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. MER-C 10:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Specialty vehicle manufacturers of Greece to Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of Greece

Nominator's rationale: Not defined. There are no other categories about Specialty vehicles. Rathfelder (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, and per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2019 (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. MER-C 10:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:MAZ buses to Category:MAZ−Minsk Automobile Plant vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Only one article Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2019 (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:Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning companies. MER-C 08:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:HVAC manufacturing companies to Category:Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning companies

Nominator's rationale: Slightly wider scope and removes an acronym. Rathfelder (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it makes more sense and matches the Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning article. Sionk (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (italic added for emphasis) ? DexDor ^(talk) 10:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that is an argument about the title of the article.Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not align the category name to the article name? DexDor ^(talk) 15:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I thought that was the name of the article. I didnt notice the redirect. Quite happy with that. Rathfelder (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt rename to match article title, per DexDor and Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning companies per article Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. Oculi (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2019 (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. MER-C 08:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Football in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to Category:Football in the Dutch Caribbean
• Propose renaming Category:Football venues in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to Category:Football venues in the Dutch Caribbean
• Propose renaming Category:Athletics in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to Category:Athletics in the Dutch Caribbean
• Propose renaming Category:Athletics (track and field) venues in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to Category:Athletics (track and field) venues in the Dutch Caribbean

Nominator's rationale: The "Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands" has an official name, Dutch Caribbean. This name is in use by WP and is the name of the parent Category:Sport in the Dutch Caribbean by sport. BTW "sport by sport" is also confusing but a problem of an entire category tree. gidonb (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose loss of specificity. As I understand it, the term "Dutch Caribbean" includes former colonies which are now independent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:BrownHairedGirl, could you specify which former colonies are you referring to? None of the six islands of the Dutch Caribbean are independent. Maybe you are referring to the fact that the three most populous islands in the Dutch Caribbean are officially states and the other three public bodies? It has no impact on the name. gidonb (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename following precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 16#Category:Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The rest of the Dutch Caribbean hierarchy has already been speedily renamed, but these few were overlooked. Note: I have tagged the second nominated category, and added two further siblings. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Fayenatic! gidonb (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - given the earlier cfd. I was wondering what had happened to an obvious parent. Oculi (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment substituting Dutch Caribbean by "Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands" is a lot like substituting all instances of Liechtenstein by the "Country locked between Switzerland and Austria". For sure such a name would be unambiguous, however, there is no ambiguity problem with the proper name either and absolutely no reason we need to subsititute the name by a description. gidonb (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. GiantSnowman 08:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BHG. "Dutch Caribbean" is not an official name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is correct, but on the other hand it can't have an official name, since officially it is a mixture of different types of policies. Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is not an official name either. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2019 (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. I'll put this on the manual page in case anyone wants to make a list. MER-C 09:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American nobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: While there have been Americans who married foreign nobles, there is no American nobility system. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the category page makes it clear this is not about a non-existent nobility of the United States. Opera hat (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they are not "American nobility" but foreign nobility with American citizenship. There are no other categories like this. It is unnecessary. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, agree with the latter comment. For example, Elise, Countess of Edla is correctly placed in Category:Portuguese nobility. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Peerage systems are necessarily connected to the governance of the country which creates them. Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but possibly rename: Obviously, there's a reason for the category; there are plenty of names there, and three subcategories. If someone doesn't like that the name implies that the nobility derives from the United States, then rename it. But having nobility (from another country) is significant for a U.S. citizen, and probably implies something significant about the person's notability, since the person has to get permission from Congress, because of the Nobility Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (but see clarification below) --Closeapple (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So will we create categories for Chinese people who have married nobility? And Mexican people? And all other countries without a noble system? