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) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Men by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I ran into this when looking for an old pope CfD. So I have to ask. Is nationality by sex defining? If this is deleted, there will be a large number of subcategories impacted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – gender is defining, and breaking up any legitimate category by nationality is routine unless the category is small (a few dozen?). Anyway this is a huge category: Category:American male singers alone has 4000 articles. Oculi (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/question. As container categories (presumably), will any of these subcategories have any appropriate content apart from the corresponding "FOOian men by occupation" subcategory? Maybe a "kings" or "princes" category—or are those "occupations"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a container category. I can see no point in deleting it, because all the subcats will still exist. I doubt that it will ever contain much more than the Category:Men by nationality and occupation and Category:Men by occupation and nationality plus all the Category:Fooish men; the only other one I can see is a possible Category:Lists of men by nationality, like Category:Lists of women by nationality.
  As to the subcats, they are discussed at CfD 2012 Nov 27. They are not nominated here, but as I noted in November, we have quite a lot of men-by-occupation-nationality categories, creating for those intersections between gender and occupation which meet WP:CATGRS. See for example the subcats of Category:Male singers by nationality, Category:Male models by nationality or Category:Male prostitutes.
  I am not advocating the creation of male categories in any situation other than where they meet WP:CATGRS, but where we have men-by-occupation-nationality categories, they should be grouped together by nationality as well as by occupation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the reasons offered by Oculi. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's see: the category "American men" has just one subcat, "American men by occupation‎". This one has only 9 subcats: actors, comedians, dancers, escorts, models, monks, prostitutes, singers and sportsmen. Honestly, I think the full tree should be deleted. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a container category. I pretty sure there is a "label" used to indentify container categories and if so it needs to be added, of course. Mayumashu (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It's ((container category)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as container categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2013 (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.

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Athletic DNA players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Athletic DNA is not a team or a club, it is a brand of clothing, and the category is defined as players who "wear Athletic DNA apparel." We don't categorize people by the products they endorse, or the companies that sponsor them, or the products that they otherwise choose to use. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with extreme prejudice, drive a stake through its heart, and bury it in quicklime. WP:NOTADVERTISING, and this category is pure advertising. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that poorly disguised advertisements are inappropriate. Even if we did categorize people by the companies they endorse, why would we start with a company that has yet to complete a decade of activity. Why its this companies marketing strategy more notable than Nike, Inc. who seems to have several decades of such endorsements? Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we get enough categories on sportspeople pages without this. This is a horrible idea and if kept would create a horrible precedent leading to way more category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-defining and often fleeting characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not a category containing players who have genetic material attributable to athletes. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the information could be put in a list, but should never be defined with a category. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Possibly just plain spam. (Also, someone with spare time might want to go through and search for instances of "Athletic DNA" in articles, per WP:EL. Furthermore, compare Athletic DNA's edit history with, say, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Speak Social#Clients and decide if maybe some things deserve watching.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2013 (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.

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:CableACE award winners
• Nominator's rationale The guidelines on categorization by award say we should not have categories for award winners except in a very few exceptions. This is not an award of the significant prestige to fit the very few exceptions. Having cateogries like this leads to category clutter on article pages, and just encorages even more award categories, which leads to more clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article CableACE Award (to which the nominator should have provided a link) makes it clear that this was a very low-profile award, falling well short of the exceptional criteria set in WP:OC#AWARD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 21 March 2013 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 19:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Comic book publishing companies of Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

* Propose deleting Category:Korean animation studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete with no prejudice against recreation if needed in the future. Currently, these are useless shells for Category:Comic book publishing companies of South Korea and Category:South Korean animation studios. It only makes sense to keep it if we have Category:Comic book publishing companies of North Korea and Category:North Korean animation studios or if we have articles on manhwa publishing companies or Korean animation studios that were active before the 1948 partition. Right now, this isn't the case. Pichpich (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was a bit surprised that we don't have a category for North Korean animation studios, since I remembered a hand full of European films and television series outsourced there. After a small search I found that we do have an article on the North Korean SEK Studio. It is misplaced in category "South Korean animation studios", though the article body says otherwise. Any thoughts on the matter? Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Then I guess I'll retract the second half of my nomination and instead create Category:North Korean animation studios and keep Category:Korean animation studios to hold the North/South categories. Pichpich (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an unneeded layer of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2013 (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.

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Holding companies of Korea to Category:Holding companies of South Korea

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the actual content of the category. All three members of the category are described in their article as South Korean companies and all three became holding companies after 1948. Given the current regime, North Korean holding companies can't exist, at least for now, and the Korean economy prior to Japanese occupation was not sufficiently developed to sustain true conglomerates. Pichpich (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2013 (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.

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bookstores of Korea to Category:Bookstores of South Korea

