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: procedural close as a duplicate nomination (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Prophets of the Qur'an to Category:Prophets of the Quran

Nominator's rationale: Customary orthography on Wikipedia Editor2020 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This category is already at cfd: 2021 August 14#Category:Prophets of the Qur'an. Oculi (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2021 (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) 19:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Another unnecessary eponymous category housing two interlinked subcategories with a total of 3 articles. WP:OCEPON Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the main cat and delete its subcategories for the meantime. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But the subcategories exist per WP:SMALLCAT as they "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". This parent is overcategorization per WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCEPON – the subcategories should be kept as part of the existing scheme for album and song categorization, used for every other artist on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2021 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Earthquakes in Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: To be deleted. No potential to grow. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - part of Category:Earthquakes by country. No reason to suppose Estonia is earthquake-proof. Oculi (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oculi. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of a wider category tree by country. Dimadick (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2021 (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) 00:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Disc golf in Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: To be deleted. No potential to grow. Parent category (Foo by country) is poorly developed. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we do not need a category to only hold an article with the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overly narrow topic. Dimadick (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator or else merge to Category:Disc golf in Europe. Estopedist1 is right: parent category is also a desolate development momentanous. --Just N. (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2021 (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) 05:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Atlantic International University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No reason to believe that there will ever be more than 1 article in this category. Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2021 (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:American expatriates in the United Kingdom. bibliomaniac15 18:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:African-American expatriates in the United Kingdom to Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom
• Nominator's rationale We use these categories to indicate nationals of one country who reside in another. We generally do not break these down by ethnicity. I see no reason to start.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with John Pack Lambert. Rathfelder (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose strongly. These people have a lot in common (they're all pre-Civil War) and keeping them as a group makes sense. If merged, useful information would be lost. deisenbe (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If they all pre-date the American Civil War, than the category is clearly misnamed. See, by its current name I should be able to put Peter M. Johnson in the category. If you want this category to be limited to pre-American Civil War American nationals of African descent expatriate in Britain, than it needs to be renamed Category:Pre-American Civil War African-American expatriates in the United Kingdom. There is no way to justify a super limited scope with the current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge, these were free people living in New England before migrating to the UK so this is very unlike Category:Fugitive American slaves that reached Canada. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• These days "expatriate" is not generally used for people fleeing persecution. Rathfelder (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could of course rename this as Cateogry:African-American refugees in the United Kingdom before the American Civil War. However this might be a precedent to start creating lots and lots of refugee categories. It is messy enough trying to make sure people get properly sorted between say Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom and Category:American emigrants to the United Kingdom. It would become a downright nightmare if we came to have 3 types of migrant cateogries to sort people in. In general these people are said to be expatriates because most returned to the US later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the claim these people went to the UK "fleeing persecution" does not actually hold up to scrutiny in all cases. Henry Highland Garnet did a two-and-a-half year lecture tour in the UK, and then returned to the US. He went to the UK to advance various causes there, not because he thought remaining in the US would be untenable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I said above, if we want to have this category and limit it to people who were African-Americans who were expatriates in Britain before the US Civil War, this category needs to reflect that in its name. Because the current name absolutely requires me to place Peter M. Johnson in it, and I am sure there are huge numbers of others. Actually I considered placing a mid-20th century actress and singer who was African-American and for a time in London in this category yesterday, but thought better of it. The name says this category should include people down to the present, if we do not want it to be such we need to make this obvious in the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is not even a hatnote that says this category is limited to those who were expatriates before the American Civil War. Even if there was such a hatnote, since people can easily place categories without reading the hatnote, having a hate note absolutely does not fix an issue with a category name in no way actually reflecting the category contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we keep this we absolutely need to rename it Category:African-American expatriates in the United Kingdom before the American Civil War. Because as it is there is no way to justify excluding Peter M. Johnson and thousands of other articles we have on African-Americans who were expatriates in the United Kingdom over the last 156 or so years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just removed Edonia Lewis because she was only in Britain long after the American Civil War, and so does not fit the alleged perameters of this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category, applying the implied perameters of its one defender, is at 5 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom I don't see any reason to subdivide expatriates by specific ethnic groups. Dimadick (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2021 (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 20:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:9th-century Croatian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:8th-century Croatian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:7th-century Croatian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The modern state of Croatia did not exist in the 7/8th century. At that time, the Duchy of Croatia covered the territory. There is only 1 entry in each category for the 7th & 8th centuries which have been added to Category:People from the Duchy of Croatia. All those in the 9th century category are already members of Category:Dukes of Croatia which is in turn a child of Category:People from the Duchy of Croatia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is curious. The adjective "Croatian" in these phrase doesn't necessarily have to refer to a specific country, rather than any Croatians, i.e. any Croats, so these names are actually more plausible than those explicitly referring to countries. But at the same time, are you going to go through Category:7th-century European people by nationality etc and start trying to make sense of it all? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:8th-century Croatian people to Category:8th-century Slavs and Category:Dukes of Croatia; and similar for the 7th-century category, per WP:SMALLCAT. Weak merge for the 9th-century category: although this category is better populated, the more natural starting point of categorizing by century is upon the establishment of the kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the WP:CAT and WP:SMALLCAT exceptions, as the categories are part of well-established category trees, see [1]. Small categories have a potential for growth. As for the medieval and modern state of Croatia, none or almost none of modern states existed in the 7/8/9th centuries in present-day form, surface area, territory coverage or even name. I can't see what's the problem here. --Silverije 21:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Croatia has a much longer history than the modern state, which is barely 30-years-old. Dimadick (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. That's why they are in Category:People from the Duchy of Croatia. I'm not proposing to abolish the Croatian people. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Marcocapelle's proposal. --Just N. (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It is unnecessary to change anything. The fact that it refers to a particular polity with a particualr status (Duchy or kingdom) can be covered in a headnote. I strongly object to Laura Lodged's policy of fragmenting categories, according to changing constitutrional status. Category names are best when they are short, to limit category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2021 (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 20:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:12th-century establishments in Croatia to Category:12th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)
• Propose renaming Category:11th-century establishments in Croatia to Category:11th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)
• Propose renaming Category:10th-century establishments in Croatia to Category:10th-century establishments in the Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102). The modern state of Croatia did not exist in the 10/11th centuries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh, this is interesting. Are you going to go through Category:10th-century establishments by country etc to start specifying the specific iterations of each of those countries? Because I'm pretty sure the meaning of a huge number of those varied over time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldnt Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) suffice? Rathfelder (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the 10th-century establishments were in Istria, not part of the Kingdom of Croatia. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the 10th-century establishments into Category:Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is probably safer to merge to Category:10th-century establishments in the Holy Roman Empire, it is questionable whether Istria belonged to the kingdom in Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Same or similar reasons as above (People of the Duchy of Croatia). --Silverije 21:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we have a guideline/precedent on whether categorisation should be done by historic or modern-day states? Many other categories in Category:10th-century establishments by country accord to modern-day entities: Aruba, Belgium, China, Denmark, Egypt etc. Daß Wölf 13:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Croatia has a much longer history than the modern state, which is barely 30-years-old. Dimadick (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldnt Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) suffice? I do support Rathfelder's proposal. --Just N. (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we have to consider these issues individually. One pattern wont work everywhere. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rathfelder: whose comment are you replying to? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry trying to work off my phone in a tent. I was meaning that something that might work for Croatia might not work for another country.Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- It is unnecessary to change anything. The fact that it refers to a particular polity with a particualr status (Duchy or kingdom) can be covered in a headnote. I strongly object to Laura Lodged's policy of fragmenting categories, according to changing constitutrional status. Category names are best when they are short, to limit category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2021 (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:4th-century establishments in the Roman Empire. – Fayenatic London 20:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:4th-century establishments in Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The modern state of Croatia did not exist in the 4th century. It was largely contained in the Roman province of Dalmatia at that time. The contents have been diffused to Category:Establishments in Dalmatia (Roman province). There is not enough content for "by century" categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, this is anachronistic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and since it's very likely to remain a SMALLCAT. Daß Wölf 14:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:4th-century establishments in the Roman Empire, agree with anachronism. By the way, Category:Establishments in Dalmatia (Roman province) might be deleted if it can not be populated any better. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We also have Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Croatia which may be more useful. – Fayenatic London 19:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both articles are already in that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only establishments mentioned are Roman, not Croatian. Dimadick (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or else merge per Marco. --Just N. (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2021 (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 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:9th century in Croatia to Category:9th century in the Duchy of Croatia
• Propose renaming Category:8th century in Croatia to Category:8th century in the Duchy of Croatia
• Propose renaming Category:7th century in Croatia to Category:7th century in the Duchy of Croatia

