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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian WikiPrairie Dogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too vaguely defined to be a useful user category. The only common traits I can see from reading Wikipedia:WikiPrairie Dog is that they are interested in working together, and on focusing on the back-end aspects of Wikipedia, however the latter issue is already covered by Category:Metapedianist Wikipedians, and the former should be the subject of it's own category if that is deemed useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:14, 20 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Professional wrestling jobbers to the stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Its parent category, Category:Professional wrestling jobbers has proven to be controversial as it has had two deletion discussions. I've supported keeping it both times, as I think the role of jobbers is a notable and defining one. Those that wanted it deleted argued that the category is abused and that any wrestler who is written into a losing streak qualifies. Well, while I didn't agree with those arguments before, I do think they apply for this subcategory. By its own admission, this is for "WWE superstars who were briefly given the role a jobber or enhancement talent". Brief being the key word there. It's unlikely for a brief role to be a defining one, and if it is then they would belong in the main category. LM2000 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for the reasons of why I created this category. Wrestlers such as Koko B. Ware and Johnny Rodz are not what you would call your "average jobbers", so they would surely NOT fit exclusively under THAT category. They would only fit exclusively under THIS category. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing my keep vote, but not adding a delete vote. I DO want this category kept, but I now know that the chances of it happening are about 0. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, "briefly" contradicts WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Jobbers are wrestlers who are paid to loose. There must be a question of whether categorizing some one as a jobber is defamatory. Even leaving that aside, it seems to me that the distinction between this category and its parent must be a subjective one, in which case the right answer would be to merge. However I know little of the topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Though it has been claimed the Category jobbers is often abused, I don't think we can say the same thing about this category. I would just like to point out that just because something is "brief" doesn't mean that it can't be defining. A wrestler may have only briefly held a title, but it's still defining for them to have held it, and it is something that is still recognized as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a defining category, in part because it's far too broad. Triple H and Kane (wrestler) are two of the most popular wrestlers of the past 30 years and they're included here. It's a stretch to say they were ever full-blown jobbers, but they had wrestled in the undercard under different gimmicks and lost a lot. You'd be hard pressed to find many wrestlers who don't fit that criteria. LM2000 (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining; akin to "black hat"/"white hat" in old movies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These category defines its members as superstars, which I think is subjective. The distinction with its sole parent category is unclear. Dimadick (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a great example of why I supported deleting the parent category. Roles change in professional wrestling and categorizing performers by their acting role is the precise type of category commonly mentioned in WP:PERFCAT.--User:Namiba 15:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: What you have stated seems to make some sense, but it's just like I have stated is that just because something is brief does not necessarily mean that it can't be defining. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart:, we do not categorize people by roles they have played. Per PERFCAT, "Avoid categories which categorize performers by their portrayal of a role. This includes portraying a specific character (such as Darth Vader, or Hamlet). This also includes voicing animated characters (such as Donald Duck), or doing "impressions"; portraying a "type" of character (such as wealthy, poor, religious, homeless, gay, female, politician, Scottish, dead, etc.); or performing a specific work (such as Amazing Grace, "Waltz of the swans" from Swan Lake, "To be or not to be" from Hamlet (the play), "Why did the chicken cross the road?" (a joke), etc.)."--User:Namiba 15:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 2 March 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) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Universities and colleges to Category:Universities and Category:Colleges