Nominator's rationale: Rename for a number of reasons. First, this is a better reflection of the contents since all these bookstores are South Korean companies. Accordingly, its parent category is Category:Retail companies of South Korea. The other parent is Category:Bookstores by country but currently, there's no country called Korea so using this name in the title would only make sense if the category included companies that operated pre-1948. That's not the case. Pichpich (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2013 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:States of the Southern United States
• Does this term have any exact definition that never varies depending on the point of view?? Look at, for example, the map at Western United States and look at the color/pattern coding of the states. It reveals some states that invariably belong to that region, and some that may or may not depending on the point of view. Georgia guy (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there is no such definition. But since the region exists IRL it should be possible to reach a consensus based on the most common usage. Most likely The Greater South including the 11 ex-Confederate state + Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Kentucky. But then again this would require using common sense - so maybe that is unrealistic in a Wikipedia context ;-).--Orakologen (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is best handled by a list where you can show all of the states that could be included and show which groups of southern states include them. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The true WP pedant would require a rename to Categories named after states of the Southern United States.- choster (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment read the article Southern United States Hmains (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep All 15 states listed (plus a 16th one, Delaware) are included in the article Southern United States. Its list is sourced to a map of the United States Census Bureau ([1]) and does not seem to be POV. I am not sure why we need an extra-subcategory to "Category:Southern United States", but I don't see a reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no universally used definition of this term. There are also not enough U.S. states to make it worth having sub-cats that gorup them in this way. It is not a needed or useful category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need for this subdivision of States in this manner. Category:States of the United States should be sufficient...I mean, there's even a map to see which ones are in the South. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the most states normally considered south. If he have a category abouth Southern United States, it should be possible to reach their states with a few clicks, it's very relevant to the category. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per JPL. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The US Census Bureau has a clear definition which covers sixteen states, but there are several other definitions ... and as noted at Southern United States#Geography the popular definition is the 11 states which formed the Confederate States of America. The multiplicity of definitions will make the category unstable, as good faith editors argue the case for the different options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment most reports put Oklahoma as only "vaguely" in the South. It is rarely considered to be in the south without question. Even Texas is only considered to be sort of in the south.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Category:Regions of the United States includes a number of regions including the Southern United States, and the list List of regions of the United States gives the 16 states (including Delaware, and also D.C.) in the US Census Region 3 “South” comprising Divisions 5, 6 & 7 (the other 3 census regions are Northeast, Midwest & West). There are similar categories Category:States of the Western United States, with Oklahoma and Texas in both “Western” and “Southern” categories; and Category:New England states. Hugo999 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2013 (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.

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 Category:Kew to Category:Kew, London.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose either

Rename to Kew, London

• Category:Kew to Category:Kew, London

or

Rename to Kew

• Category:People from Kew, London to Category:People from Kew

Nominator's rationale: The head article is at Kew, so Category:People from Kew, London was nominated yesterday for speedy renaming to Category:People from Kew. I opposed this, because Kew is ambiguous: Kew (disambiguation) lists several other places of the same name. Ambiguous category names lead to miscategorisation, which is hard to monitor because the Mediawiki software does not allow monitoring of additions to or removal from categories. That's why there are many cases where an article is judged to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but the eponymous category is disambiguated. An example is Birmingham/Category:Birmingham, West Midlands.

Whichever option is chosen should be used for both categories. so I have nominated them both as an either/or option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In every single instance where a head article and its associated categories are at different levels of disambiguation from each other, it's because one or the other is at the wrong level of disambiguation. And that goes for "Birmingham", too; the conflict there has less to do with the situation's actual justifiability and more to do with some of the UK contingent's weirdly persistent belief that a particular place having historically possessed the name before another one did should trump any other disambiguatory consideration (an argument which reached its absolute nadir when it was actually cited as a reason why the primary topic for Boston should be the small village in Lincolnshire rather than the exponentially larger and more internationally famous metropolis in Massachusetts.)

For the record, I have no preference either way, except that they need to be at the same level of disambiguation as each other. If the category has to be at "Kew, London" because of ambiguity issues, then the article has the exact same ambiguity issues and needs to be moved with it; if the article is actually fine at "Kew", then so is the category. There is never a valid reason why an article and its associated categories need to be at different levels of disambiguation from each other; in every single case that has ever been presented — yes, including Birmingham — the actual reality has been that one side or the other was incorrectly assessing how serious the ambiguity actually was. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:People from Kew, London to Category:People from Kew. If the article ever moves from Kew, then obviously the category names can follow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both -- Kew is the original of all (or most) of the rest. However, the category needs a disambiguator, so that it will not pick up articles from other places called Kew. The precedent for this is Birmingham, whose categories are at Category:Birmingham, West Midlands, which was necessary to prevent it collecting articles relating to Birmingham, Alabama. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why in the world would we keep both? Based on what you have said, it seems you would be in favour of renaming Category:Kew to Category:Kew, London. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Birmingham is not a valid precedent for anything. If "Birmingham" is too ambiguous to be the category name for the one in England, then it is also too ambiguous to be the article title; if it is unambiguous enough to be the article title, then it is also unambiguous enough to be the category name. As I stated above, if an article and its associated categories cannot be at the same level of disambiguation as each other, then that is evidence that either the article or the category is not sitting at the correct level of disambiguation; it is absolutely never under any circumstances whatsoever, no exceptions ever for any reason, ever ever ever the correct or justifiable solution. If you can even entertain the idea that it might be justifiable, then incorrect reasoning is being used in one place or the other. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Kew, London in all cases. There are many places named Kew, and there is no easy way to track categories to avoid inapropriate additions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Kew, London. We simply can not keep both since that would be completely confusing. There is no reason to retain Category:Kew as a top level category, which I think was suggested above, since that would be categorizing by like names which we avoid. Also, if the above comment was a need to rename Kew to Kew, London, or some other variant, that also makes sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Kew to Category:Kew, London, to avoid miscategorization. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Kew to Category:Kew, London, to avoid miscategorization. I look forward to Bearcat's attempt to move Birmingham. Oculi (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Kew to Category:Kew, London, Kew (disambiguation) is highly ambiguous -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2013 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish popes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I am not aware of any reliable source describing Saint Peter (who was the sole member of this category until I removed him) or anyone else as a "Jewish Pope".
Note that the creator of this category had previosuly created Category:Israeli popes, which was nominated at CFD earlier today, and closed by me as "speedy delete". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the Bible, obviously its reliability as a historical text is debatable, but I have nver seen Peters ethnicity described as a controversial fact. Jewish tradition also recognizes Peter as a Jew. Since Peter was from the land of Israel, Israeli popes would be the most appropriate national category, but since this was speed deleted whitout a proper discussion I have created Jewish popes. Most of the apostles - including Peter - were Jewish ie. born Jewish and still Jewish in the ethnic and national sense of the word after becoming Christians (which were not that clearly separated in the early years anyhow). That should not be in any way controversial and I dont know why BrownHairedGirl think it is. Why is it so bad to have Peter listed with his ethnicity/nationality when all the other popes are categorised in this way? We also have Argentinian popes despite there is only one in this cateory, so the sheer number can not be a relevant criteria.--Orakologen (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. a) The bible does not include the word Pope, so it cannot be a source for claiming that Peter was a "Jewish Pope", other than by WP:SYNthesis, which is not allowed. b) The Bible is a primary source, but Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources.
If you have a reliable secondary source, please identify it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if Peter was a Jew and Peter was a pope you cant combine those two simple facts and say he was a Jewish Pope?? That doesnt make sense. Its taking the generally sensible synthesis rule into the land of absurdity. Anyway what about Israelitic Popes?