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that a person only needs to get permission from Congress to accept a noble title (or other foreign office or title) if the person has an "office of profit or trust" under the United States (i.e. a government job). --Closeapple (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've no objection to renaming to Category:American-born nobility or whatever. User:Willthacheerleader18 asks why such a category should exist at all when no similar birth categories exist for other nationalities. The reason is that the phenomenon of nouveaux-riches heiresses from the United States marrying into European (particularly British) nobility from the late nineteenth-century onwards has no parallel in China, or Mexico, or anywhere else. These "dollar princesses" have been the subject of books and television programmes. What are Lady Randolph Churchill, Consuelo Vanderbilt and Adele Capell, Countess of Essex primarily notable for? For being Americans who married into nobility. This is absolutely a WP:Defining category for these people. I created this category and its sub-categories Category:American princesses and Category:American duchesses because I was surprised they did not exist already. Maybe I chose the titles badly: as I said, I've no objection to renaming. Opera hat (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the real life buccaneers were certainly a phenomenon, the majority of the people who would be categorized here were not part of the exchange of noble status for wealth. A great deal of nobility and royalty were born in the United States and did not marry into their rank (i.e. Princess Talita von Fürstenberg, Tessa Gräfin von Walderdorff, Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark, Princess Sarah Culberson, Peter, Hereditary Prince of Yugoslavia, etc.). Many other Americans married into nobility or royalty but that is not their defining characteristic nor did they do it for wealth (i.e. Jamie Lee Curtis, Princess Sarah Zeid of Jordan, Nicky Hilton Rothschild, Monica von Neumann, Princess Keisha Omilana, Kelly Rondestvedt, etc.) The only thing they have in common is that they are noble/royal. Some are African royalty/nobility, some are European royalty/nobility, some are Asian royalty/nobility.. it's just too broad. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You stated What are Lady Randolph Churchill, Consuelo Vanderbilt and Adele Capell, Countess of Essex primarily notable for? For being Americans who married into nobility. While, honestly, I agree with you regarding this, Wikipedia has often voted against establishing notability in this way. Two articles I wrote, Alana Bunte (an American model who married a German prince) and Lei von Habsburg-Lothringen (an American attorney who married a morganatic member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine), were nominated for deletion because "notability isn't inherited through marriage". Bunte was deleted and von Habsburg became a redirect. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment, if applicable these articles should be in the tree of Category:American emigrants but there is no need to diffuse emigrants by occupation in the new country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly renaming. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is no American nobility system and nobility titles are intrinsically linked with the state that created them. There is Category:American socialites where belong most Americans who have acquired fame by or together with the use of nobility titles. The topic of Americans who married into nobility is a topic for a list, not a category. Place Clichy (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, a list is much more appropriate. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no American system of notability. Nobility is based on where the titles are given from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2019 (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. I'll put this on the manual page in case anyone wants to make a list. MER-C 09:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American princesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:American duchesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are no noble or royal princedom or dukedoms in America. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:American-born princesses and Category:American-born duchesses as discussed at Category talk:American princesses. Opera hat (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Category talk:American princesses. Surtsicna (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:American-born princesses or - that's what they are. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are they princesses born in the United States or Americans who became princesses by marriage? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename is fine, the world finds the general category American princesses useful, (for Americans throughout history who became princesses anywhere in the world[1]) Wikipedia is meant, especially in its categories, to be useful to the world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it is not meant to be ambiguous or potentially misleading. Hence the proposal to rename. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not ambiguous, nor misleading, not to the world, the group of people who belong in it are perfectly clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While useful to have them grouped together, I feel that would be better as a list rather than as a category. There are no Princesses of the United States and women who have married foreign princes or been born into foreign royal or noble families are princesses of the foreign country, not America. Categorizing them as such is misleading and confusing. Grace Kelly, Ariana Austin, Wallis Simpson, and Queen Noor were The Princess of Monaco, an Ethiopian princess, a British duchess (The Duchess of Windsor), and The Queen of Jordan through their marriages to foreign royalty. They were never "American princesses". Likewise, Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark, Princess Tatiana von Fürstenberg, Princess Noor Pahlavi, and Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland, who were all born with the status/rank of princess (some from reigning dynasties and others to pretenders) were born in the United States but are not American princesses. We do not categorize other people who are royalty and from countries without a noble system or monarchy this way. Princess Angela of Liechtenstein is not a Panamanian princess. Alessandra de Osma is not a Peruvian princess. Marina, Princess of Naples is not a Swiss princess. And even in countries with established monarchies and peerages we do not do this. Princess Katarina of Yugoslavia is not, despite being British, a British princess. Nor is Princess Olga Andreevna Romanoff. Making an exception for Americans seems silly. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Willthacheerleader18: please re-populate the categories until the discussions are closed. Please also follow the process at WP:CFD to discuss categories in future. On your behalf, I have tagged the four category pages that you have nominated. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I will go restore while a consensus is reached. Thank you for tagging. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/rename -- Both are now empty, perhaps emptied out of process. "American born" would fit the bill. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped adding articles to these categories once this discussion was started. This will not be a WP:SMALL category. Opera hat (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, on the basis we don't have an "American-born" or any other "FOO-born" category tree, particularly with nobility. Either you're American or you're not. Presumably this has sprung from the Meghan Markle effect? Sionk (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See #Category:American nobility for why Americans should be an exception. Opera hat (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for example Alice Heine is a Monegasque princess, not an American princess. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Half of what you said is entirely false. Alice Heine was Monaco's first "American princess" [2] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princess from America. Not an American princess. The source states that she was "Monaco's first American princess", which means Monaco's princess, who was American. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source uses "American princess" for Heine. And she should be categorized with the other "American princesses", like Grace Kelly also called an "American princess" in that source. Because that's what sources care about, and that's what history cares about, and Wikipedia is not built on the ignorance nor prejudices of its editors, its built on what sources care about, and they care about American princesses (no matter how much a Wikipedia editor POV pushes their dislike of it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pushing a POV, I am supporting factual categories on Wikipedia. There is no such thing as an American princess. Monaco is possessive in that statement, not "American". It reads Monaco's princess. American is an adjective to describe her. Otherwise she would have been America's princess. Not Monaco's. It's the same as saying Monaco's first (Black, Jewish, Catholic, Hispanic, etc.).. We don't categorize that way for royalty. She was a Monegasque princess who was an American. That is fact. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are a POV pushing, if the world cared to only look at things the way you insist they must, your ideas could manage to matter but to the world of sources, there are, and these people are, American princesses. You are not interested in facts, you are only interested in imposing your world view and therefore you refuse to follow sources on the category American princesses. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there is no such thing as an American princess, it is fact. Not point of view. It's not my "world view". One book describing a Montesquieu princess as American does not a category of American princesses make. This is ridiculous. Furthermore, we do not do this for any other nationality. Many people in the category "German Princesses", for example, are not German citizens. It isn't about citizenship. It's about the land from which the title is bestowed. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources refer to American princesses, so not only are are you POV pushing, based solely on what phrases you personally like and do not like, you are clearly very determined in your POV pushing by denying sources, and unfamiliar with what a fact is, the fact is, is that sources refer to these people as American princesses, that is fact. Your personal limited POV about what American princesses are, just do not accord with the sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone here seems to be pushing a POV, it's you. There is no legal standing for "American princesses". I'm not opposed to listing or categorizing these women to help with searches, but this is not the correct way. I do not appreciate being accused of "POV pushing", when all I am pushing for is keeping Wikipedia fact-based. I am not opposed to having categories like "Royalty born in the United States" and "American spouses of European royalty", which is more accurate. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then stop your POV pushing, categories do not exist to have "legal standing", your argument about a categorization and legal standing is preposterous, and can only be chocked up to POV pushing. You have just changed your POV pushing from bogus "fact" to irrelevant legal theory pushing, all the while there in black-and-white print are American princesses according to sources, and you just do not like that. (Now as far as I can tell, here, you have never mentioned these alternatives before, so if they are in good faith that is a rename proposal, not a delete rationale.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not POV-pushing. And your obsession with accusing me of so is getting quite old. While I have not mentioned renaming before, earlier I did state that While useful to have them grouped together, I feel that would be better as a list rather than as a category. I just do not see categorizing them in this way, which is inaccurate, as the best way. But I am not opposed to finding a solution to grouping them together. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for coming finally to consensus (shame you did not lead with that), from the beginning I have said rename is fine. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More so a shame that you had to accuse users of pushing POV when that has not at all been the case. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when you do not follow sources, based on un-sourced statements, stating own dislike of the words sources use, that's POV pushing, and that's what you have done. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Peerage systems are necessarily connected to the governance of the country which creates them. Rathfelder (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage? This section is about royaty not nobility. Other than that, right. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Chimay is a title of nobility, not royalty, and accounts for the half of titles feeding this two-article category. Place Clichy (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to Category:American-born princesses to remove the ambiguity? Opera hat (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would this category be for Americans who married princes or who were born princesses? Or both? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment, these articles should be in the tree of Category:American emigrants but there is no need to diffuse emigrants by occupation in the new country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some people who would be categorized here actually live in the United States and were born possessing titles, so they are not all emigrants. That is part of the reason I do not support this category. There isn't a distinction between people born in the United States who are princesses and those who are Americans that married royalty. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct. I should have said: if applicable these articles should be in the tree of Category:American emigrants but there is no need to diffuse emigrants by occupation in the new country. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or listify as trivia and per above discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree! Listify as a list would be far more appropriate, as made in points by Place Clichy in the above conversation regarding the status of Category:American nobility. Besides, a category already exists for Princesses by marriage. A list of Americans who became princesses/duchesses through marriage, or were born as princesses, is much more appropriate here than a category. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A misleading category that implies royalty exists in the US, which is not true. Keivan.f^Talk 05:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these categories are for holders of titles of a particular country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2019 (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. I'll put this on the manual page in case anyone wants to make a list. MER-C 09:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American peers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There is no peerage system in the United States. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or rename if someone can come up with a decent title) as we also have Category:Australian peers, Category:Canadian peers and Category:Indian peers and there is no peerage system in those countries either. Opera hat (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is indeed a peerage system in those countries, established by the Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Australia, and the former Emperor of India, who also happen to be the British monarch. Australia and Canada, and formerly India, are part of the British Commonwealth while the United States is not. There are Canadian peers and baronets, Australian peers and baronets, and Indian peers and baronets. There are no American peers. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're wrong when you say that "there is indeed a peerage system in those countries". The Australians, Canadians and Indians in those categories are peers of England, Scotland, Ireland or the United Kingdom, not peers of Canada, Australia or India. Opera hat (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These countries are members of the British Commonwealth and are monarchies ruled by the British monarch. The United States of America is not. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot really compare the US with a society with rich and ancient nobility system and traditions like India. Place Clichy (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:American-born peers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). They were/are Americans who by various means came to have a British peerage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have categories for French-born peers? Russian-born peers? No. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we do have categories for Australian-born, Canadian-born and Indian-born peers. Australia, Canada, India and the USA are all anglophone countries with historical and cultural ties to the UK. Of course there are going to be more UK peers from these countries than there are from France or Russia. Opera hat (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because their titles are officially titles in the British Commonwealth, which their countries are a part of! Their titles have legal standing. France and Russia are not ruled by the British monarch! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't have legal standing. Honours systems within the Commonwealth are not mutually recognised. For example, Anthony Bailey was prohibited from calling himself "Sir" in the UK despite holding knighthoods awarded in the name of the Queen of Antigua and Barbuda and the Queen of Grenada. Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet's peerage was not recognised in Canada where he was known as Mr Ken Thomson. Commonwealth countries are just as "foreign" as the USA when peerages are concerned. Opera hat (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for example Bryan Fairfax, 8th Lord Fairfax of Cameron is a Scottish peer, not an American peer. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to Category:American-born peers to remove the ambiguity? Opera hat (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American-born peers of what? American-born British peers? American-born French peers? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment, if applicable these articles should be in the tree of Category:American emigrants but there is no need to diffuse emigrants by occupation in the new country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or listify as trivia and per above discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete' or listify, because the current name suggests that there are peers and nobles in the US, which is not true. Keivan.f^Talk 05:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is for holders of this position by country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2019 (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:Pocatello metropolitan area manually. MER-C 10:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chubbuck, Idaho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category for a small suburb of Pocatello, Idaho whose entries completely overlap with (or can overlap with) Category:Pocatello metropolitan area. SounderBruce 00:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of these articles are not specifically related to Chubbuck, but rather to Pocatello as a whole. Thus, we have two options:

  A: Rename to Category:Pocatello, Idaho to broaden its scope

  B: Upmerge

  C: Outright deletion, as proposed by nom

For any of these options, however, we will need to remove the highway articles, which stretch beyond the Pocatello metropolitan area. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the previous comment, there are only two options (namely rename A or merge B). The third one, outright deletion, does not make sense as that would remove the articles from the Pocatello metropolitan hierarchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am inclined to support merging into Category:Pocatello metropolitan area as I'm not sure we need a narrower subcat for Pocatello. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge somewhere larger, probably with Category:Pocatello metropolitan area. Pocatello has a population of 50,000; Chabbuck just under 14,000. These are places too small for a free-standing category.
• Selectively upmerge to Category:Pocatello metropolitan area all articles not already in Category:Pocatello, Idaho or a subcategory. Option A is not clear to me, as Category:Pocatello, Idaho exists since 2006, so that renaming is not really an option. Place Clichy (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2019 (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 as nominated. This may be re-nominated for renaming along with siblings, subject to evidence of local usage. – Fayenatic London 07:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Academics of the University of Cape Coast to Category:University of Cape Coast faculty

Nominator's rationale: duplicate category. Faculty is the more common usage Rathfelder (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - subcat of Category:Ghanaian academics. Would support revers merge. Oculi (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There are two separate sets of sub-categories for academics by country - Fooish Academics and Faculty by university or college in Foo. I cant see why Ghana should be treated differently from the rest of Category:Faculty by university or college in AfricaRathfelder (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the target is the standard format for professors, lecturers etc at universities, it is part of the Category:Faculty by university or college tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• However, see also this discussion a few days later. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/merge both per outcome of Marcocapelle's cognate nom Category:University of Cape Coast academics. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Do we really want two competing nomenclature systems? The vast majority, more than 90%, of articles about academics are like Category:University of Foo faculty. Is there any evidence that practice in Ghana is different? Rathfelder (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly merge somehow, it is certainly not desirable to leave these two categories next to each other. I suppose it needs to be left to follow-up discussions to determine the ultimate nomenclature. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment -- In British universities (and probably other commonwealth countries). The faculty is an administrative structure similar to a school or a department: these are usually successive administrative levels. The academic staff are not commonly referred to as the faculty. This usage is essentially an Americanism. In such matters WP normally bows to actual local usage, rather than seeking to impose its onw category system regardless. We should certainly not have two parallel trees, but in a country that uses British rather than American nomenclature, the child of Faculty by country might well be Booian academics, which would in turn parent academics of the University of Foo. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:University of Cape Coast faculty. This seems to be the standard in Category:Faculty by university in Ghana. Place Clichy (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2019 (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. MER-C 19:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Pablo Today Records albums to Category:Pablo Records albums

Nominator's rationale: There is nothing to suggest that this is a such a distinctive sub-label of Pablo Records that it needs its own category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nominator. This was not a separate label, but a series of dedicated catalog numbers for marketing purposes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - this is a sub-label created for more "popular" (ie. jazz vocal/world music/jazz icons) releases and had a distinct label and cover identity (see Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization) DISEman (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2019 (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 as nominated. This may be re-nominated for renaming along with siblings, subject to evidence of local usage. – Fayenatic London 07:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Academics of the University of Ghana to Category:University of Ghana faculty

Nominator's rationale: no discernible distinction. Faculty is the commoner term. Rathfelder (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge - academics is the British term (eg Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom) and Ghana is a Commonwealth country. And Category:Academics of the University of Ghana was created first. Oculi (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm perfectly happy with a merge either way, but I think local usage in Ghana is more significant than membership of the Commonwealth.Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So where is the evidence re usage in Ghana? Oculi (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question. But Category:People by university or college in Ghana has more faculty than academics.

Category:Faculty by university or college in Nigeria is almost entirely faculty.Rathfelder (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, we have faculty categories for almost all countries in the world with very few exceptions (United Kingdom and Ireland are exceptions). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• However, see also this discussion a few days later. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ghanaian academics has five universities by faculty, and two "Academics of" - including this in both. Rathfelder (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/rename to Category:University of Ghana academics, per recent precedent: see Cape Coast above. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly merge somehow, it is certainly not desirable to leave these two categories next to each other. I suppose it needs to be left to follow-up discussions to determine the ultimate nomenclature. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:University of Ghana faculty. This seems to be the standard in Category:Faculty by university in Ghana. Place Clichy (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2019 (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, per precedent.

On further inspection, Category:1756 festivals is justified by First Exhibition (1756). As for 353, Orchid Pavilion Gathering was likewise a one-off, but it is no help for navigation to leave Category:353 festivals‎ as an isolated category, so I will merge that one to 353. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:353 festivals‎
• Propose deleting Category:539 festivals‎
• Propose deleting Category:869 festivals‎
• Propose deleting Category:970 festivals‎
• Propose deleting Category:1133 festivals

• Propose deleting Category:1732 festivals
• Propose deleting Category:1743 festivals
• Propose deleting Category:1756 festivals
• Propose deleting Category:1767 festivals

Nominator's rationale: delete, until 1767 the tree of Category:Festivals by year is just a duplicate of its subcategory Category:Festivals by year of establishment. The first article in the tree about a festival of a particular year is Shakespeare Jubilee in 1769. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this is a similar nomination as this earlier one which has been closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2019 (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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Vivaldi (web browser) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 29 June 2019 (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. MER-C 08:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:A Woman of the Century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial, non-defining category per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT: merely being included in an encyclopedia is not a reason for categorization, and the women in this encyclopedia may share nothing noteworthy beyond being in the same book. Although we do have Category:Encyclopædia Britannica, we don't have Category:People in Encyclopædia Britannica (for good reason), and the former category is in need of purging miscellany. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This is akin to performers-by-performance. The only exceptions that I am aware of are the categories for people of the Bible, the Koran, etc. -- which are intrinsically quite different. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- We use biographical dictionaries to establish notability. Appearance in one is not defining. There will be 1400 women in the category, which would imply splitting somehow: it is just not useful. As stated, it is far too like a Performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – An article about a famous person, such as Susan B. Anthony, would likely end up in many categories of this type. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:11, 29 June 2019 (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.