July 17

Category:Solar System objects

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) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Solar System objects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Bodies of the Solar System and its subcategory Category:Planets of the Solar System :3 F4U (they /it) 23:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete newly created category -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:06, 21 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:Reportedly haunted locations in Argentina

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Reportedly haunted locations in Argentina to Category:Reportedly haunted locations

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reservoirs and dams in India

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Category:Reservoirs and dams in India

Category:Bluestone churches in Australia

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bluestone churches in Australia to Category:Stone churches in Australia

Nominator's rationale: Category:Bluestone buildings seems to be someone solo-work Estopedist1 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional zebras

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Category:Fictional zebras

Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 09:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (2C)
- Propose deleting Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (4 C)
  - Propose upmerging ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Romanian musicians of Hungarian descent‎ (13 P)
    to Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent
  - Propose upmerging ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Romanian religious leaders of Hungarian descent‎ (11 P)
    to Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent
- Propose deleting Category:Sportspeople of Hungarian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (1 C) WP:C2E
  - Propose upmerging ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Romanian sportspeople of Hungarian descent‎ (171 P)
    to Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent
- Propose deleting Category:Romanian politicians by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (4 C)
  - Propose upmerging ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Romanian politicians of Gagauz descent‎ (3 P)
    to Category:Romanian people of Gagauz descent
  - Propose upmerging ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Romanian politicians of Hungarian descent‎ (2 C, 12 P)
    to Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent
  - Propose upmerging ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Romanian politicians of Serbian descent‎ (2 P)
    to Category:Serbs of Romania

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS: triple intersection of occupation and nationality and descent is not defining.

Note: no need to manually upmerge to the parent occupation, as articles should already be in their extensive subcategories. Also, after months of sportspeople by decent/origin deletions, this outlier remains as nominator manually anchored it during a previous nomination to prevent orphaning.
Followup to:

William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality. Note that it would be non-trivial if there were a political party advocating the rights of the Hungarian-speaking minority, but then we would have a category by party. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are in Category:Romanian politicians of ethnic minority parties, and they are not nominated.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been around half a dozen Hungarian parties in Romania. Obviously it’s appropriate to group by party and then by general affiliation (Hungarian politicians in Romania). — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for politicians categories (1) How are these trivial in countries that actually have/have had ethnic minority political representation? Moldova even has an ethnic Gagauz autonomous region, and historically Romania has had a Hungarian autonomous region. (2) Of course a reader may get the sense that the categories emptier than they should be after the nominator proceeded to empty them (!), as here and here. Dahn (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for all — makes no sense for politicians, as ethnic minorities have had their own parties in Romania for over a century. Makes as little sense for Hungarian religious leaders (who are of a different religion from the majority) or artists (distinct community) or athletes (very large number, studied as such). — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As nom said, we have Category:Romanian politicians of ethnic minority parties for that. Just descending from ancestors with another nationality or ethnicity does not imply minority activism. For example Romanian politicians of Hungarian descent may well have had Romanian-speaking ancestors in pre-1918 Hungary. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: People who are recognizably Romanian in pre-1918 Hungary (or rather Austria-Hungary) are nowhere near the categories we're discussing here, because they are simply not categorized as Hungarian politicians in Romania. So I don't see any relevancy to that claim. People who had obscure(d) Romanian ethnicity in pre-1918 Hungary but identified as Hungarian are and will always be viewed as Hungarians, even as we can note their ultimate Romanian roots -- for instance, if they were politicians of first Hungary and then Romania, while having distant Romanian roots and identifying as Hungarian, we can have them as both "Hungarian politicians of Romanian etc." and "Romanian politicians of Hungarian etc."; though I cannot for the life of me come up with any example where this would be the case!

Moreover, he claim that all politicians with a relevant minority background would be active within minority parties is quite absurd: Dumitru Topciu, who made it clear that he was a community representative of the Gagauz, never served in a Gagauz party while in Romania; virtually all local leaders of the Magyar Autonomous Region were only affiliated with the Romanian Communist Party while being no less Hungarian; said Communist Party had ethnic quotas throughout the interwar, making Ștefan Foriș affiliate with a "Hungarian faction". And so on. Dahn (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Category:Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania politicians, Category:Hungarian People's Party of Transylvania politicians, György Bernády (who belonged to an interwar Hungarian party), plus several Hungarian communists like Ion Vincze who passed through MADOSZ. It’s a distinct topic, ethnic Hungarian politicians who belonged to Hungarian minority parties in Romania. — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no claim that all politicians with a relevant minority background would be active within minority parties. The claim is that politicians should be categorized by political party and that (minority) activists should be categorized by their activism. In either case the nationality of their ancestors is trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if these activists are organized into political parties revolving around “the nationality of their ancestors” (more like the language they speak, and the other signifiers of ethnicity they have) — and what if multiple such parties exist, and have been, as a collective, the subject of academic interest? Biruitorul ^Talk 10:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As said, politicians should be categorized by political party (that is, regardless of the party's program - we can read about the party's program in the article about the party). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- And, as I have said, there is no legitimate reason not to have at least a container category for the half dozen or so Hungarian parties in Romania, between the individual party categories and the generic minority parties category. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete per nom. Politicians of ethnic minority parties are defined by the party they belong to, not the nationality of their ancestors. Especially for politicians from a minority background who are/were active in mainstream parties and not in ethnic-oriented parties, the proposed solution (being in both Romanian politicians and Romanian people of Hungarian descent) is a lot better. The intersection of Romanian politicians of Hungarian descent gives them a political identity assigned by their background, which is wrong. Note that in any case, the articles will remain in a Hungarian descent category. Place Clichy (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t quite get this “nationality of their ancestors” talking point. Yes, I agree someone like Ludovic Orban doesn’t belong, because he was always part of pan-Romanian parties. But politicians who are themselves ethnic Hungarians, and who are active in political parties promoting the minority’s interests, absolutely should have their own categories: fragmented by party, but also with a supra-category uniting them all. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Biruitorul: just look at the name of the categories: Romanian politicians of Gagauz descent, Romanian politicians of Hungarian descent, Romanian politicians of Serbian descent. Indeed, these are for Romanian people who have Gagauz/Hungarian/Serbian ancestors but who would not be e.g. ethnic Hungarian themselves. I agree that politicians of Hungarian minority parties are a topic that needs to be covered one way or another, but these categories are clearly the wrong way to do it. Place Clichy (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: Please contribute a suggestion as to how we should reflect Dumitru Topciu and Anton Novakov's activities as Gagauz politicians in Romania, without mimicking the "politicians of X descent" category tree, which has long existed without controversy. Dahn (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a double inclusion in Category:Gagauz people and the most precise child of Category:Romanian politicians that describe their political activity. I also note that Topciu is already in Category:Gagauz nationalists, which is even more precise than just Gagauz people. Looking at Novakov's article, historiography seems to actually consider there is little evidence to consider him either Bulgarian or Gagauz, but merely a representative of the Budjak in the short-lived 1917-18 Moldavian Democratic Republic.