Dictionary definition:

Is·ra·el·ite (zr--lt)

n.

1. A native or inhabitant of the ancient Northern Kingdom of Israel.

2. A descendant of Jacob; a Jew.

3. A member of a people regarded as the chosen people of God.

4. A Jew not descended from the tribe of Levi and not a priest.

Peter fits the last three and was born in the area covered by the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orakologen (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That's all WP:SYNthesis. If you have a reliable secondary source for your claim that Peter was an "Israeli pope"/"Israelitic pope"/"Jewish pope"/ whatever, then please identify it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although no doubt St Peter would fit (reliably sourced) into a "Popes of Jewish descent" since there are myriad sources for that concept in Wikipedia's one drop rule. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyThat doesnt make any sense. We have plenty of Italian popes at a time where Italy didnt exist as a state. Syrian based only on coming from that area. African used for Berbers who are not ethnically African in the modern sense and with dubious sources. Why this double standard? And how about providing an alternative description. He was listed as "Syrian" for a long time without anybody complaining about it. Jewish descent and Jewish is the same in this context. If he was of Jewish descent (born Jewish) he is ethnically Jewish. If your definition is this narrow all popes before modern states developing in Europe past 1648 should not be categorized based on nationality.--Orakologen (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Even if this CFD determines that the category is OK, the category is going to be empty unless there is consensus at Talk:Saint Peter to include that article in the category. Right now, it looks like that won't happen, and the category will remain empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The use of Jewishness as other than a religious designation is questionable much before 1800. It is clearly not a supported way to dwevelop people not practicisn Judaism in the first century. This hybrid of religion and just does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment isn't this people of Judea and popes the proper trees to consider? As an ethnic category, it works quite well. Category:Judean popes could also be used. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Pete was from Galilee, which is not in Judea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Ethnic Jewish popes ? Per Jewish pope Andreas we'd have more than one article -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The parent category is Category:Popes by nationality. There is no Category:Popes by ethnicity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps it needs to be re-named, since I don't know that any pope other than Saint Peter was Jewish by religion at the time of being a pope, and he never said he was pope and other people said he wasn't a Jew. But Evaristus was also a Jew by birth, wasn't he? So whatever this category gets named, it would have two pages in it, not just one. Or am I wrong? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as "Popes born Jewish" adding Jewish pope Andreas. The relevance of one being born Jewish and becoming a pope of the main rival religion is worth a category. DGtal (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an even worse idea. That article is currently in no Pope categories, and I doubt you could get consensus to put it in any pope categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could comfortably fit into Category:Legendary popes together with Pope Joan. DGtal (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The one article relates to an early Bishop of Rome (from before that see became the universal primate), of Hellenic Jewish descent, and at a period when being a Jewish Christian was not necessarily unusual. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for various reasons - I'm perfectly happy with Peter being a Jewish Pope, but he seems to be the only one (so far), so "small and unlikely to expand", although everything we know about Early Christianity suggests other early Popes were probably converts from Judaism or descendants of converts, but the minimal to non-existent biographical details we have don't inform us about this, except for Pope Evaristus, according to a much later source. Jewish pope Andreas would have to go in Category:Fictional Jewish popes since he is clearly not historical - are there others for that I wonder? Plus of course it isn't a nationality. The note at Category:Popes by nationality covers Peter adequately. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is absurd that a religious Jew would become Pope but I don't know if anyone but saint Peter was a racial Jew who converted. If we have another racially Jewish Pope, we should probably keep it but if not delete it. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we explicitly say we do not categorize by race, and we currently categoize Popes by nationality, not ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on WP:DEFINING and WP:SMALLCAT. Bede735 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Star Trek episode stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized stub category that I would expect to see gradually further depopulate as articles bypass stub status. Keep template for now, but upmerge to Category:Star Trek episode stubs. Dawynn (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2013 (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.