Nominator's rationale: We have articles on University and College. They are clearly separate concepts. Yet we have Category:Universities and Category:Colleges that are redirects to this weird combined category. Unmerging these categories seems long overdue. Mike Peel (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this applies to the entire category tree, which might take a while to sort out! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, since the meaning of "college" varies a lot from one country to another I doubt if starting Category:Colleges would be a good idea. "Universities and colleges" is a nice catch-all for all tertiary education. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I usually oppose fudges, but this is one exception that I'm happy to make. The (confused) American terminology has infected the rest of the world too widely. A return to purity is now impossible. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I have a feeling that Category:Universities and colleges resulted from a merging of Category:Universities and Category:Colleges around 2007 because of conflicting usage in different countries. (It is not just the US: "Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine is a public research university in London ...") Oculi (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The purpose is to cover tertiary education as a whole. The precise status of each institution will vary according to national rules. In UK, a tertiary institution will (I think) only be a university, if it has a royal charter. In UK we do not have 4-year degrees of which 2 years are done in a junior college and 2 in a university. The arrangements vary from country: real life in the rest of the world does necessarily not fit into the pattern established in one particular country. In UK some secondary schools are called colleges (including sixth-form colleges). These ought not to be in the universities and colleges tree, and I hope they are not. Any attempt to go down the line that the nom wants would end off with categorization by SHAREDNAME, which we discourage. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In response to Oculi, Imperial College is technically a college of University of London, but this is a good reason for not splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College (which I attended) was a college of the University of London until 2007, when it declared independence. Oculi (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly in the UK there is no clear distinction between universities and colleges. Many former colleges are now universities. Rathfelder (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: In the UK there is a very clear distinction: Universities must have a charter to be able to issue degrees. For the Imperial example @Oculi and Peterkingiron:, it got this in 2007, when it split from the University of London (despite the name, it is now a 'university' since the split). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But an organisation which was formerly a college may now be a university with one article about both. Rathfelder (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • .. in which case it could be added to both proposed category trees, if appropriate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the US there is no distinction at all. Yes, the US has junior colleges (which focus on people doing their first two years of tertiary study) and technical colleges (which focus on programs where you finish in 2 years and go to work) and community colleges (which in theory blend the two above, and some have a few bachelors or near bachelors degress, and sometime house extnesion centers for colleges and universites) and liberal arts colleges (which only offer undergrad prgrams), but some liberal arts colleges use university in their name (I believe Southern Virginia University is an example), in Utah some places that use university (Utah Valley University for exaple) are at heart community colleges that added so many 4 year program that they decided to call themselves universities, but still have lots of technical 2-year-programs, and a high percentage of places that are Foo State University began as Foo State Agricuutral College. Then there are the Military, Naval, and Air Academies which are liberal arts colleges with a STEM focus in their education. There are even some places that use the name college that have multiple graduate programs including a law school, such as Boston College, which keeps that name because there is already Boston University, Dartmouth College (which I believe has a medical school) which uses the name for historical reasons, and the College of William and Mary, which also uses the name for historical reasons. The educational history of the US in complex, and many current tertiary institutions began their history as secondary ones. There is no rule in the US limiting what can be called a university, so there is no consistent line between universities and colleges, even the line between institutions that grant 4-year-degrees, and those that only grant 2-year degrees is fuzzy (there are even a few places that only have students in the last two years of undergrad, but that is very rare). John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at least in the US there terms are used too interchangeably to every fully split them up. On the other hand, college is used in too many places for secondary institutions, while also even in the same places being applied to tertiary institutions to make it sensible to have an article just on the term. Plus in both the US and it is used for free standing institutsions, parts of such institutions, and for qualsi sepeate institutions. I do not think a separate category by shared name would work. Plus in the US at least you have places like Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and if we split the category where would it go. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Then we have some other sub-cats like Category:Grandes écoles, which are a French phenomenon. I am not sure at all what we would put them under if we split this category. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I agree with the reasons given here for not splitting. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The distinction is nominal, rather than factual. Dimadick (talk) 07:44, 24 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion to Category:Primates in the Anglican Communion

Nominator's rationale: Article is Primates in the Anglican Communion; 'in' is better. Oculi (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent experience at speedy leads one to proceed directly to cfd without wasting 2 or 3 days at speedy. Oculi (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- much better, as there are a number who are the heads of regional churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:56, 21 February 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:Primates in the Anglican Communion (see also discussion immediately above). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Anglican Church of Ireland to Category:Primates of the Church of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: In Protestantism, only the Church of Ireland has Primates. The adjective "Anglican" is therefore redundant. In the Roman Catholic Church, no equivalent category exists so the is no need for further disambiguation. For this reason I could also support the deletion of the category as it will only ever have 2 members - Armagh and Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - many of these Primates categories were created by Pastorwayne/EstherLois/various, a notorious high-speed creator of ill-conceived category trees. I would favour the upmerging of this one to its parents; as the nom says, there are only 2 subcats. Oculi (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and reparent the two subcategories to Category:Primates of the Anglican Communion, per Oculi. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Eliminate -- Church of Ireland has 4 archbishops of whom Armagh is Primate of Ireland and Dublin Primate of All Ireland. These to can be placed directly in Primates in the Anglican communion. This is ultimately an unnecessary level. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 20 February 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 to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by archdiocese in Ireland. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Catholic archbishops in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Catholic archbishops by diocese in Ireland