long existed without controversy is a very questionable statement. There are frequent (some would say endless) discussions on what is considered the most appropriate way to present information related to ethnicity (and gender, religion, sex orientation) in articles, categories, lists etc. That's why we have guidelines like WP:EGRS and WP:CLNT. In short, not every information is good for a category. A category tag has the big default of assigning a characteristic or an identity in a black-or-white fashion (either you are in, or you are out), whereas these topics are much better served by longer descriptions providing all the necessary context, nuance, and reliable sources. It's interesting that you argue for keeping a Romanian politicians of Gagauz descent category for an article like Anton Novakov that has a long paragraph discussing his ethnic background, to conclude there is little evidence to support that he was Bulgarian or Gagauz at all. Place Clichy (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: What is that most precise child of the politicians category that is not this subcategory -- the one that you're advocating deleting based on a very peculiar reading of the word "descent"? I mean, you sure can come up with more or less grounded objections against existing categories, we get it; but can you propose an alternative sense that makes sense for these articles? It would seem that no, you just didn't bother.
"Looking at Novakov's article" -- take a closer look, seriously. Historiography, and in fact the exact same author, lists sources which refer to him as both Gagauz and Bulgarian (because many people were both), and argues that he was a representative of both communities in Sfatul Țării (the crux of the argument is that both communities did elect a slate of representatives such as Dumitru Topciu and Krste Misirkov, in a shared caucus, but that Novakov came to the same caucus through the co-operatives, not directly through the Gagauz-Bulgarian constituency; and yes, ethnically Topciu was a Gagauz, Misirkov was just a Bulgarian, but some other politicians who represented both communities had the two ethnicities at once, and at least one source spells out that this was the case with Novakov -- did you still not manage to find that precise info and its source in the text?). Excuse me if I have to actually question your familiarity with this topic, after it seems you are fabricating a standard and then trying your best to make Novakov fit into it, to the point where you contradict published sources just to make it "stick". Dahn (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy: Allow me to make it more simple. I suppose you do understand the fact that Sfatul had ethnic representation, and that a single representation was granted to the "Bulgarian-Gagauzes". I suppose you then do understand that some of those representatives had a single background of the two, while some had both -- and that Novakov appears to be of the latter variety (as in: one primary source calls him ethnically "Bulgarian-Gagauz", and it is quoted by the exact same author who calls him a "Bulgarian"; a third source calls just "Gagauz"). I do suppose then that you understand what the ethnic component of his mandate was, and why it is relevant to his biography. Because, if you don't in fact understand these as prerequisites for what is being discussed regarding Novakov, I have no idea why you would imagine you have a point. Dahn (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if the ethnic component is part of the mandate, I guess that Ethnic minority deputies in the Sfatul Țării (or something along these lines) would be an acceptable category scope regarding Wikipedia policy, in the same way we have e.g. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ethnic minority members of the House of Representatives (Fiji). But you just fail to address that what is discussed here is the category for the intersection of an occupation (politician) and an ethnicity (various Romanian minorities). Nobody wants to remove any information about ethnic minorities and their politics, which are of course a valid topic for an encyclopedia (in article text). However, placing individuals in these intersection categories of occupation and ethnicity is exactly what you yourself call fabricating a standard: an all-in-or-all-out label that covers too many complicate and different things, often regardless of the individual's own ethnic identification. The fact that you need such great lengths to explain the context of these individuals' ethnic identification alone demonstrates that nuance is needed, not a made-up label. Anyway, I don't want to add anything more to a flame war, as points have been made clearly enough and discussion is deteriorating. Place Clichy (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The intersection between an ethnicity and an occupation such as politician is only trivial because you decided to declare it so, against a consensus which has resulted in such categories being created by hundreds of others, who are not involve in this rather surreptitious discussion (I myself only discovered by accident the sustained effort to remove long-standing categories). I am rejecting the very claim that it is trivial, at least so in the Romanian case, not "failing to address" it. Also, how would placing Novakov in a vague "ethnic deputies" category that will not reflect his ethnicity address all of what I described above? See, instead of noting that the supposed principle "descent/ethnicity is non-defining for politicians", and revising this claim, you would rather uproot a whole category tree an leave a simple issue unaddressed by categorization. Dahn (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what are you talking about, Place Clichy? Alok Sharma, a man born in India and serving in the British parliament, is under Category:British politicians of Indian descent. I’m pretty sure he not only has Indian ancestors, but also identifies as ethnically Indian too. It’s how we do things here. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the common OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. As Mr Sharma is both British and Indian (not by descent) and he had a political career in the UK (not just defending Indian interests), I would place the article in Indian emigrants to the United Kingdom, next to all the appropriate MPs/cabinet minister/political party categories. No more, no less. If you put everybody that is actually Indian in an Indian descent category, you pretty much lose all the purpose of descent categories. That's what the WP:COP-HERITAGE guideline tries to sum up. Place Clichy (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I think you fail to realize is that “of descent” categories are routinely used for ethnic minorities. And we are talking about people who themselves belong to said minority, not their parents or grandparents. Take, for example, Csaba Böjte. He is as Hungarian as you can get in modern Romania. He is placed in the “Romanian people of Hungarian descent” category, simply because that is where individuals like him belong. If not there, then where? Biruitorul ^Talk 10:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Hungarians in Romania. Place Clichy (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck imposing this (needless) change across hundreds of long-established categories. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I am fascinated by the refusal to recognize the elegance and simplicity (and tradition) of "descent" categories also covering origin and identification. Instead of focusing on an irrelevant distinction between these, and claiming that we should have someone (namely, themselves) do a POV take on who "really" is and who "really" isn't of X descent, some editors could simply deal with the logical step: "while not all people of X descent in Y country are X-born, all X-born people in Y country are of X descent". It really is as simple at that; you could see the benefits of this logic instead of holding us all hostage to a very very sectarian absolutism. Dahn (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for Hungarian-related ones, weak oppose for Serb and Gagauz. Biruitorul explained the several distinctions between Hungarians and Romanians in Romania. I am also not sure how does someone think it is a good idea to merge a category with 171 contained articles. Weak oppose for Gagauz and Serb categories because they're not very populated. Super Ψ Dro 13:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — there is a severe problem with these politician categories. Editors have been populating Hungarians born during the Russian Empire in "Russian descent" (with no hint of actual Russian ethnic heritage), with descent based upon the last name, with 2 descents where sources cannot agree, with descent based upon a great grandparent, with descent that the article says the person has actually rejected. I've explained in edit summaries and on Talk pages that these violate our long-standing guidelines (since 2006 and even earlier).

