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. – Fayenatic London 12:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Years of the 10th century in Denmark to Category:10th century in Denmark
• Propose merging Category:930s in Denmark to Category:10th century in Denmark and Category:930s in Europe

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles and one article respectively in the both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Too little content to merit more than a century category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2017 (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. In any case this was a pointless nomination, because it would have removed only the container categs, but none of the individual by-year categs, e.g. Category:1997 Tamil-language television series debuts and Category:1999 Tamil-language television series endings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tamil-language television series debuts by year to Category:Indian television series debuts by year
• Propose merging Category:Tamil-language television series endings by year to Category:Indian television series endings by year

Nominator's rationale: All other “X television series debuts/endings” categories are by country, not by language. Tamil is spoken mostly in India. I also intend to include all subcategories in the nomination, but I have a class to get to and homework to catch up on. 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:89 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: This name has been changed from first Category:Tamil television series debuts by year to Category:Tamil-language television series debuts by year name. So I do not think there is a need to discuss about this. my opinion, many languages in India. You need to show the Tamil language sequences individually. Do not change this name because the Tamil language series is manufactured in India, Sri Lanka Singapore and Malaysia. I Think You need to keep this name.--Thilakshan (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, then dual merge also to Category:Tamil-language television series. Since the latter category hasn't been nominated here, it is still a valid merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2017 (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:Fictional television programming to Category:Fictional television shows.
No consensus on deleting Category:Fictional television shows with religious themes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional television programming to Category:Fictional television shows
• Propose deleting Category:Fictional television shows with religious themes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale:

Consistency with real TV show categories. Category:Fictional TV series is inappropriate because not all elements are TV series. In the second case, the elements are real TV shows that are works of fiction, not fictional shows that do not exist. The current members are all real TV shows involving God and angels. Other religions exist as well, and there is a Category:Religious television series with similar title but very different scope. 165.91.13.204 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Clearer scope. I am not certain what to do with the shows with "religious themes". Highlander: The Series had a Catholic monk among the main characters of the 1st season, the religious beliefs of various immortals are plot points in several episodes (and the main character is a Catholic Jacobite from Scotland), the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse appear in a key storyline, and the demon Ahriman appears in person in a controversial storyline that helped the demise of the show. Should it be described as having "religious themes" or is the category definition too vague? Dimadick (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion of the second nominated category. No clear rationale for deletion is given and if anything should be changed at all it should be a rename or merge to begin with, not a plain deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2017 (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:Family medicine to Category:Family medicine in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Family medicine to Category:Primary care

Nominator's rationale: The same thing by different names Rathfelder (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose: not in the USA, they're not. In fact we have three different articles on primary care, general practice, and family practice. Merge those together, and we can talk. I also note that the articles in the category deal specifically with the US specialty. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I do want to merge all three, although I am open to argument that they are different things, but I don't see much difference. In the UK Primary Care is regarded as a rather broader term than General Practice, as the latter is generally reserved for what doctors do, where primary care might include other clinicians, who might or might not be affiliated with the General practitioners. And these distinctions don't make much impression on the public, and they change over time. Rathfelder (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US they are considered separate "specialties", and in fact there are other specialties who do also primary care in the US (see here for example).

Also, the point is that most of the members of the FP category are organizations specifically connected to the US FP practice categorization— not our categories, but how American medicine divides things up. If the Brits don't do it the same way, well, our category structure has to bend to deal with that. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• These articles are supposed to be international in scope. Rathfelder (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed by whom? This statement begs the question. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If we are to have categories called American family medicine, American primary care, and the like, I would be quite content, but as it is similar practises in other countries, which are not organised in the same way, are slotted into these categories without much logic. Rathfelder (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This appears to be a specifically American category and might be renamed to Category: American Family medicine or such like. In UK, primary healthcare includes district nurses, practice nurses, and various non-hospital-based medical auxiliaries. Other countries will be arranged in other ways. so that I am not afraid of having multiple national categories under Category:Primary healthcare by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename alternative but maybe better to Category:Family medicine in the United States. The article Family practice focuses on both the US and India but I don't believe there is any Indian content in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm happy with Category:Family medicine in the United States, but I think it needs an explanation of how it is different from Primary Care, or General Practice, in the US, if it is indeed distinct from them. Rathfelder (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• While reading the articles, my impression about these difference is as follows: family medicine and general practice are identical or at least very similar and the difference is mainly a matter of WP:ENGVAR; while primary care is much broader than these two as it includes dentists, pharmacists, primary care in hospitals and perhaps much more. If anyone wants to correct this, feel free to do so. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA< medical doctors typically train for a medical specialty, but this didn't use to be the case; sixty years ago a very large portion took no specialty and, and those were (and are, because it still happens) "general practitioners". But there is also a specialty specifically for "family care", where doctors prepare to be, essentially, family doctors, that is, the guy/gal that you see on a regular basis, sick or well. From what I gather, the way things are typically organized in UK/Europe is different, and they don't train that way. But in the US, they do. European doctors may dismiss the idea of "specializing" in what they consider a generality, but that's the way it is done here, and most of the membership of the disputed category is organizations related to the specialty. I might agree that Category:Family physicians might not be justifiable, but that's a different discussion. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - there is some relevant info at AAFP; for example, I was a student member of AAFP during medical school, until I decided to specialize in Internal Medicine (and then Infectious Diseases). It's clearly hard to standardize the terms and concepts globally with all of the variation in health care delivery. — soupvector (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary care (in the US) in no way includes dentists or pharmacists. It's still medicine. It's generally family medicine, pediatrics, and ob/gyn. Natureium (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, now we're getting somewhere. So it remains a good idea to keep the category apart and the above explanation can be used as a header on the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes it would I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So we rename it American Family Medicine, and include it in Category:General practice and the practitioners in Category:American primary care physicians? Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the need for the qualifier given that, from what I make of others' comments, There's no "not-American" family practice that this needs to be distinguished from. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These words - Family doctor, for example - are used in various ways all round the globe. If this category is not clearly American it will attract articles about general practice in other places. Rathfelder (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all those words. I've supported upmerging Category:Family physicians because it doesn't mean this specialty; I'm also seeing that there are WL for "family practice" where it actually means, more or less, the business of a person practicing medicine— not exactly synonymous to a doctor's office as the article on the latter falsely claims, but close. The latter are going to have to be fixed by hand anyway. Other than the latter, it's not attracting those links now. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2018 (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: disperse to Category:Gang rape in India and Category:Gang rape in Pakistan, then delete. Pinging the participants to implement this: @Störm, Grutness, and Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there were only 2 items, so I recategorised them myself. Sorry about the un-needed ping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Indian sex gangs to Category:Sex gangs in India

