-century BC rulers, and Xth-century BC women. bibliomaniac15 02:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. All these cats have only 1 or 2 items. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, we should find them in a rulers by century category too. I have amended my earlier comment above. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The whole point of the nomination is that there were hardly any e.g. 6th-century women rulers so it is a too narrow search topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 16 April 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:Families of national leaders[edit]

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 to delete; split all between heads of state and heads of government. Renaming was suggested only as an interim step, but that step might as well be skipped. – Fayenatic London
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: It is currently both in Category:Heads of government and Category:Heads of state; the category name should make clear that this category seeks to combine the families of people in those two positions. (Category:Parents of world leaders makes clear that "world leaders" means "presidents" and "prime ministers"). WP:C2B established practice. The term "national leader" or just "leader" is too vague (as previously summarised by several users (Fayenatic London, Rathfelder, Kbdank71, and myself) in the Rulers CfD under proposal #26). This is why "List of state leaders" was moved to List of current heads of state and government to make clear we are combining heads of state and heads of government, and nobody else. Similar examples: List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government, List of the first women heads of state and government in Muslim-majority countries, List of Muslim women heads of state and government, Heads of state and government of the Philippines, Category:Philippine Heads of State and Government, List of assassinated and executed heads of state and government, List of openly LGBT heads of state and government, List of heads of state and government Nobel laureates, etc. (Incidentally, there are also cases where they are separated, such as Category:Fictional children of heads of government (even though that includes presidents), List of spouses of heads of government and List of spouses of heads of state.) There are more subcategories, but I'd like to just nominate these first, then we'll do the rest later. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split between heads of state and heads of government, as we have separate category trees for each of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not be opposed to that, but I think that, if we were going to do that, it should be a next step. It's a lot of manual work. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't that much manual work and it should be done anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that lots of subcategories would need to be split too, that would make it too complicated within this nomination. So I change my vote to support as an intermediate improvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I agree with what you say, and would support future noms to that effect. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming and then support Split as well. --Skovl (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, Caesar was Dictator, so its pretty irrelevant if Consuls outrank Censors or vise versa.★Trekker (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Containerize The new proposed title is far too awkward. If articles are only put in subcategories, the problem of imprecision goes away. Looking at Mostafa Khamenei, it could be in a new "families of Supreme Leaders of Iran" category, and already is in Category:Ali Khamenei. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many of the categories contained here are of historical persons whose cultures did not necessarily differentiate between these positions. I don't see why "national leader" would be unclear or confusing. If people want to have categories that are explicit in if the person is the head or state or goverment they can simply create child categories by those names.★Trekker (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @StarTrekker it is established practice to categorise people who are both head of state and head of government, such as the POTUS, as "head of state" only. So this wouldn't pose a problem to our category tree. And as I said to Marcocapelle above, I'm not opposed to a split into "heads of state" and "heads of government", I have only proposed to do that after the renaming is done. Marcocapelle has agreed to this procedure already: rename the cats first, start a split CfD second. One thing at a time.
    In cases of states/cultures where there was no difference between head of state and head of government, the term "national leader" doesn't solve the issue of WP:NONDEF, it just moves it by introducing four new problems: defining "national", defining "leader", defining "national leader", and having to argue why that is better than either "head of state" or ""head of state and government". Especially because the idea of the "nation" and nationalism didn't exist until the 18th and 19th century, "historical cultures" from before those times should probably not be framed in "national" terms.