WP:COP-HERITAGE: historical people only are allowed a single descent category, and only where directly tied to their notability.
Vladimir Cavarnali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is unequivocally in Category:Bessarabian Bulgarians. He self-identified as such. That is the single allowed category for a historical person. We do not categorize based upon his last name that indicates distant Gagauz descent, no matter how many sources mention it (currently 1 or 2).
Anton Novakov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is unequivocally in Category:Bessarabian Bulgarians. According to the article, he self-identified as "Moldovian", and protested Moldova's unification with Romania. He has no hint of Russian descent, and that is not mentioned in the article. There is disagreement in sources as to whether he had distant Gagauz descent more than 100 years before his birth. We do not categorize based upon the odious one drop rule, even for non-blacks.
Dumitru Topciu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is unequivocally in Category:People from Gagauzia. According to the article, he spoke the Gagauz language. Therefore, he is not of Gagauz descent. We never categorize people in a descent category who are already that ethnicity or nationality. That leads to "Asian foo of Asian descent", "European foo of European descent", and other nonsense that we've recently deleted.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- It is precisely this willi-nilly halfway-through reading, by editors who don't even understand the cultural and historical setting, that leads to absurd solutions such as this one. For instance, Novakov is identified as both Bulgarian and Gagauz (at least one source mentions that he was both, and at the same time), and he represented both ethnicities in the legislature; there is absolutely zero indication that he identified as a Moldavian -- at most, he considered himself a loyalist Russian of Gagauz ethnicity, though even that is disputed -- it was disputed by Novakov himself, when he asked not to be included on a list of those who had voted against union with Romania, because he had not voted against it, but had been absent. The source mentioning that he may have in reality, and for a while, opposed the union, is also the same source explicitly stating that Novakov embraced Romanian citizenship -- this is also an indication of how clueless William Allen Simpson's comment how Novakov "identified himself" is, since , as an objective fact, Novakov was a Romanian citizen, and a politician of Romania, affiliated with Romanian parties, for all his years after 1918. Seriously, this guessing game is ludicrous, regardless of what ultimately happens to the categories -- at least read the articles you are "correcting". Dahn (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Further: in the goddamn Vladimir Cavarnali article and the sources it cites, anybody will actually be able to read that Cavarnali identified himself primarily as a Romanian (if nothing else, his affiliation to something called the Crusade of Romanianism may offer some indication), though his Romanian heritage was exactly zero -- which makes him a fascinating case, and precisely proof of why this categorization is so delicate; he did not reject categorization as anything other, and was generally categorized as a Bulgarian (which he was); this did not, and does not, exclude that he was (also) a Gagauz, a fact supported by two authors, who identify him as both Bulgarian and Gagauz, including in a book specifically dealing with the Gagauzes of Bessarabia. Now, it may be construed that he does not belong in a category of politicians who were also expressly Gagauz (and Romanian), such as Novakov or Topciu, though I for one take the view that all politicians of documented Gagauz descent should in fact be placed in the narrowest category (the intersectional one, in this case), since this reduces the activity whereby wikipedians think they can impose their view on who is really a Gagauz and who isn't (like the lecture we get from William Allen Simpson above); even so, he would still clearly belong in the larger category of "Romanian people of Gagauz descent" -- regardless of Mr Simpson's pet peeves, and per the sources. It is Mr Simpson's own inference, based on thin air, that the sources referring to his Gagauzness point to his last name or "distant" ancestry -- the fact is they simply call him a Gagauz and a Bulgarian; something which plenty of people are. Dahn (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Topciu: please for Christ someone inform William Allen Simpson that (a) not all people from Gagauzia are ethnic Gagauz; (b) not all Romanians are of Gagauz descent (which is why he was a Romanian of Gagauz descent between 1918 and his death); (c) not all Gagauz are of Romanian citizenship (which is why he was a Romanian of Gagauz descent between 1918 and his death); (d) very few people from Gagauzia (currently in Moldova) have actually lived half their lives in Bucharest. Dahn (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, William Allen Simpson: please understand that Category:Bessarabian Bulgarians is a transnational category (defining a kind of Bulgarian), and that those members of it who were/are Romanian citizens will clearly also belong in categories for Romanian Bulgarians, whereas the others will not. The category for Bessarabian Bulgarians will not supplant the category for Romanian people of Bulgarian origin just because you yourself have not grasped the difference. Dahn (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it's time to invoke WP:COMPETENCE. Dahn (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your personal attacks. I'm simply quoting the articles. It would be helpful for you to respond by numbered assertion, as otherwise your blocks of text are difficult to parse.