Nominator's rationale: Created by me and was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_15#Category:Pakistani_sex_gangs. I was wrong one year back so wants a new consensus. Same for Category:Pakistani sex gangs. Störm (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and move articles to Category:Gang rape in India and Category:Gang rape in Pakistan. None of these articles is primarily about a sex gang (unlike, say Halifax child sex abuse ring) - they are all about incidents of gang rape. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative to disperse, the titles of the articles speak for themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2017 (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 to Category:Spouses of Presidents of Estonia. I've taken the liberty to capitalize Presidents, similar to the sibling categories. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:First Ladies and Gentlemen of Estonia to Category:Spouses of presidents of Estonia

Nominator's rationale: Follow up this move. 90.191.76.154 (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2017 (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 Category:560 in Wales, Category:569 in Wales, Category:560s in Wales and Category:Years of the 6th century in Wales; no consensus on the rest. – Fayenatic London 13:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:560 in Wales to Category:560 in Europe and Category:6th century in Wales
• Propose merging Category:569 in Wales to Category:569 in Europe and Category:6th century in Wales
• Propose merging Category:1100s establishments in Wales to Category:1100s establishments in Europe and Category:12th-century establishments in Wales
• Propose merging Category:1116 establishments in Wales to Category:1116 establishments in Europe and Category:12th-century establishments in Wales
• Propose merging Category:1131 establishments in Wales to Category:1131 establishments in Europe and Category:12th-century establishments in Wales
• Propose merging Category:1132 establishments in Wales to Category:1132 establishments in Europe and Category:12th-century establishments in Wales
• Propose merging Category:1136 in Wales to Category:1136 in Europe and Category:12th century in Wales
• Propose merging Category:1157 in Wales to Category:1157 in Europe and Category:12th century in Wales

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the larger amount of categories only have one or two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support generally, but not quite these targets -- but I am not sure that Europe is an appropriate target after the defeat of Llewellyn the Last in 1285; or perhaps after the Law in Wales Act 1535 (aka Act of Union). The principality (excluding Marcher Lordships) was governed as a separate state under the English crown 1285-1535, after which it was legally part of England (aka England and Wales). Its status was somewhat similar to that of Ireland, which was also a possession of the English Crown. Possibly a British Isles target might be more appropriate than straight into a Europe one. as if Wales was an independent state. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It would not help a lot if we would drop one tree of smallcats and start another tree of smallcats at the same time. Here is an alternative: we merge everything up to 1535 to the year categories of Europe, while we merge everything after 1535 to the year categories of England. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: Merge Wales to England? No way. Wales did not exist as a legal entity after 1535, but it v much existed as facto entity. Placing Wales in English cats is the sort of thing which gets en.wp's categs in the news, and not in a good way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl: So do you prefer to have all of them to be merged to year in Europe categories? I would be fine with that as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle this is a v sensitive issue. Basically, England set out to abolish Wales legally and culturally, and that remains a bitter issue in Wales. I appreciate the categorisation logic, but no matter what categorisation logic drives a merger, there is a serious risk that this would be seen as yet another erasure. Shouts of "Wikipedia abolishes Wales", and headlines in the same vein just like happened with American women writers.