    Finally, "national leader" has no legal significance, it is informal and often subjective (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT). For example (this a random example, but I think it illustrates this problem well), Józef Piłsudski seized power with a coup in 1926, retired as prime minister in 1928 (in favour of Kazimierz Bartel), but everyone knows he was the strongman who continued to hold the real power in Poland behind the curtains until his death in 1935, and thus was arguably the "national leader" until 1935. The problem lies in that arguably, because people argue quite a lot about Piłsudski, not least because he seized that power illegitimately in 1926, and so it is questionable whether he was really the "nation's" "leader" (coupled with arguments about justification for the coup and the "good things" he did for "the nation") or rather a "usurper" and "dictator" (coupled with arguments about how he was "self-serving" by seizing power for himself rather than respecting democracy, i.e. "the power of the people/nation" etc.) in those last years. If we accept this idea (which many Polish people do), then he was still head of government for his last 7 years, but if we reject it (which many other Polish people do), he wasn't. We can't have that in our category tree; our categories should be clear and unambiguous. Therefore, it's a good thing that Category:Józef Piłsudski is only in Category:Prime Ministers of Poland (which is a great-grandchild of Category:Heads of government), and does not show up anywhere in the "national leaders" category trees. It would utterly violate WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I think his bio's lead section is stating the best compromise: ...and was considered de facto leader (1926–35) of the Second Polish Republic as the Minister of Military Affairs. Such articulate nuance defies categorisation. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all — combining heads of state and heads of government is a terrible idea. Having a Union category that is then a parent of a reverse Intersection is even worse from the point of view of categorical inheritance. Much of this cruft should be deleted/merged elsewhere instead. Category:Parents of world leaders? Hogwash, not one is a leader of the United Nations. Notability is not heritable, let alone inverse transferable.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @William Allen Simpson As I said to Marcocapelle above, I'm not opposed to a split into "heads of state" and "heads of government", I have only proposed to do that after the renaming is done. Furthermore, I have already proposed to rename Category:Parents of world leaders to Category:Parents of heads of state and government, exactly to solve the semantic issues first. Marcocapelle has agreed to this procedure already: rename the cats first, start a split CfD second. One thing at a time. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is still a bad idea. It just makes work, with no benefit. Work from the branches inward, not the trunk outward. Nobody cares that dual inheritance is not reflected by the name. They do not need to be temporarily renamed. They will eventually be deleted entirely as the next levels are split.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case we are not disagreeing on the direction to which this is going. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 9 April 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:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia[edit]

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:Populated places in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language. bibliomaniac15 20:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The suggested title more accurately conveys the contents of the category. Skovl (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment . I was kindly informed about the proposal on my talkpage. I have nothing against, but the new category should instead be Municipalities and Villages or Settlements because in some cases the language is co-official only in certain villages rather than the entire municipality (for example Korođ in Tordinci Municipality).--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Territorial units in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language per WP:C2B; we've got lots of "Lists of countries and territories where X is an official language". I don't see how changing "territorial units" to "municipalities" or "municipalities and villages/settlements" is an improvement; I suggest we leave that part unchanged. Cheers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Category:Populated places in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language is an acceptable 2nd choice for me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While looking for similar categories, I've found these: Category:Hungarian communities (see all the subcategories), likewise for many other ethnic communities and countries. If we want to stay consistent, this is an option. –Vipz (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What defines a "Hungarian community"? I've taken a look, and apparently even if a town like Rožňava has only 18.77% Hungarians (2021 census), it is categorised as Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia. This seems WP:SUBJECTIVECAT to me. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is implying any exclusivity there (if it is indeed necessary, description may explicitly clarify that part). I think it just categorizes local communities where there are numerous enough Hungarian communities (be it 1,5,25% or 20,50,100 individuals irrespective of percentage) to constitute formal or informal local Hungarian community (cultural and social life, language etc.). Ideally, an article on Hungarians in Rožňava would be created, but in most cases it would not be sufficiently notable separate topic, while locally undeniably relevant for Rožňava. This can lead to invisibility of Hungarians in Rožňava community where readers unfamiliar with very local geographies may be completely oblivious about them while interested in principle to learn about such cases and communities in Slovakia. This category (while certainly not ideal and always a bit subjective) addresses that issue. Of course it can be abused for irredentist POV pushing (we should be vigilant about it), but deleting it may serve those who want to oppress or assimilate minority community (and majority/dominant nationalism is usually more problematic).