Nominator's rationale: The modern state of Croatia did not exist in the 7/8/9th centuries. For a little under 200 years, a Duchy of Croatia existed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Same deal as for the 10th-12th centuries. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is messy. Many articles are overview articles, not about one particular century. Many other articles are about Lower Pannonia, which overlaps a bit with the current republic of Croatia but not with the medieval duchy of Croatia. Manually merging to Category:Duchy of Croatia is perhaps the best option. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same or similar reasons as above (People of the Duchy of Croatia). --Silverije 21:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Croatia has a much longer history than the modern state, which is barely 30-years-old. Dimadick (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Manually merging to Category:Duchy of Croatia might be the best option. --Just N. (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I can also support a manual merging to Category:Duchy of Croatia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It is unnecessary to change anything. The fact that it refers to a particular polity with a particualr status (Duchy or kingdom) can be covered in a headnote. I strongly object to Laura Lodged's policy of fragmenting categories, according to changing constitutrional status. Category names are best when they are short, to limit category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2021 (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) 05:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Black M (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary per WP:OCEPON and numerous CfD precedent. The subcategories are sufficiently interlinked without any other significant content. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete' per nom. --Just N. (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2021 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gaelic football competitions in Massachusetts to Category:Gaelic football competitions in the United States
• Propose merging Category:Gaelic football competitions in Missouri to Category:Gaelic football competitions in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Both categories contain just one page. There is no need to have separate categories for U.S. state's as the parent category has just 2 pages. The merge would result in 4 pages. I'm tempted to open more discussion for merging more of the surrounding tree into just Category:Gaelic football in the United States. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Such a selfevident case. --Just N. (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 15:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol to Category:2021 United States Capitol attack
• Propose renaming Category:Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol to Category:Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack
• Propose renaming Category:Proceedings surrounding the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol to Category:Proceedings surrounding the 2021 United States Capitol attack

Nominator's rationale: Given the conclusion of the latest rename discussion, it's only fair that this category title follow suit, right? Love of Corey (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Added subcats --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 12:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Forgot about those. Love of Corey (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with caveat - this article is becoming a bit of a Gdanzig. Be aware that the name may go through further iterations at some point down the line. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as this looks like it will be the stable name for at least a while. If the article is renamed again, the category should be too. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No, I can't support the renaming for encyclopedic reasons. The new wording is more vague and an encyclopedia should keep to clear facts and words. OTOH the formal rules force more or less that the category wording follows the article wording. So the renaming will be done and I'll have to accept that. --Just N. (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2021 (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.