Again, each person is allowed only one ethnicity category. That is usually based upon the culture and language where they were born and raised. However, there is no requirement that they are assigned any ethnicity. It must defining, and tied to notability.
Please identify which Cavarnali parent is Gagauz (not of descent) according to which source, and why no other parent is relevant, and why he never considered himself as a person from the place he was born and raised. That is not apparent in the article.
Please identify which Novakov parent is Gagauz (not of descent) according to which source, and why no other parent is relevant, and why he never considered himself as a person from the place he was born and raised. The article says industrialist and legislator of the Moldavian Democratic Republic and later alongside four "Moldavians". If he is not self-identifying as Moldavian, then the article is unclear.
The Topciu article says: "I speak Gagauz", and cites his continued inability to speak proper Romanian. By any standard, he is culturally Gagauz (not of Gagauz descent). He devoted his life to Gagauz politics and Gagauz refugees, so his ethnicity seems defining and notable. If it not so, then there's no reason to discuss this further.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That idiotic and obscure "rule", that you boasted having contributed yourself, has been traditionally disregarded (Elvis Presley became an FA with him included in five or so heritage cats), and is inoperable -- if anything, the dual nature of people who were both Gagauz and Bulgarians should be a test case of the rule's absurdity, not an invitation to have you deciding which one of two is important. "Is allowed only X" translates to: "I am allowing only X, and I managed to get this POV scripted in a rule that nobody on wikipedia bothers with, and which I am now selectively enforcing".
I will do no such thing, I will repeat, again, that the source I read identifies Cavarnali as a Gagauz-Bulgarian/Bulgarian-Gagauz, and one of the Gagauz diaspora. Your claim that we should be debating sources is laughable.
Please make an effort to read the article, which clearly says that sources see Novakov as a Gagauz, a Bulgarian, or both (the latter possibly explains the former two, since he may have been both in equal measure); further, the "alongside four Moldavians" doesn't mean he was a Moldavian, but precisely the opposite: that the others were Moldavian. The phrase right at the end of that same paragraph (you can't possibly miss it) says that he was an ethnic representative of both Bulgarians and Gagauz, in that they sent him here through the co-operatives; of course he was a Moldavian by citizenship for a few months in 1918, but he was also a Bulgarian and Gagauz, just like he was a Romanian Bulgarian and Gagauz for the remainder of the interwar. Again, you seem to be utterly clueless.
William Allen Simpson: Can you please wrap your head around the concept that Topciu is "of descent" because as a Romanian (citizen) and as a Moldavian (citizen) he was of Gagauz descent, something which is not the case for all other Romanian/Moldavians/Moldovans? That this is why he is in those categories? That his being included in the Category:People from Gagauzia does not supplant either category, since not all people from Gagauzia are Gagauz, and since not all people from Gagauzia became Romanian citizens, let alone politicians of Romania? That it merely reflects the narrowest category we have for people born in Tomai, who may theoretically be of any ethnicity? That currently Gagauzia's westernmost point is still about 30 km away from the border with Romania, meaning that Romanian Gagauzes are a rather peculiar overlap, not implicit in any other category? That there is another category linking Topciu to Gagauzes of various citizenships, from various eras? That the same goes for Category:Bessarabian Bulgarians, which does not supplant categories for Romanian Bulgarians when the subject of an article was both? Is this really so abstruse? Dahn (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I add, William Allen Simpson: Claiming that a citizen of the Moldavian Democratic Republic should be automatically regarded as a Moldavian ethnic is on par with claiming that a Soviet citizen was an ethnic Soviet and a Canadian citizen is an ethnic Canadian. It is especially ludicrous for people who were in Sfatul Țării explicitly as corporate representatives of non-Moldavian/non-Romanian ethnic constituencies. Dahn (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- May I point out that the sacred WP:COPHERITAGE is a guideline? It says right at the top of the page: “it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply”. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The cats are well populated and I am not seeing any compelling evidence/ a strong argument as to why these various forms of intersectional indentity shouldn't be used as a defining category. In looking at google books there is a whole range of books on Hungarians in Romania in relation to issues of ethnic identity, social issues, and politics. As such this is a cross-categorization that would seem to be backed by published academic RS for an existing category tree.4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete per nom. I agree with Place Clichy on all, including politicians. Beside WP:OCEGRS we need to refer to WP:NARROWCAT, WP:COP#N/WP:COPHERITAGE, WP:ETHNICRACECAT.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom per cited guideline. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South African cuisine-related lists

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:South African cuisine-related lists to Category:South African cuisine and Category:South Africa-related lists

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: overly specific with too many qualifiers. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armorials of the Netherlands

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Category:Armorials of the Netherlands

Category:AC Monza-related lists

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:AC Monza-related lists to Category:Association football in Italy lists

Nominator's rationale: Long 1-member category tree. Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Chinese people by occupation

The result of the discussion was: rename per the proposal by Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs).

Rename Category:Ancient Chinese people by occupation to Category:People from Imperial China by occupation
Rename Category:Ancient Chinese historians to Category:Historians from Imperial China
Rename Category:Ancient Chinese philosophers to Category:Philosophers from Imperial China
Rename Category:Ancient Chinese scientists to Category:Scientists from Imperial China
Rename Category:Ancient Chinese writers to Category:Writers from Imperial China (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Chinese people by occupation to Category:Imperial Chinese people by occupation
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Chinese historians to Category:Imperial Chinese historians
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Chinese philosophers to Category:Imperial Chinese philosophers
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Chinese scientists to Category:Imperial Chinese scientists
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Chinese writers to Category:Imperial Chinese writers

Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, the history of China (and hence the category tree) is divided in Ancient China up to 221 BC and Imperial China from 221 BC to 1912. The content of the nominated categories is about Imperial China rather than about Ancient China. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt as these relate to empires, then the use of demonyns is inappropriate. I disapprove of the the use of demonyns in general, but in the case of multi-ethnic empires, their use is particularly egregious. Use the form "People of Imperial China" instead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Below is the alt proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Chinese people by occupation to Category:People from Imperial China by occupation
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Chinese historians to Category:Historians from Imperial China
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Chinese philosophers to Category:Philosophers from Imperial China
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Chinese scientists to Category:Scientists from Imperial China
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Chinese writers to Category:Writers from Imperial China

Support per nom with exceptions Some of these people actually were ancient Chinese and should remain categorised as such.

Category:Zhou dynasty philosophers, Category:Zhou dynasty writers were Ancient Chinese.
Some people in Category:Ancient Chinese military writers, namely Sun Tzu, Jiang Ziya, Sima Rangju, Sun Bin and Wu Qi, were also Ancient Chinese and should remain so.
Category:Shang dynasty politicians and Category:Zhou dynasty politicians should be removed from Category:Politicians by Imperial Chinese dynasty, and could form their own Category:Ancient Chinese politicians; SMALLCAT Category:Xia dynasty politicians could be upmerged into it, and some items in Category:Qin dynasty politicians could arguably included as well if the people in question were already politically active before 221 BCE (such as Li Si).