--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with a lot of your points. I think the best solution is to agree to specific inclusion criteria rather than deletion or a free-for-all WP:ARBITRARYCAT/WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. At Category talk:Hungarian communities in Slovakia Vipz and I have discussed this more in detail; I'd like to invite you to join us over there. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with changing away from this, because it just reads badly - the territorial units don't speak a language, the people in it do. --Joy (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — What the heck is a "territorial unit"? We use "populated place", not municipalities or settlements. As Joy sayeth, concentrate on people, not officialdom.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance is not excuse and territorial unit is just a direct translation of teritorijalna jedinica (the term which can be applied all the way from the first-level subdivisions to cadastral municipality--- meaning Istria County is an territorial unit with co-official Italian and it is not a populated place. At the same time you can hava a village outside of the county with co-official Italian and both territorial units, county and the village, would fit in the same category). As for officialdom, it can occasionally provide quotable references, particularly when more relaxed approach is challenged, deleted and our interest in encyclopaedic dealing with certain communities questioned. As for your agreement to delete, my understanding was that Joy in fact proposed renaming the clumsy formulation where he is completely right.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mirko is right. It's reasonable to go for "territorial unit" as the overarching term to avoid needless WP:SMALLCATs if we were gonna put them in exactly the correct subcategories. The 2013 Croatian govt list p. 34 states the following: Područja (općine I gradovi) "regions (municipalities and cities)"; naselje = settlement. mjesto = village/town. Those who have the Hungarian language (mađarski jezik) as a recognised minority language (manjinski jezik) are the following:
  • Općina Bilje
  • Općina Kneževi Vinogradi
  • Općina Ernestinovo (naselje Laslovo)
  • Općina Petlovac (mjesto Novi Bezdan)
  • Općina Tompojevci (naselje Čakovci)
  • Općina Tordinci (naselje Korođ)
So what we've got is 2 full municipalities, 3 municipalities where it only applies to 1 settlement each, and 1 municipality where it only applies to 1 village/town. Total: 6. It's reasonable to group these all together as "territorial units". E.g. if we went for only "municipalities", it would be a SMALLCAT with just 2 items, because the rest is only partially applicable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about Darda The items in the category seem to coincide with Minority_languages_of_Croatia#Municipalities_with_minority_languages_in_official_use, except Darda, Croatia, which is in the category but not the list. The list's main source is this 2013 Croatian govt document, which doesn't mention 'Darda' on the relevant pages 34 and 35. Page 30 of this 2003 CoE document does state 'The Municipality of Darda has prescribed the following rights for members of the Serbian and Hungarian national minorities: - official use of Serbian and Hungarian languages,' but that was a long time ago, before the 2013 govt doc. A 2012 study by Ljubica Kordić seems to suggest in the Abstract that only Croatian is the official language in Darda, while minority language courses are optional for school children: Local authorities of the village Darda have chosen to apply the Model C as most appropriate for their multilingual community and the teaching staff of their school. According to the Model C of minority language education, the minority language is taught as an elective course. The decision to attend the respective minority language programme must be confirmed by parents. (p. 538) So, should we exclude Darda from the category, or add it to the list? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Croatia has this quite rigid minority languages law obliging only municipalities with one third of minority population to introduce minority language into fully equal official use with some notable resistance even to this practice. The situation is somewhat (but not significantly) improved by the explicit permission for municipalities/counties to do it on their own if there is less than 1/3 of minority population. That is why there is this almost unique situation that in some cases minority languages may even loose their co-official status (you will find concern over it in mentioned CoE reports with practice being criticized even by the president of Croatian Constitutional Court) and that is why Council of Europe does not follow Croatian official requirements in its own reports but instead follow the situation of minority languages wherever there is more than 20% of some minority (claiming that Croatia is obliged to protect minority languages even in places where they are not official). Darda may be one of these cases where the language lost it co-official status and I would certainly not feel comfortable to remove it myself even in that case, but if you feel the need to do it that is arguably understandable (it is possible that Hungarians there were never 1/3 of population, but one local government introduced such a statute and the other changed it). Now, all of this is related