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 category, but delete the 2 templates: ((StarTrek-TNG-episode-stub)) and ((StarTrek-TOS-episode-stub)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting templates for Category:Star Trek episode stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete empty templates. For this, the category itself is fine for the time being. But some of the templates have lost their usefulness. Templates ((StarTrek-TNG-episode-stub)) and ((StarTrek-TOS-episode-stub)) should be deleted. All episodes for these two discontinued shows have individual articles that have passed stub status. Dawynn (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused templates as nominated. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 14 March 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Star Trek episode stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Star Trek: Voyager episode stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Most of the current articles have bypassed stub status. As the series has been discontinued, new articles will not be needed. Propose deleting category, and using ((StarTrek-episode-stub)) to retag any true stub articles currently tagged with ((StarTrek-Voyager-episode-stub)). Dawynn (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Star Trek episode stubs. No need to re-tag; simply redirect the existing stub template, and remove any references to it from stub category pages. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 14 March 2013 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Seasons in European football by country to Category:Years in association football by country

Nominator's rationale: This category contains sub-categories where each category, i.e. Category:2001–02 in European football by country contains "2001–02 in Fooian football" in addition to "2001 in Fooian football" and "2002 in Fooian football" (for those countries with a spring-autumn season) for most European countries. First off, the name is incorrect. This category is Category:Years in association football in Europe by country or something similar, as "European football" refers to the competition arranged by UEFA. I believe this category-tree (with all it's sub-cats) should be upmerged to Category:Years in association football by country. If this category tree should still exist, it should be a sub-cat of Category:Years in association football by country and renamed so that it doesn't look like we are talking about UEFA-competitions. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related discussions. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree, Keep title as is. Nominators rationale makes no sense to me. Association football is organised by Seasons not Years plus UEFA does not have copywrite over the term European football. The current title is clear and concise. Don't see any point in changing it. Djln --Djln (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • UEFA does not have copywrite on "European football", but in Wikipedia "European football" refers to the competition organized by UEFA. And why call this category "in European football by country", when you are talking about "by country in Europe"? Another thing: Association football is not organised by seasons that span from one year to another, that is only in some of the country they play football. With the current category-system, Category:2001 in Swedish football is a sub-cat of Category:2002 in association football - that does not make any sense at all, and needs to be sorted. Upmerging Category:Seasons in European football by country to Category:Years in association football by country is one way of doing that. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Still Disagree With greatest respect Mentoz, I can make no sense of your arguement. Nothing you have said convinces me for a need to for change/merge.Djln--Djln (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- "Seasons in European football" should be about Europe-wide international competitions. We under 200 countries, a worldwide "by country" category should be sufficient. "Season" is certainly appropriate, since the competions operate over the winter, the current season being 2012/3. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support a merger into "Seasons in football by country", but not the current proposal. I mean, the "Seasons in European football by country" could be expended to a worldwide view, but that should be described by seasons, not years (some championships have calendar seasons, of course). --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Djln's crucial point: Association football is organised by Seasons not Years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, It seems I got it wrong here. I propose we change it to Category:Seasons in association football by country per Peterkingiron and NaBUru38's comments. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - invalid rationale, European football is quite clearly association football and there appears to be no reason to make the move. Of course the part of the proposal to change "seasons" to "years" has already been aborted, I would suggest this move discussion be, too. C679 21:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit that this was not a very good rationale, but what I'm trying to say is that European football in something primarily used to describe continental tournaments organized by UEFA, not that European football is not association football. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. The only concern expressed relates to Austria, where the history raises some special issues. However, there is no Austrian category in this nomination, so that interesting point doesn't alter the outcome here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav Nazi collaborators to Category:Yugoslav collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Slovenian Nazi collaborators to Category:Slovenian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Serbian Nazi collaborators to Category:Serbian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Montenegrin Nazi collaborators to Category:Montenegrin collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Croatian Nazi collaborators to Category:Croatian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Executed Yugoslav Nazi collaborators to Category:Executed collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:American Nazi collaborators to Category:American collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Argentine Nazi collaborators to Category:Argentine collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Basque Nazi collaborators to Category:Basque collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Belarusian Nazi collaborators to Category:Belarusian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Belgian Nazi collaborators to Category:Belgian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Executed Belgian Nazi collaborators to Category:Executed Belgian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Breton Nazi collaborators to Category:Breton collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:British Nazi collaborators to Category:British collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian Nazi collaborators to Category:Bulgarian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Czech Nazi collaborators to Category:Czech collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Czechoslovak Nazi collaborators to Category:Czechoslovak collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Executed Czechoslovak Nazi collaborators to Category:Executed Czechoslovak collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Danish Nazi collaborators to Category:Danish collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Dutch Nazi collaborators to Category:Dutch collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Executed Dutch Nazi collaborators to Category:Executed Dutch collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Estonian Nazi collaborators to Category:Estonian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:French Nazi collaborators to Category:French collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Executed French Nazi collaborators to Category:Executed French collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Corsican Nazi collaborators to Category:Corsican collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Greek Nazi collaborators to Category:Greek collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Hungarian Nazi collaborators to Category:Hungarian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Executed Hungarian Nazi collaborators to Category:Executed Hungarian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Irish Nazi collaborators to Category:Irish collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Latvian Nazi collaborators to Category:Latvian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Lithuanian Nazi collaborators to Category:Lithuanian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Middle Eastern Nazi collaborators to Category:Middle Eastern collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Norwegian Nazi collaborators to Category:Norwegian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Executed Norwegian Nazi collaborators to Category:Executed Norwegian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Polish Nazi collaborators to Category:Polish collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Romanian Nazi collaborators to Category:Romanian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Executed Romanian Nazi collaborators to Category:Executed Romanian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Russian Nazi collaborators to Category:Russian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Slovak Nazi collaborators to Category:Slovak collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:South African Nazi collaborators to Category:South African collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Soviet Nazi collaborators to Category:Soviet collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Executed Soviet Nazi collaborators to Category:Executed Soviet collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Swedish Nazi collaborators to Category:Swedish collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Swiss Nazi collaborators to Category:Swiss collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian Nazi collaborators to Category:Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Welsh Nazi collaborators to Category:Welsh collaborators with Nazi Germany

Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity (ie are these Fooian Nazis that collaborated, or Fooians that collaborated with Nazi Germany?), and consistency with the parent Category: Collaborators with Nazi Germany. Also the subcategories such as Category:Serbian Nazi collaborators renamed in the form Category:Serbian collaborators with Nazi Germany so that they are consistent with Category:Serbian collaborators with Fascist Italy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as suggested. The current terminology could be confusing. "Czech Nazi collaborators" - does this refer to members of the German Nazi party that were Czech, etc. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator's reasoning. Current categories could be misinterpreted as the collaborators being Nazis themselves. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but one question: in Greece's case (and probably also Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Slovenia), there was collaboration with Germany and Italy. Of course Germany remained the senior of the two, but for accuracy's sake, we shouldn't leave it at that. Perhaps "Category:Fooian collaborators during World War II" or something similar might be better? Constantine ✍ 20:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already a set of categories for "Fooian collaborators with Fascist Italy". I think it better to keep them separate and apply one or both as appropriate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that's good enough for me. Constantine ✍ 09:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I do wonder if some of these really make sense, they seem in some cases to retroactively impose more modern nationalities, but the new names are clearly better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you should make that observation Jpl. I note that the Latvian and Ukrainian ones are subcats of the Soviet one, likewise with the Slovak and Czech ones being subcats of the Czechoslovak one. If this renaming is successful, the next step would probably be to CfD the ahistorical ones. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian and Latvian nationalities still existed, even when they were ruled by the Soviets. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get into the nationalities vs ethnicities issue in this CfD. This CfD merely looks to rename these cats more accurately per WP:CAT. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But do all Nazi collaborators have collaborated with Germany? Aren't there some collaborators to Nazi Austria, for example? --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nazi Germany included Austria between March 1938 and 1945. If there are people that collaborated with the Austrian DNSAP prior to March 1938 then they might need their own category. Are there any non-Austrians you are aware of that collaborated with the DNSAP prior to the Anchluss? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, brightgalrs and others. definitely sounds more academic, less judgemental/POV.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2013 (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.

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. IMHO Category:Jesuits and the other new parent "by religious order" satisfy the requirement in SMALLCAT for this to be kept. There were 3 more votes for deletion at Category talk:Jesuit popes but the writers probably did not see the discussion here. – Fayenatic London 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jesuit popes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: For the foreseeable future there is only one conceivable entry. —teb728 t c 07:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is very encyclopedic. I searched hard for this information yesterday right after the election. With this, we'll be ready for the users that will want to know, many years from now when another Jesuit pope is elected, "How many other Jesuit popes have there been?", or who will want to know that tomorrow, having heard that Francis is a Jesuit bot not having heard that he is the first. If we can have category "Dutch popes" with one article, we can have this one as well. Chris the speller ^yack 16:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to the above, the guidelines for keeping categories requires only that they be populated. The number of listings is irrelevant. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, see WP:SMALLCAT, part of WP:OCAT, though this has exceptions which may apply here. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Category:Popes by religious order disagrees; the question is, does this fit its exemption? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:SMALLCAT, as this one is not a part of a larger category scheme. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is now. Also WP:SMALLCAT says this applies to categories with no potential for growth and gives as examples categories which are physically impossible to expand. I don't think that anyone can say that of this category with certainty. Daniel the Monk (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep if we can also remove the contents from Category:Popes. If people want to keep that as a massive undivided category, I think we should delete this and all other sub-cats of Category:Popes by religious orders, possible creating List of Popes by religious orders. With the Popes category undivided this is just leading to too many categories on articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Category:Popes by religious order, as an umbrella for the various groups, has already been created since last week. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- If we are to keep "Argentinian Popes" for which there is a strong consensus on the next nom below, we should keep this one too. The religious order is just as singificant. As I understand it, all modern Catholic priests belogn to one religious order or another, so that his order is a significant characteristic. (per Peterkingiron, noted on 19 March 2013)
  • In point of fact, the majority of Catholic clergy are what is termed secular clergy, in that they do not belong to a religious Order, with the commitment to group living, obedience in one's personal life to a superior and poverty, which comes with that. As indicated in the entry, the last pope to belong to a religious Order died in 1846, so Francis' belonging to one is a notable fact in the history of the papacy. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we have categories for Republican presidents or Social Democratic prime ministers? --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a category called Category:Republican Party Presidents of the United States, as part of the larger scheme Category:Presidents of the United States by party. Which I see also includes categories for Democrats, Democratic-Republicans, and Whigs. (No Federalists?). Category:Social democrats is extensive, but subcategories seem to include MPs and not PMs. No idea why. Dimadick (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be because the President of the United States is elected directly to that office, while Prime Ministers hold elected office as members of Parliament, at least in Britain. It also might be because U.S. presidents do not neccesarily ever hold any other party office (Grant and Eisenhower never held elective office before being president, not did Hoover, although he was a cabinet secretary).John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2013 (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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Argentine popes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: For the foreseeable future there is only one conceivable entry. —teb728 t c 07:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is the same situation as applies to Category:English popes, Category:Polish popes, and Category:Dutch popes, all of which have one article and will for the foreseeable future. I would oppose deleting the nominated category and not these other ones. I suppose they could be seen as part of an "overall scheme" of Category:Popes by nationality per WP:OC#SMALL. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should note the old discussion on thinly populated pope categories which resulted in a keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, like Category:Polish popes, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Popes by nationality categories. – Fayenatic London 08:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the reasons offered by Fayenatic. Dimadick (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the above, the guidelines for keeping categories requires only that they be populated. The number of listings is irrelevant. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if they fit the exception in WP:SMALLCAT, which this does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, like Category:Polish popes, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Popes by nationality categories. --Fadesga (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Good Olfactory noted, this is the same situation as applies to Category:English popes, Category:Polish popes, Category:Dutch popes, and Category:Jewish popes, all of which have one article and will for the foreseeable future. Perhaps they could be merged into a category for popes who come from a country that's only ever produced one pope? Some shorter name would need to be made up. Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as we have the schema of "Popes by nationality" we should have all categories for recognized nationalities. Jewish is not recognized as a nationality, and is a different issue altogether.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2013 (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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Wonky Pop acts to Category:Wonky Pop musicians and Category:Wonky Pop musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Per all kinds of other categories by musical genre--none of them are named "[x] acts" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me! Delete that, it's disgusting! Florence and the Machine classed as "wonky pop"? What the hell? Who comes up with these things? --86.40.200.32 (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per nom. If individual cases are miscategorized this should be corrected on a case by case basis, and is not reason to delete the whol category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2013 (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.

