< July 10
July 12 >

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)[reply]
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)[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.

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)[reply]
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. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:36, 11 July 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.

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator; see Incidents#Now_what. Oculi (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Trade unionists from County Carlow‎ (1) to Category:Activists from County Carlow‎ (1) 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 (2)
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 (1) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[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: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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: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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[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: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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[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: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)[reply]
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)[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: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)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is to specify the direction of travel of the contents. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 11 July 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:Dual internationalists (football)

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 action - This has been open quite awhile, and several different ideas have been tossed around, but nothing really has consensus at this point. I'm doing this as a procedural close of "no action" rather than a "no consensus" close, simply due to the age of discussion. No prejudice against renomination for any of these or other proposals. - jc37 06:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This would help to maintain the naming tree consistency and is also already a prevalent version of naming the related articles per nominator's links or something like List of men's footballers with 100 or more international caps.
Additionally it solves a potential confusion to not categorize international footballers with multiple nationalities as we would clearly countify appearances for multiple national teams that the plethora of previous suggestions might be mistaken with. Respublik (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @S.A. Julio, ChrisTheDude, GiantSnowman, Joseph2302, Peterkingiron, Marcocapelle, Ivan Milenin, Kingsif, and Qwerfjkl: would any of you support this late proposal, "with dual caps" rather than initial "Dual"? – Fayenatic London 18:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fayenatic London That capped wording sounds more accurate to me. In this case, I'd support that rename to Men's footballers with dual caps... and/or women's footballers with dual caps. Even thought it relates to the nationality capping for association footballers, I'm not too sure about that international or internationalist word that would fit for that category, but there should be a wiggle room there. Ivan Milenin (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SupportWeak oppose, still prefer international. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose "footballer with dual caps" is not a thing anybody has said, ever. Ever. If people think there needs to be a change (the term "dual internationalist" is easy enough to interpret there does not need to be a change), then describing (i.e. "footballers capped for more than one senior national team") would be the only good option; trying to make up a non-indicative phrase of our own is a terrible idea. Kingsif (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first part is a fair point and thus I retract alts. Although I've found these from rugby [2] and football [3], but there were more hits about dual caps being different versions of a sport/different sports. The part "the term "dual internationalist" is easy enough to interpret" seems inaccurate, as it not only had actually none hits as a definition for appearance with dual NTs, but also only was mentioned a few times at all and only for the different sports/types of sport as well. Respublik (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by this sub-proposal - what is the proposed name now? GiantSnowman 09:52, 12 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: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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: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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm prepared to Withdraw if nobody else thinks this is a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:59, 11 July 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: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Sorry. Countries and nations are clearly geographic regions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[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: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)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories cover the same topic. TadejM my talk 14:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed, this seems the best way to go. --TadejM my talk 11:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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:Rulers of Bamburgh

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 23#Category:Rulers of Bamburgh

Category:People from the Kingdom of Ireland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:People from the Kingdom of Ireland

Category:7th-millennium BC people

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. @Nederlandse Leeuw, I suggest you start a new nomination just focusing on the earlier categories. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And looking at the other examples above inspires me to move her to Barum Woman for consistency. PamD 10:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
PS: I'm leaning more towards the archaeology alternative now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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:19th-century rulers in North America

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 and reparent. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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:11th-century rulers in North America

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 15:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 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:5th-century rulers in Asia

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 15:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All categories* only have 1 child: Xth-century BC monarchs in Asia. Indirect follow-up to:
* The only exception is Muhammad in Category:7th-century rulers in Asia, which might be contentious.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Shouldn't Category:5th-century rulers be a target also? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[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: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Agreed. I was already in doubt about those; this is a good solution. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:23, 13 July 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.

Han dynasty generals by modern province

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 15:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, anachronistic and trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 11 July 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:Recipients of the Order of Saint Ignatius of Antioch

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 15:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[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:Recipients of the Centenary Medal

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 15:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[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.
More