ONLY TO full and equal co-official status of minority languages on the entire territory of some unit as defined by the Constitutional Act (introduced as a precondition for international recognition and changed for the beginning of the EU accession process). The case with education in minority languages is completely separate and regulated by the The Law on Education in language and script of national minorities and Law on Use of Languages and Scripts of National Minorities and that is why you have minority language classes and schools in many municipalities and towns where minority languages are NOT official. Also, minority institutions and media are free to use minority languages in their publications, signs etc. anywhere in the country so you will find for example Czech or Serbian Cyrillic inscriptions in Zagreb, but only on minority institutions and public institutions there are almost never obliged to communicate in minority language (exception being that you can get documents such as Croatian identity card with minority language anywhere, you can register organization with minority name and I think you may get translation in court procedures if requested). I know it is extensive but hope it helps in clarifying the situation so you can do what you think you should do (probably removing it since it may be that the language is not in fact co-official anymore, but it does not mean it is not used for public/educational purposes).--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I should probably be quiet since this entire section is not directly related to Category rename request and inclusion of Darda is not part of it. I apologize to everyone, I just like the topic :D .--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That reads very much like the situation in Slovakia, where minority language communities can lose their co-official minority language status based on census data per municipality. (Although this allows for dynamic demographic developments in any direction, in practice it usually has the effect of the slow assimilation of minority languages to the majority language. In Belgium, there is ongoing conflict about whether assimilation was the goal of local co-official language use, or whether permanent bilingualism was the goal, see Peeters directive.) As you say, it seems unique to Croatia that local govts have the option of requesting co-official language status, as well as minority language education, even if they do not meet the demographic threshold. I must also say that 33% is the highest minority-language threshold I have heard of in Europe (Croatia 33%, Belgium 30%, Slovakia 1990s 20%, Slovakia now 15%, North Macedonia 10%).
Haha don't worry, I find it interesting as well! :D Wikipedia probably wouldn't even exist if nobody ever wanted to find out how things really are. But perhaps we should move this discussion to Category talk:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia? It's quite separate from the CfR, I suppose. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. The part with freedom (but not the obligation) is not unique at all, many if not all countries permit this option of more inclusive approach (for example, some minority languages are co-official in Vojvodina even in Municipalities with 2% of citizens belonging to some community, situation with Italian in Istria is similar). It is quite unusual in fact that minority languages may loose their official status and that part is criticized both by CoE and the president of the court as this is against the best practice of the respect of acquired rights. That is also the reason why census change does not lead to any automatic change in the language status and if they really want to, municipalities may take this populist decision to recall the official status explicitly which may lead to further effective or ineffective challenge for intrusion of the acquired rights (in this sense, if Hungarian in Darda is quotable, we may need the decision on the subsequent status change, it may be that the state given report follows only municipalities obliged to introduce minority language). Assimilation is certainly not some explicit official goal for traditional linguistic communities, although de facto, negative social environment (where the mainstream society is much less approving than the formal legal framework) and official restrictiveness caused by some ontological dilemmas, may very well lead to it. But some people argue that assimilation is at play even in bilingual situation where the dominant language is always first - that's why you even have situations like in Canada where English-French bilingualism is official everywhere except in Quebec where only French is official. I don't think there are cases like this in Europe except in Finland with Aland Islands.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — after that wall of text, there's no consensus to rename.
    1. Nobody cares whether something is a direct translation or transliteration.
    2. Since 2012, en.wikipedia has used populated place for these.
    3. If not a populated place, then it is not Hungarian-speaking. Only people speak.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that "territorial units" in the current name is somewhat unusual in our established category trees and naming practices, it is justifiable as an ad hoc grouping that has a legal basis, because it can be almost directly based on the relevant legal document provided by the Government in Croatia in 2013 (mentioned above): the term područja on Wiktionary en:wikt:područje means areas, regions, territories, and the term (teritorijalna) jedinica (mentioned by MirkoS18 above) also shows up in that legal context. There's no point in splitting this up into municipalities/cities/towns/villages/settlements for a total number of 6 items which have 3 different administrative-level statuses (it would just create SMALLCATs). There is even less of a point to introducing U.S. administrative terminology such as "populated places".