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. Stub categories should be proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Universalism stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: It looks like this was created unilaterally and there is usually a high bar for creating stub types. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one that created this template. I created it because I thought it would be useful. If I should have followed a particular Wikipedia process before creating it I was unaware of that process. If there is indeed a recommended Wikipedia process that I should have followed I would be wiling to have this template be deleted, so long as it can then be submitted to this process to determine whether or not it merits creation or not. --Devin Murphy (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2013 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1. No, this has not been empty for 4 days, but there is nothing with which to populate it, so it will remain empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Useless category with no entries. Thanks. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Prior to this nomination being started, I moved Saint Peter out of this category, on the basis that I don't think we categorize as "Israeli people" people who lived in Galilee in the first century CE. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 14 March 2013 (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.

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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of songs by reality television contestants to Category:Lists of songs by various reality television contestants

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Include 'various' to separate the list of songs by multiple contestants of a reality show from the list of songs recorded by single reality television contestants such as Girls Aloud, Kelly Clarkson etc. --⊾maine12329⊿ talk 02:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't see how the addition of the word "various" changes the meaning of the title, so it's better to stick with the shorter form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not relevant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2013 (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.

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. Favonian (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pope Francis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one entry. Categories are for multiple entries, not just any willy-nilly famous person. And yes, I'm aware that this the pope but that's not the point. There are dozens of popes without their own category. People are not awarded categories on the basis of how famous they are or how much they have achieved. 86.40.200.32 (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. As of now, this category is too small to be useful. But his predecessor's Category:Pope Benedict XVI is very well-populated, and I would expect this one to fill up soon. I can't see much point in deleting it now, only to have it re-created in a few days or weeks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I would expect" is guesswork, pure and simple. You have no way of knowing. No one has any way of knowing. Nicolás Maduro became interim President of Venezuela last week. There was no rush to create a category for him despite the existence of one for his predecessor and the interest in his predecessor's demise. Categories are not created until the articles are in place. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it's not guesswork. It's an assessment based on watching the rate of development of Wikipedis coverage of papal topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless Francis dies very quickly, it is inevitable that this category will become populated. It doesn't take long for modern popes to be the source of notable subjects. There's a Wikipedia category for each pope at least back to 1800; I didn't bother going back further. Even Category:Pope John Paul I (pope for only 1 month) has 9 articles. Other popes since 1950: Category:Pope John XXIII (about 5 years), Category:Pope Paul VI (about 15 years), Category:Pope John Paul II (26 years), Category:Pope Benedict XVI (8 years). Yes, there are dozens of popes without their own categories; but that is because there are lots of old things without their own categories. Dozens of ancient popes are barely supported by written records. Recent popes are a different story; saying that we can't predict that a current pope is going to have enough topics for a category is almost like saying that we can't predict that a U.S. president is going to have enough for a category. --Closeapple (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are not created until the articles are in place. If we all go round creating categories on who we like when they have no supporting articles, Wikipedia will be full of virtually empty categories. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to break the news, but Wikipedia is full of virtually empty categories. There are tons of them. I agree, though, that this is not a good thing in most cases. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is completely possible for a US president to not have enough related articles to justify a category. For example, a president could easily be assassinated die of a heart attack three days after his inauguration, and thus never actually accomplish anything that would warrant any sort of spinoff article. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that knowing WP, we would no doubt get articles on "Inauguration of PRESIDENT", "Assassination of PRESIDENT", "Conspiracy theories about PRESIDENT", "Memorials to PRESIDENT", "Funeral of PRESIDENT", "International reaction to the assassination of PRESIDENT", etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, yeah, good point. s/be assassinated/die of a heart attack/ then. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was more than 3 days, but: U.S. president William Henry Harrison got pneumonia and pleurisy 20 days after entering office, and died 30 days 12 hours after taking the oath. We have Category:William Henry Harrison (11 articles), Category:Presidency of William Henry Harrison (6 articles), and Category:William Henry Harrison administration cabinet members. And for Pope Francis, we're now up to 7 articles in 5 days. --Closeapple (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There will be enough stuff to put in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know that with any certainty? He could do nothing. He could do little. He could die. Anything could happen to contradict your statement. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Per existence of Category:Pope_Benedict_XVI --Rangeblock victim (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You base your decision on the existence of a category of a similar type? But there is a reason for that category. It is actually populated. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Papal conclave, 2013 was categorized in the non-existent Category:Pope Francis I, so I moved it to this category. So there are two articles in it right now. I don't really care whether or not it is deleted because at some stage it will be justifiably re-created even if it is deleted right now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is the one article. It's the only additional one. The other is the main article and the other entry is a template which ridiculously only has those two on it. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and 1+1=2 articles. What am I missing here? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jpl. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment based on the writings section in the article on Pope Francis, he has written 11 books. I would suspect that now that he is pope at least some of these works will come to be considered notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pope Francis is a single person not a category of things. Furorimpius (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrible argument. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category that you cite is a great example of the ugly overexpansion of categories on wikipedia. Most of the pope categories contain a single article and themselves should not be categories.Furorimpius (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I initially thought that as well. But if you click around in them you'll see that most (there is that word again) have a sizable 'Category:Documents of Pope X' nested within. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 21:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)¨[reply]
    • Furorimpius, I'm afraid, you didn't understand that categorization of wiki project is not only hyponymic (as simple Linné nomenclature) but thematic and use more types of hierarchic relation than this one. There is no reason why not to accept an indivudial Pope as a categorization topic. --ŠJů (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two articles is enough to warrant a category. So far we have Pope Francis and Papal conclave, 2013. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when have two articles been enough to warrant an entire category? Pope Francis is the title article - are you suggesting that categories are or should be in existence for every article that has one more related article? That would create infinite numbers of virtually empty categories. --86.40.107.73 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's my fault, but that's not what I meant at all. As the current paradigm stands, this category will need to be created eventually. I don't think anyone is arguing against that (meaning they are arguing against the paradigm itself OR arguing against the early creation of this category). The comment I made above is a reason to not delete this category for being created too early. Two articles makes it have a use in the present. I didn't mean to apply it to every single possiblity, only this one. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 16:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. As Pope Francis performs more actions as pope, there will be many articles written that relate to him. Notable trips, important policy statements, etc. should all carry this category. Andrew³²⁷ 20:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you don't know this for certain. It is a possibility in the FUTURE. There is no guarantee that it will be. --86.40.107.73 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Pope Francis is a pope, meaning there will eventually be quite a few pages relating to him, and his papacy. if you stop and think for a bit, remember that he was 'just' elected yesterday (as of CST), so of course there are not many articles pertaining to him or his papacy yet, he has only been pope for a day now. rather than waiting until we have a dozen or more articles needing to be added to the category, the category has been created to prepare for future articles. remember the 6 P's: Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance; or in this case it prevents having to go and hunt down a bunch of articles later; instead, the articles can be categorized as they are created. Aunva6 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the argument of those in favour of deletion is that since he has only been pope for a day now, there is currently not enough content to justify creation of a category. Some argue that we should "prepare" and create categories that we anticipate will be needed; others argue that we "wait" and only create them when they are actually needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The "delete because it isn't populated now but might be later" argument only applies if it's actually a case of might be. A reasonable person can assume that this category will be populated, likely extensively; it also forms part of what is likely an established category tree per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption, per Closeapple's mentions of other pope-by-name categories above, only needing the creation of Category:Popes by name to head it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Clearly an useful and perspective category. --ŠJů (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? There is only the conclave article. It will not easily get lost - it's linked in the lead section of Pope Francis. --86.40.107.73 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • per WP:SMALLCAT,