Incidentally, the following may be upmerged/deleted as WP:SMALLCATs:

Category:Qin dynasty philosophers‎ (1 P): Li Si, active from at least 237 BCE to 208 BCE, was both Ancient and Imperial Chinese; he is already in Category:Zhou dynasty philosophers, and may also be copied to Category:Imperial Chinese philosophers
Category:Sixteen Kingdoms philosophers‎ (1 P) upmerge into Category:Sixteen Kingdoms writers
Category:Zhou dynasty historians (2 P), upmerge to Category:Zhou dynasty writers
Category:Sixteen Kingdoms historians (1 P), upmerge into Category:Sixteen Kingdoms writers
Category:Xia dynasty politicians (1 P), upmerge into Category:Ancient Chinese politicians

I also suggest we upmerge Category:Ancient Chinese military engineers, because it has just 3 items (1 ancient Chinese, 2 Imperial Chinese), and its parent Category:Chinese military engineers has just 1 item (modern Chinese), so division by period is unwarranted. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if the above rename goes ahead, two follow-up actions are needed. Instantly, some content (as noted above by Nl Leeuw) needs to be moved from Imperial to Ancient. Second, not urgently, a lot of subcategories should be nominated for upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Category:Writers of the Zhou dynasty, etc.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Xia dynasty politicians is part of Category:Politicians by Imperial Chinese dynasty (there is no Category:Ancient Chinese politicians), so upmerging that won't work at present. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but if you read my comments carefully you'll notice that I proposed creating that cat: Category:Shang dynasty politicians and Category:Zhou dynasty politicians should be removed from Category:Politicians by Imperial Chinese dynasty, and could form their own Category:Ancient Chinese politicians; SMALLCAT Category:Xia dynasty politicians could be upmerged into it. The Xia (if it existed, which is contested), Shang and Zhou were all pre-Imperial dynasties; the Zhou dynasty ceased to exist in 254 BCE and was annexed by Qin (state), several decades before the Chinese Empire was founded in 221 BCE. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Rename per Laurel Lodged.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manual cleanup This discussion is stale and as @Nederlandse Leeuw: observes, most of these categories do contain some people from Ancient China. Additionally, the proposed naming scheme here differs from the existing naming scheme Category:Government officials by Imperial Chinese dynasty‎, which would be useful to follow as these would be container categories. I've already created the new philosopher by dynasty category, Category:Philosophers by Imperial Chinese dynasty‎ and manually merged the later dynasties over as there are quite a number of ancient chinese philosophers, so that category shouldn't be deleted regardless of the decision made for the others. Additionally Oppose renaming "Ancient Chinese X" to "X from Ancient China" as I see no evidence that "Chinese" is an invalid demonym for any of these people, ethnic considerations are anachronistic. - car chasm (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as some individuals in the cats are from Ancient China. The nominator and any other volunteers can and should create the suggested categories for Imperial China and do the work of properly sorting the cats into the correct place. There is space for all of these cats to co-exist.4meter4 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've upmerged the following:
- Category:Sixteen Kingdoms philosophers‎ into Category:Sixteen Kingdoms writers
- Category:Zhou dynasty historians into Category:Zhou dynasty writers
- Category:Sixteen Kingdoms historians into Category:Sixteen Kingdoms writers
- Category:Ancient Chinese military engineers into Category:Chinese military engineers

I have next to zero experience in categories, but I can create the categories per User:Laurel Lodged's alt rename and start getting articles sorted into them if there's no objections. Folly Mox (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Molly. Maybe wait until the proposal is formally closed before proceeding as you have outlined above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 13:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, there doesn't seem to be sufficient content to justify keeping the Anciet China categories. Slight preference for LL's target, it seems clearer. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Draft articles on comics and anime

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Draft articles on comics and anime to Category:Drafts about comics and Category:Draft articles on anime

Nominator's rationale: Similar to the outcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 21#Category:Draft articles on media and per WP:Overcategorization, these are two very distinct mediums that are not necessarily the same and cover differing audiences. Bundling them together under one category makes it difficult for one set of audiences to find what they are looking for, especially when there is a separate cat for Drafts about comics that also exists now. We also have Category:Draft articles on books, so clearly not all literature ought to be put together. I am also suggesting we harmonize the names, so that Drafts about comics moves to Category:Draft articles on comics. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proposal is infeasible. This category is populated by AfC submission wizard based on ORES classifications. ORES uses comics-and-anime as a single topic, see mw:ORES/Articletopic. If the category is split, no automatic categorisation would possible and editors will have to manually go through each existing page to resort them.
The discussion you linked resulted in a reverse-merge outcome where a manually populated category was merged into the automatically populated one, which required no human resorting and hence was not disruptive. – SD0001 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should in general not be categorized automatically, it often leads to WP:SUBCAT violations. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but these pages are drafts, not articles. – Fayenatic London 15:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't those just be manually changed? It would be tedious, but Wikipedia is always improving and changing to adapt. These are not inherently the same coverage of topics. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per historical stats 75% of these drafts will end up G13-deleted in 6 months' time. I'm not sure why would anyone want to spend their time manually tweaking categories, and carry on doing it for newly created drafts, knowing that their hardwork wouldn't even be visible in contribs logs. – SD0001 (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if manga and comics are combined, why should anime not be combined with cartoons? It should be ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Drafts about animation -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Drafts about comics cat does not include any manga drafts or subcats in it, and I have not seen manga and comics combined in other cats to my knowledge, nor was I implying such. Anime is distinct from traditional animation (which is what that drafts cat is for), as are manga and comics, as well as books, so it is adequate form to categorize them as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Conceptually I agree with the nomination but SD0001's overhead concerns seem pretty compelling. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom.Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my vote. If 75% is deleted it may not be worth the effort to split. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SD0001. Splitting seems like a lot of manual work that will either be forgotten about eventually (as every single new draft in this ORES category will need to be manually split), and even if it is done the underlying purpose of doing so is unclear. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SD0001. While I can theoretically agree with the nominator, there are practical structural concerns which are more prescient.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional split per nom and technical concerns raised above. (Has the ORES team been reminded about this debate yet?) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 13:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This may make sense when we talk about articles, but drafts are something else. At the moment I'm writing there are just 17 drafts in that category. And in the time I have been working at AFC I have never seen grow it much larger than that. In fact, even being combined it's one of the smallest draft categories ("Biographies" has 1722). We can have a combined category for simplicity or two categories for precision; being a maintenance section I would prefer simplicity. Cambalachero (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regardless of my opinion to keep, if it was decided to split then whoever runs the script used by AFC should be informed to apply such changes, not force people to recategorize manually (that's not gonna happen, not in the long run) Cambalachero (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works by writer nationality