Therefore, I think we just shouldn't change this part of the current catname. "territorial units" is fine as it is. I suggest we only change the rest, which we already agree on. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:13, 8 April 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:European monarchs[edit]

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 all. bibliomaniac15 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C Per parent Category:Heads of state in Europe, per children Category:Monarchs in the British Isles, Category:21st-century monarchs in Europe, Category:20th-century monarchs in Europe etc. The other noms follow the same logic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: As Laurel Lodged noted, they were not "Kings of Africa", they were kings in Africa etc. This is the purpose of the CfR. It's not a CfD, I'm proposing to rename these categories. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dimadick: to avoid misunderstandings, I opposed deletion, but I did not comment on the original rename nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a rename proposal, not a deletion proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Marcelus: to avoid misunderstandings, I opposed deletion, but I did not comment on the original rename nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcelus there is an important distinction between "Kings of Africa" and "kings in Africa" etc. as Laurel noted. 2 main reasons:
    1. An adjective like "European" may imply something about the identity or "ethnicity" of the monarch in question, even though "European" is purely geographical in this case (we are constantly running into categories where language, language family, ethnicity or nationality are categorised in generalising and misleading ways, such as "Turkic rulers" being "Asian" and "Germanic rulers" being "European");
    2. It could be misleading about the location of the monarch's territory, leading to problems with overseas territories outside Europe that may be much larger than the European territory (e.g. Greenland in North America being 98% of the territory of the Danish Realm, even though Margrete II of Denmark is arguably more a "monarch in Europe" because she resides in Copenhagen).
    Several related categories are already named Fooians in area Y, so per WP:C2C this renaming should happen. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid such misleading conclusions it's good to add the decription on the category page, about what the category is containing. Only for someone who is obsessed with ethnicity/nationality etc. phrase "European monarchs" can mean anything different than "Monarch of European countries". As I said, it's a change for the sake of change Marcelus (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of Wikipedia readers and users "obsessed with ethnicity/nationality etc." We have CfDs about this almost every day. The point is to make sure the contents abide by our policies and guidelines. If you don't care, you should vote Neutral rather than Oppose (or not say anything at all). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which policies and guidelines? Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:C2C, WP:NONDEFINING, WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OCEGRS etc. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the current naming goes against any policies you linked, you need to be more specific. Marcelus (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I refer you to my comment of 16:26, 2 April 2023 for explanation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:24, 21 April 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:Senators of the Kingdom of Rome[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, it does not contain any senator. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: only present article is about the Senate as a body, not any individual member, and shouldn't be in that category in the first place. Unless there are any Kingdom-era Senators with articles that for some reason aren't in that category already, the cat should be empty and thus deleted. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support while all those that were senior magistrates in the kingdom could be listed also as senators, there's probably not much point. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are probably enough persons known from Livy, Dionysius, or other sources to populate this category, few if any of them seem to have articles of their own, and I suspect the reason is because most of them are only briefly mentioned and not described in detail. While some well-known figures from this period of Roman history might also have been senators, too little is known about them to be sure. A list of known senators from this period could easily be added to the main article, and should the list ever contain a number of persons with their own articles, the category could be re-created. P Aculeius (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Incidentally, the phrasing "Kingdom of Rome" is non-standard; historiography calls it the "Roman Kingdom" and the cat tree largely agrees with it. Once this CfD is done I suggest we CfR the rest to "Roman Kingdom". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw I went ahead and set up the CfR here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:27, 2 April 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:Fireworks (punk band) EPs[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Populated entirely by redirects mostly to the same target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No aid to navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:48, 31 March 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:Descendants of Buenaventura Báez[edit]

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/merge/delete. per William Allen Simpson's alt proposal. bibliomaniac15 23:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, re-parent and purge, we normally categorize by family rather than by descent. Purge articles that do not belong to the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alternative is perfectly fine with me as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support alternative. Remote descendants are not defined by their relationship with Samuel Adams. Place Clichy (talk) 21:13, 11 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_25&oldid=1157911592"