      "a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time."

      Aunva6 (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That criterion refers to situations where we already know the category's ultimate population prospects, not situations where we have to speculate about them (or to eponymous categories). For example, if Cityville is a large enough city that its mayors would generally be deemed to qualify for articles just for being mayors, then a category for "Mayors of Cityville" can be created even if nobody has actually started articles about anyone prior to the current incumbent yet — but it does not justify creating "Mayors of Palookatown" alongside it, if Palookatown is a small town whose mayors would not qualify just for being mayors. It has nothing to do with this situation; the category's population prospects are strictly speculative at best, because for example he could entirely fail to accomplish anything that would ever warrant a separate article of its own, or even die of a heart attack tomorrow and thus not even have the opportunity to even attempt to accomplish anything that would warrant a separate article of its own. We don't permit small categories on the presumption that they'll probably be expandable in the future; we create and allow categories when we (a) already need them because the articles already exist, (b) already know that the difference between a small category and a fully populated one consists of topics that are already known and just haven't actually been written yet. If you can't point to a precise list of who or what the unwritten topics are already known to be, then this criterion does not apply. And also, the criterion says that the category in question may be kept; it does not say that the category must be kept. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yes, it's almost ridiculously small for the time being but there's no sense in deleting a category when we are absolutely certain that we'll need to recreate it in the not so distant future. There are bound to be articles on some of his works and his biography will soon grow too large and parts will be spun off. An eponymous category is not an award, it's a pragmatic solution to ease navigation between articles on a common topic so the "he's undeserving" argument misses the point entirely. Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. It's true that this category is not so populated but very soon after, this category will be populated by pages related to him for his papacy. Like what Pichpich raised, his biography will grow and if ever, it will have a separate article like Early life of Pope Francis like that. Mediran (t • c) 01:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also as per the nominator said, if his concern was just because dozens of popes doesn't have their own category, then nominate and delete also Category:Pope Benedict XVI and Category:Pope John Paul II. We doesn't have categories about dozen of popes becaus they have lived many many many many years ago and we have little knowledge about them. That's why their WP articles are stub and if we're talking about the recent and the current popes, we have now more knowledge about them because we lived in their time. Also, categories are not awards or merits, it's a categorization of articles related to a certain subject that have a good scope and Pope Francis will be. Did you folks get what I mean? Thanks :) Mediran (t • c) 01:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So other stuff exists - why would the Benedict and John Paul categories be deleted when they are sufficiently populated? Several days have passed now since this pope came to prominence. There was a marked interest in him for a while but that is gradually dying down - he is not in the news headlines as much as the first day, there are some trivial asides now like the childhood sweetheart who led to where he is, and gasp, shock, horror, he has only one lung says another (as many more besides have only one lung), etc. In that time the Pope Francis article has been fleshed out. However, there has been absolutely no sign of anything else being created - and, barring someone creating a hurried weak one sentence stub deliberately to disprove that point (Lung of Pope Francis anyone?), there is no sign of any change in that regard. The fact remains there is still a category with no meaningful separate content to put in it apart from the conclave. --86.40.98.160 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:SMALLCAT. again, we don't need sourcing and fact for every little thing we do on wikipedia. articles need sourcing and fact, but wikipedia policy and even waht is added to article, as well as what articles are kept or deleted, are almost entirely defined by consensus. the fact that a cat currently has few articles is not a reason to delete it if there is a reasonable expectation that it will grow significantly. consensus appears to be that the expectation that the category will grow are reasonable. Aunva6 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, WP:SMALLCAT's "reasonable growth" exemption only applies if you can already name the gaps (e.g. 100 people have already held X job and are all notable enough for articles, but for whatever reason only two of them have actually gotten written about so far.) It does not apply to situations where the potential for growth is strictly speculative in nature. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment well we have now had a third entry with the article on the Jesuit institution where Pope Francis was educated, and it is likely we will soon have articles on some of the books he has written, so I think it is clear that it has potential to grow to a reasonable size, even in the extremely unlikely event that Pope Francis dies while I am typing this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The category now has 5 articles (I added biography and biographer) and may continue growing. Cambalachero (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the category has 7 articles now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Since we have categories for other popes, we will need this one soon, even if strictly we may not do so yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's reasonable to think the category may grow. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WP:SMALLCAT, which has been cited in this discussion, was modified in the middle of this discussion; I've changed it back. See Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Unusually-specifically-targeted small category guideline clarifications for more information and/or discussion about the guideline. --Closeapple (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was going to continue the W. H. Harrison discussion, but could not find it. As it stands, we probably would have a category on Harrison even if he had died in 1830 before running for the presidency, at least everything we have in his category would still apply. On this matter, we have nine articles, and at least one that was in the category has been removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2013 (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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Croatian Nazis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category was created on 14 March 2013 and is factually incorrect. The people in this category were Croatian Ustaše (which was a fascist organisation that ruled an Axis puppet state during WWII), and were not members of the German NSDAP. Category:Ustaše already exists and is the appropriate category for these people. The subcategory of Category:Croatian Nazi collaborators needs renaming, but I will address this separately, as there are other "X Naxi collaborators" categories that need changing too. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we should not willy-nilly start calling people Nazis who were not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's rationale. One might colloquially call the Ustashe "Nazis" (after all, they did not fall short of the real thing in any way), but precision in naming is necessary for historical accuracy. Constantine ✍ 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not the same thing, and is potentially confusing. If we compare their respective ideologies, there are significant differences, even if the core is essentially the same. GregorB (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2013 (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.