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Works by writer nationality

Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Former Islamic monarchies in Europe. Main consensus is certainly to rename. Between "monarchies" and "states," it would seem that there is a stronger preference towards the original nomination. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe to Category:Former Islamic monarchies in Europe

Nominator's rationale: Per "Category:Muslim empires" CfR. Re-parent from Category:Islam in Europe (which is primarily about demographics) to Category:Former Islamic monarchies (which is about forms of government). Purge all members which cannot fulfil the criteria being a former Islamic monarchy in Europe (exit Al-Andalus and Category:Al-Andalus, which itself should be purged from all "countries" categories, because it was a region containing many different, separate Islamic states). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, re-parent and purge per nom. It is close to a speedy WP:C2C case per Category:Former Islamic monarchies. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Al-Andalus in particular is tricky. Current categories are treating it as a "country" with a "nationality" etc. and it drives me nuts. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So is the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (recent, and not a monarchy) Hugo999 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, it would be an exception to the rule. But to be fair, there are very few Category:Islamic republics currently categorised as such. It would be the only item in a hypothetical "Category:Islamic republics in Europe", that's not worth creating. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This cat brings together a variety of Muslim ruled states. Some were monarchies, but not all. Some may have not been fully sovereign, having a suzerain. Nevertheless I regard that as a useful category. Sometimes the scope of high level categories is better for being left a little vague. This is better than endlessly splitting to impose more precise inclusion criteria. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only 1 was a republic, the rest were monarchies. Incidentally, there is no Category:Former Christian countries in Europe, is there? Why would that be? Maybe because it would be just as WP:ARBITRARYCAT as Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe? E.g. if we based it on demographics, the Netherlands should be in it, because it lost its Christian majority a few years ago. If we based it on "Christian-led", the Netherlands should not be in it, because the current Dutch king is still officially a member of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, so it would not be a "former Christian-led country", but a current one? A similar problem exists if we applied the same logic to the UK, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every country in Europe, with the exception of the Vatican, is a former Christian country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename or delete—it's unclear from the current name whether "muslim" refers to the country's rulers or inhabitants. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 10:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Former Islamic states in Europe, per Islamic state and Category:Islamic states. There is a strong defining connection here, and it's about Islamic government rather than Muslim population. – Fayenatic London 10:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination. Current name is meaningless--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I am also fine with Fayenatic london's alternative, thus keeping the one republic in the category. If we pursue with that, the whole tree may be renamed to "states". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Practically nobody has recognised the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as an independent sovereign state. Just read Chechen Republic of Ichkeria#Foreign relations; what recognition did it have between 1991–2000, really? It's mostly by people who weren't themselves recognised either.
- Some Georgian guy who had not been president for 2 years, but still pretended to be.
- The Taliban, whose regime in Afghanistan wasn't recognised in 2000, and ousted in 2001.
- Bin Laden, who was not a "state".
- Estonia almost, but not really.
- Some political parties and nationalists somewhere.
- Some Islamist movements and guerrillas somewhere.
- Ukraine in 2022, because it was being invaded by Russia and wanted to make a statement against Russia invading other countries. Opportunistic to say the least; it could have done that between 1991 and 2021, but chose not to do so until it was attacked itself (understandable, but opportunistic nonetheless). This is the only one that may be somewhat legitimate. Problem: the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria no longer exists. It's just a government in exile since 2000. If that counts, well, then the Belarusian Democratic Republic also still exists. Besides, if we decide that the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria still exists today, then the "Former" bit doesn't apply, and it wouldn't fit in this category anyway.
In short, it's much ado about nothing. Northern Cyprus has more diplomatic recognition than the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
If we just ignore this whole problematic Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Category:Former Islamic monarchies is the perfect parent for this category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Ichkeria belongs in the Schrödinger's Category:Simultaneously current and former sort-of-recognised breakaway republics that de facto ceased to exist in 2000 but still have a government in exile somewhere. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Ichkeria, FL has a fair point that "state" fits better with the current structure. And it is not that relevant for an Islamic state whether it is a monarchy or a republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Putting it in Category:Islamic states is diffusing it very poorly, because that is the great-grandparent of Category:Former Islamic monarchies, which I suggest as the new parent of this category. If we just exclude Ichkeria, we can make this whole category very WP:CATSPECIFIC. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The more precise argument is that form of government and state religion is a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Slight preference for monarchies over states. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Former Islamic states in Europe, per Islamic state and Category:Islamic states; per Fayenatic london. I'm reading over state, and I don't see where a state needs to be "recognized" to be considered a "state". Very weak support of renaming to Category:Former Islamic nations in Europe or "...nation states...", if either of those are preferred for consensus. See also State_(polity)#Definition, Nation, and Nation state. And finally, this isn't about who ruled the country or its type of governent, it's about the polity itself. Incidentally, is/was Category:Crimean People's Republic a monarchy?... I think the whole tree of Category:Islamic monarchies could be renamed/merged to states (or nations). Islamic monarchy is basically just a list page. - jc37 07:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And following up on that, Category:Islamic states by type could be upmerged to Category:Islamic states. Just seems like a tree for the sake of a tree. And if you are looking for a "monarchy"-related category, there's always: Category:Muslim dynasties. - jc37 07:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I really prefer Category:Former Islamic monarchies in Europe (supported by Marcocapelle as 1st choice, buidhe, Santasa99, Qwerfjkl), I am prepared to accept Category:Former Islamic states in Europe (supported by Fayenatic london, jc37, and Marcocapelle as 2nd choice) as an alternative. The balance of votes seems to favour the original nomination though. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (rename per nom). All of the members are monarchies except for one. Some of these Islamic monarchies were but some were not Islamic states, which denotes a theocracy. Theocracies can be monarchical or not. For example, Vatican is a monarchy. Caliphate of Córdoba was a theocractic monarchy. Golden Horde was a monarchy, but it was decidedly not a theocracy, it was basically secular. That state was not an "islamic state" in that sense. Just two examples, there are multiple true Islamic states and states which were not that in this category. So I strongly oppose a move to Category:Former Islamic states in Europe.—Alalch E. 11:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Active shooter incidents in the United States