So I would suggest keeping Welsh year+decade categories for all periods when we have equivalent categories for England, and merge to Europe before then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So that basically means, merge only the first two nominated categories, because there is no Category:560 in England or Category:569 in England. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as proposed. I'd support a more modest proposal which kept decades after 1000. This removes all years+decades before 1700, which is too severe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 10 January 2018 (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. The suggestion of deletion was not properly examined. A specific nomination to delete might have a different outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Jewish American mayors to Category:Jewish mayors of places in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Standard NC in the mayors tree is "Mayors of places in Country", not "Demonym mayors". Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Insufficient rationale. Follows the pattern of Category:Jewish American state governors of the United States, Category:Hispanic and Latino American mayors, Category:LGBT mayors of places in the United States and other similar cats. Appropriate renaming is ok though. Mhym (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Category:LGBT mayors of places in the United States reflects the pattern of what I proposed as the rename, not the pattern of the existing name, so it doesn't constitute evidence against renaming. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the rename now. Mhym (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, and also per example of Category:LGBT mayors of places in the United States. The other example Category:Hispanic and Latino American mayors should follow in being nominated for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Down with this tyranny of demonyms. Use plain English. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The problem is that Jewish does not modify mayor, but American. There is not some title of "Jewish mayor". However I think this is an unjustified intersection of office and ethnicity/religion (which one being Jewish actually is is also complex). Category:Jewish American politicians does not need to be sub-divided for all offices, and the general scheme of dividing mayors by state they served in is much better than what we are going for here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This reasoning would require a batch nomination for all ethnicities. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that Jewishness is an ethno-religious designation, so not at all similar to other ethnicities. The parameters of what is and what is not an acceptable intersection of ethnicity and occupation is decided on an ethnicity by ethnicity basis. Just because in some cases the intersection of an ethnicity and an occupation are notable does not mean that all possible intersections of that occupation with ehtnicity are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2018 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Muslim dynasties to Category:Islamic dynasties

Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:ISLAMIC. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure that MOS:ISLAMIC supports the proposed rename. Dynasties consist of people, people are Muslims. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The proposed change would alter the scope of the category. A "Muslim dynasty" is one whose rulers follow Islam; an "Islamic dynasty" is one that declares a caliphate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  How did you come to that conclusion? Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Presupposing that people are Muslims whereas concepts and objects are Islamic, an "Islamic dynasty" would be not just a succession of Muslim rulers but one that relates to Islamic tenets—i.e. a succession of caliphs. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:09, 24 November 2017 (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 07:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Malayalam short stories to Category:Indian short stories

Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to warrant a category. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 6 articles is about enough for a category. Anyway Malayalam is a language; it would be as inappropriate to merge it with Hindi as English literature with French. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to both parent categories, this intersection category is a bit over the top with the limited total amount of Indian short stories articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It has enough articles to sustain itself as a category, and it's its own language. I agree with User:Peterkingiron in keeping this thing. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2017 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Officer of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too vague. Literally any executive branch politician from Thomas Jefferson (Secretary of State) to Karl Rove (Deputy Chief of Staff) could fit into this category. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 04:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Officer of the United States covers a lot more territory than the executive branch, but when it comes down to it, anyone who is an "officer" is so by virtue of occupying some position which would prompt a more specific categorization, rendering this a huge container category of various US office-holders with no direct membership. I just don't see the point. Mangoe (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, and the title is singular, too. 165.91.13.204 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless and poorly-named cat. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2017 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rulers who died as children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category:Deaths by age-type category. 165.91.13.63 (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Child rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to weak merge after the below comments, it may be sort of defining after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose It seems to me that nominal child rulers who never assumed adult rule IS defining. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose oer Mangoe. I agree, this is defining in this instance. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Perfectly reasonable, sensible and useful category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the arguments of Mangoe. I am not certain, however, that all the rulers included were "children" at the time of death. The category includes the emperor Alexios II Komnenos, who was 14-year-old when assassinated by orders of his uncle and co-ruler Andronikos I Komnenos. A teenager. It also includes Edward VI of England who was 15-years-old at the time of his death, and had already taken some decisions of his own regarding his succession. It includes Peter II of Russia, who died when 14-years old and was already engaged to an older woman. (I find our article on Peter II amusing. He was supposedly irresponsible, hated learning/school, and cared only for his own amusement. What do you expect of a boy/man at his age?). Dimadick (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It is defining, since they never got the right actually to rule, due to their age. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2017 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Meghan Markle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not enough content for an eponymous category. Why does this exist? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This probably got created because her fiancé has one — but he's got quite a lot more spinoff content than just the article about the upcoming nuptials, while she doesn't. She might certainly have more content to justify this in the future, but we don't create eponymous categories just because they might become more populated someday — we create them only when they already are more populated now. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by Johndavies837 a fairly new editor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As the fiancee of a guy who's in one of the most influential family of all time (and who's 5th in line to being King), I'd definitely support keeping this category. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if and when it becomes more useful. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The evidence is that very few British consorts, even of the kings themselves, end up with categories. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - actually, quite a few of them do. Of consorts within the last century Philip, Diana, Camilla, and Catherine all do, as do the Queen Mother and Queen Mary (Mary of Teck). But all of them have considerably more than two articles. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Short career for an actress, 15 years and few major roles. Dimadick (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now – if there are several articles created regarding her that needs a category, one can be created in the future, but she is not notable for a category right now. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 18:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is too soon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2017 (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.