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. If there are any articles on legitimate children of Popes, they can be placed in a new Category:Children of popes, which should be a parent of this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Illegitimate children of popes to Category:Children of popes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The "illegitimate" is not necessary in this context, particularly as there is no possibility of confusion with other types of children. It also may be derogatory, particularly right now, with the likelihood that some of the contents of this category may be currently living people. 86.40.200.32 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, if the intent is to set up a system that the two names are treated as equivalent. There were legitimate children of popes. For instance, Pope Silverius was the legitimate son of Pope Hormisdas. This is part of the Category:Illegitimate children of monarchs category tree. Legitimate children could be placed in Category:Papal family members. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - what's wrong with it being derogatory? Why? Popes shouldn't have children, PEEEERIOD! --Rangeblock victim (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Popes shouldn't have children, PEEEERIOD!" is not a reason for opposing. Popes do have, and have had, children - as demonstrated above. --86.40.200.32 (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Actually it is possible for someone to be a legitimate child of a Pope. A-because until about AD 1000 the Catholic Church allowed married priests, although they began discouraging it sooner than that. B-because to the present day certain rites of the Catholic Church allow for married priests, and converts who held ecclesiastical office in certain other Christian Churches (such as Anglican Churches and Lutheran Churches) can be made Catholic Priests, and most importantly 3-men who have in the past been married can be made priests if their wife is deceased. So no, not all children of Popes are illegitimate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexually active Popes identifies at least six legitimate children of Popes, and also shows that tradition idnetifies Saint Petronilla as having been the legitimate daughter of Simon Peter, the first Pope according to Catholic tradiont.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The question remains. A small number of popes have had a small number of children. So small is the number why do they need to be split into legitimate and illegitimate? Why not one category called Category:Children of popes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.200.32 (talk • contribs)
  • I have already mentioned one possible reason. This category is within the Category:Illegitimate children of monarchs tree. It's not absolutely necessary to keep popes' illegitimate children in a subcategory within this tree, but if a user wants to keep them within this tree as a subcategory, it is a reason to oppose the renaming. Also, if considerations turn to whether we should have both—we don't generally categorize people by what position their parent held. An exception is the illegitimate children of monarchs tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Supercategorize with the suggested category, the current becoming a subcategory of it, allowing categorization into the illegitimate tree, and the standard tree. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Good Ol'Factory's comments. We don't randomly lop one branch off an established category tree without very good reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Since for the last 1000+ years, no pope is supposed to have married, the children will necessarily be illegitimate; accordingly, it must be the same as Category:Children of popes. I suspect that the children were is fact usually passed off as nephews or nieces. There is a good reason for having an illegitimate category for monarch's children, because they cannot inherit the crown. We may also need a morganatic children category for them (children or marriages with commoners who could not inherit the crown). That issue does not arise in respect of an elective monarchy such as the papacy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as pointed out above, not all children of popes were illegitimate, so saying "children of popes" is not the same as saying "illegitimate children of popes". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 20 March 2013 (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.