The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Active shooter incidents in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose deleting Category:Active shooter incidents in the United States by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:2009 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2009 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2010 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2010 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2011 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2011 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2012 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2012 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2013 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2013 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2014 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2014 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2015 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2015 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2016 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2016 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2017 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2017 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2018 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2018 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2019 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2019 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2020 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2020 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2021 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2021 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2022 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2022 mass shootings in the United States
Propose merging Category:2023 active shooter incidents in the United States to Category:2023 mass shootings in the United States

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Both cover the scope of articles. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are different things. An active shooter incident, at least as defined by the category, is officially classified by the FBI as an incident in which someone indiscriminately shoots at people in public. A mass shooting is a gun violence incident with at least 4 casualties in the same place. There are several different attacks that are not mass shootings but are active shooter incidents classified by the FBI, like 2022 Memphis shootings, 2022 Detroit shootings, Vestavia Hills church shooting, etc. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- However, I do support deleting Category:2023 active shooter incidents in the United States, as there has not been an FBI report covering this year's incidents. Pinging TheAmazingRaspberry (talk · contribs) and Love of Corey (talk · contribs), who both seem to have been involved in adding these active shooter categories to articles. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lettler. Like they said, there are shootings that are active shooter incidents but not mass shootings, and mass shootings that are not active shooter incidents (2022 Sacramento shooting, Killing of the Haight family, 2022 Philadelphia shooting). They might share some overlap, but they are not as identical as one might think. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than some overlap, e.g. in 2009, 7 out of 8 articles are overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete While these might technically be distinct, in practice an active shooter are, per that article, trying to commit mass murder so this would generally overlap in practice. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Think of a name that covers both. This is too US-specific. Oculi (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 10:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: they may be technically different terms, but, in practice, they are similar enough to be held in one category (as RevelationDirect said). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As has been discussed above, while similar, not every one of the articles in the former category fits into the latter category. Thus, as merge would be inappropriate. Silver seren^C 23:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:OVERLAPCAT discusses mostly overlapping or duplicative categories, not perfectly overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mostly overlaping. Per Marcocapelle, 100% overlap is not needed for this to still be duplicative. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass shootings in Mexico by year

The result of the discussion was: delete/merge to Category:Mass shootings in Mexico. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 09:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Mass shootings in Mexico by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:2000s mass shootings in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:2009 mass shootings in Mexico to Category:2009 mass shootings in North America and Category:21st-century mass shootings in Mexico

Propose merging Category:2010 mass shootings in Mexico to Category:2010 mass shootings in North America and Category:2010s mass shootings in Mexico
Propose merging Category:2017 mass shootings in Mexico to Category:2017 mass shootings in North America and Category:2010s mass shootings in Mexico
Propose merging Category:2019 mass shootings in Mexico to Category:2019 mass shootings in North America, Category:Attacks in Mexico in 2019 and Category:2010s mass shootings in Mexico
Propose merging Category:2020 mass shootings in Mexico to Category:2020 mass shootings in North America, Category:Attacks in Mexico in 2020 and Category:2020s mass shootings in Mexico
Propose merging Category:2020 mass shootings in Mexico to Category:2020 mass shootings in North America, Category:Attacks in Mexico in 2020 and Category:2020s mass shootings in Mexico
Propose merging Category:2021 mass shootings in Mexico to Category:2021 mass shootings in North America, Category:Attacks in Mexico in 2021 and Category:2020s mass shootings in Mexico
Propose merging Category:2022 mass shootings in Mexico to Category:2022 mass shootings in North America, Category:Attacks in Mexico in 2022 and Category:2020s mass shootings in Mexico

Nominator's rationale: merge. Not enough content per year to warrant this tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, though for consistency within the tree of the 21st century I would suggest keeping the 2000s decade category. In other words the third merge target of Category:2009 mass shootings in Mexico may be replaced by Category:2000s mass shootings in Mexico. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (see below re Canada. Hugo999 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. In fact, there are only so few of them that they'd better all be merged to a single Category:Mass shootings in Mexico (including the 2010s and 2020s). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Mass shootings in Mexico (and the by year ones in N America as nominated). According to AWB's recursive feature, Category:Mass shootings in Mexico contains 17 pages (from 2009, that is around 1.2 per annum which perhaps justifies a 'by decade' scheme, but certainly not a 'by year'), and 14 subcategories. (@user:Aidan721: none of the ones I looked at are tagged for cfd.) Oculi (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Mass shootings in Mexico (and the by year ones in N America as nominated). This helps navigation by not creating underpopulated cats. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Hugo999, and I also disagree on principle with deleting year categories. Dimadick (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 10:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass shootings in Canada by year

The result of the discussion was: delete/merge to Category:Mass shootings in Canada. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 09:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Mass shootings in Canada by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1960s mass shootings in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:1965 mass shootings in Canada to Category:1965 mass shootings in North America and Category:20th-century mass shootings in Canada

Propose deleting Category:1970s mass shootings in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:1975 mass shootings in Canada to Category:1975 mass shootings in North America and Category:20th-century mass shootings in Canada

Propose merging Category:1980s mass shootings in Canada to Category:20th-century mass shootings in Canada

Propose merging Category:1989 mass shootings in Canada to Category:1989 mass shootings in North America and Category:20th-century mass shootings in Canada

Propose deleting Category:1990s mass shootings in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:1996 mass shootings in Canada to Category:1996 mass shootings in North America and Category:20th-century mass shootings in Canada
Propose merging Category:1999 mass shootings in Canada to Category:1999 mass shootings in North America and Category:20th-century mass shootings in Canada

Propose merging Category:2000s mass shootings in Canada to Category:21st-century mass shootings in Canada

Propose merging Category:2006 mass shootings in Canada to Category:2006 mass shootings in North America, Category:Attacks in Canada in 2006 and Category:21st-century mass shootings in Canada
Propose merging Category:2009 mass shootings in Canada to Category:2009 mass shootings in North America and Category:21st-century mass shootings in Canada

Propose merging Category:2012 mass shootings in Canada to Category:2012 mass shootings in North America, Category:Attacks in Canada in 2012 and Category:2010s mass shootings in Canada
Propose merging Category:2014 mass shootings in Canada to Category:2014 mass shootings in North America and Category:2010s mass shootings in Canada
Propose merging Category:2016 mass shootings in Canada to Category:2016 mass shootings in North America and Category:2010s mass shootings in Canada
Propose merging Category:2017 mass shootings in Canada to Category:2017 mass shootings in North America and Category:2010s mass shootings in Canada
Propose merging Category:2018 mass shootings in Canada to Category:2018 mass shootings in North America, Category:Attacks in Canada in 2018 and Category:2010s mass shootings in Canada
Propose merging Category:2020s mass shootings in Canada to Category:21st-century mass shootings in Canada

Propose merging Category:2020 mass shootings in Canada to Category:2020 mass shootings in North America and Category:21st-century mass shootings in Canada
Propose merging Category:2022 mass shootings in Canada to Category:2022 mass shootings in North America, Category:Attacks in Canada in 2022 and Category:21st-century mass shootings in Canada

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. 1-2 articles per year is not enough. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, though for consistency within the tree of the 21st century I would suggest keeping the 2000s decade category. In other words the third merge target of Category:2006 mass shootings in Canada and Category:2009 mass shootings in Canada may be replaced by Category:2000s mass shootings in Canada. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: re the proposals to delete or upmerge. If the 21st-century years are excluded, this only leaves 5 20th-century years to be deleted. With only two centuries involved I regard it as confusing to have one tree structure for the 21st century and a different tree structure for the 20th century. Hugo999 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. In fact, there are only so few of them that they'd better all be merged to a single Category:Mass shootings in Canada (including the 2010s and 2020s). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support counterproposal: of a single Category:Mass shootings in Canada. There just aren't that many notable ones and we can always cross-reference by event-year if needed. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Mass shootings in Canada (and the by year ones in N America as nominated). According to AWB's recursive feature,
Mass shootings in Canada‎ (2 C, 15 P)
Mass shootings in Canada by province or territory‎ (8 C)
Spree shootings in Canada‎ (1 C, 16 P)
List of mass shootings in Canada
1999 OC Transpo shooting
2009 Calgary restaurant killings
2021 Faro, Yukon shootings
Boxing Day shooting
Claresholm highway shooting
Danzig Street shooting
Dawson College shooting
2022 Langley shootings
Lennoxville massacre
Template:Mass shootings in Canada
2020 Nova Scotia attacks
2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa
2022 Saanich shootout
2018 Toronto shooting
contains 28 pages (from 1965, that is around 1 every 2 years), one of which is a list, and 26 subcategories. At an absolute maximum, merge all to Category:21st-century mass shootings in Canada or Category:20th-century mass shootings in Canada, as appropriate. Oculi (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Mass shootings in Canada (and the by year ones in N America as nominated). If there is not support for that, I'd support the original century nomination as well. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree with the perfectly sensible argument by Hugo999, that therre is no reason to have fifferent tree structures for each century. And WP:SMALLCAT is a poor argument to delete year categories. In that category tree, one article per category is enough. Dimadick (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 10:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trans men

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Category:Trans men

Psychics

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Australian psychics‎ (3 P) to Category:Psychics and Category:Australian occultists
Propose manually merging Category:Brazilian psychics‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Psychics and Category:Brazilian occultists
Propose merging Category:Bulgarian psychics‎ (1 P) to Category:Psychics
Propose merging Category:Canadian psychics‎ (3 P) to Category:Psychics and Category:Canadian occultists
Propose merging Category:Colombian psychics‎ (1 P) to Category:Psychics and Category:Colombian occultists
Propose merging Category:Cuban psychics‎ (1 P) to Category:Psychics
Propose merging Category:Filipino psychics‎ (3 P) to Category:Psychics and Category:Filipino occultists
Propose merging Category:German psychics‎ (3 P) to Category:Psychics and Category:German occultists
Propose merging Category:Israeli psychics‎ (1 P) to Category:Psychics
Propose merging Category:Japanese psychics‎ (3 P) to Category:Psychics and Category:Japanese occultists
Propose merging Category:New Zealand psychics‎ (3 P) to Category:Psychics and Category:New Zealand occultists
Propose merging Category:Norwegian psychics‎ (1 P) to Category:Psychics
Propose merging Category:Swiss psychics‎ (3 P) to Category:Psychics and Category:Swiss occultists
Propose merging Category:Vietnamese psychics‎ (1 P) to Category:Psychics

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that the Brazilian subcat Category:Brazilian spiritual mediums should not be included in the merge process, since Category:Spiritual mediums is already a subcategory of Category:Psychics. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. There are 319 psychics in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Psychics (ignoring the 227 fictional ones) and so the likelihood of making much progress with Category:Psychics by nationality is limited. Oculi (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Does not fail WP:SMALLCAT and part of the wider category tree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 10:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Song recordings produced by Suga (rapper)

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Song recordings produced by Suga (rapper) to Category:Songs recordings produced by Suga

Nominator's rationale: I think the category doesn't need the disambiguation of rapper, as he is the only artist with the name Suga. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 06:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The category doesn't need disambiguation as it is clear who it refers to. :3 F4U (they /it) 08:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is normal Wikipedia practice to name the categories after the article (if there is one). The article is presently at Suga (rapper). If the article moves, and I have no opinion on the article, then so should the categories.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wikipedia:Category names#Name of the artist - Ïvana (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Suga (rapper)

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Suga (rapper) to Category:Songs written by Suga

Nominator's rationale: I think the category doesn't need the disambiguation of rapper, as he is the only artist with the name Suga. I would recommend renaming the category as (Songs written by Suga) Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 06:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The category doesn't need disambiguation as it is clear who it refers to. :3 F4U (they /it) 08:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is normal Wikipedia practice to name the categories after the article (if there is one). The article is presently at Suga (rapper). If the article moves, and I have no opinion on the article, then so should the categories. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wikipedia:Category names#Name of the artist - Ïvana (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Businesspeople in British Nigeria

The result of the discussion was: alt merge. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Businesspeople in British Nigeria to Category:Businesspeople from former countries

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the target is used as a container category, and should remain so. ALT merge to Category:Businesspeople from the British Empire. (No need to merge also to Category:Nigerian businesspeople as the member page is in other subcats of that one.) – Fayenatic London 12:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt merge per FL. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Byelorussian Auxiliary Police

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Byelorussian Auxiliary Police to Category:Belarusian Auxiliary Police

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D, to be consistent with Belarusian Auxiliary Police.

Rename per nom, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]