Nominator's rationale: To deflect the fact that the contents is "by diocese". To reflect the fact that the Church in Ireland is organised on an all-island basis. To reflect the fact that 1 of the 4 entries straddles both the Republic and Northern Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt Rename to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by archdiocese in Ireland per parents Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Ireland and Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Europe. Oculi (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt Rename to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by archdiocese in Ireland — an archbishop serves an archdiocese, not a diocese.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • True: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Armagh. Alt modified Oculi (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually William Allen Simpson is more correct. Should have spotted that. Just to note that there are no Eastern Catholic dioceses or archdioceses inIreland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This said, we do have Category:Archbishops by diocese so that should be addressed first (or simultaneously). And Category:Anglican archbishops by province. Oculi (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- The episcopal churches in Ireland, both Catholic and Anglican are organised on an all-Ireland basis, so that distinctions between NI and RoI should not be made. I would be happy as nom, but would not oppose the archdiocese version. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 20 February 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. There seemed to be a slight preference for the "B" options where an alternate was included. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:History books about the Modern era to Category:History books about the late modern period
• Propose renaming Category:Modern economic history to Category:Late modern economic history
• Propose renaming Category:Modern Europe to Category:Late modern Europe
• Propose renaming Category:Modern history of Jerusalem to Category:Late modern history of Jerusalem
• Propose renaming Category:Modern era literature to Category:Late modern literature (A) or Category:Literature of the late modern period (B)
• Propose renaming Category:Modern languages to Category:Late modern languages
• Propose renaming Category:Modern reenactment to Category:Late modern reenactment (A) or Category:Reenactment of the late modern period (B)
• Propose renaming Category:Modern rump states to Category:Late modern rump states

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. The above categories only contain articles and subcategories about the Late modern period. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally support But would like some consistency. They should all be "Foo in the late modern period" or "Late modern period Foo". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For now I have kept the proposed category names close to their current names but I am open to variations. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally support all but languages category presumably, a (late) modern language is one spoken today or recently extinct. However, the contents are limited to recently identified languages. I would expect Russian, Chinese, Swedish, Spanish, English, Swahili, and the thousands of currently spoken languages to be "modern" in the sense that they have relevance and use today. None of the other categories here has this currency ≠ modern dichotomy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Modern history starts in the late 15th or early 16th century, while the late modern period starts in the 18th century and is associated with the Industrial Revolution. The scope of these categories are too narrow. Dimadick (talk) 07:54, 24 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Warfare of the Industrial era to Category:Warfare of the late modern period
• Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Industrial era to Category:Battles of the late modern period
• Propose renaming Category:Military vehicles of the Industrial era to Category:Military vehicles of the late modern period
• Propose renaming Category:Military personnel of the Industrial era to Category:Military personnel of the late modern period
• Propose renaming Category:Military equipment of the Industrial era to Category:Military equipment of the late modern period

Nominator's rationale: rename, sort of WP:C2C, we do not have a category tree for Industrial era, but we do have a tree for Late modern period, which is the closest parent category available. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally support per comments above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nom should also consider adding Category:Battles of the Early Modern era and Category:Warfare of the Early Modern era for naming consistency. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they are at WP:CFDS now. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Industrial era is a redirect to the Industrial Revolution, one of the events defining the beginning of the late modern period. Dimadick (talk) 07:56, 24 February 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:People from Phthiotis. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Amfikleia-Elateia to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Amfikleia to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Tithorea to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Domokos (municipality) to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Domokos to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Xyniada to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Lamia (municipality) to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Ypati to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Lokroi to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Atalanti to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Makrakomi (municipality) to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Makrakomi to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Spercheiada to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Molos-Agios Konstantinos to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Molos to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Stylida (municipality) to Category:People from Phthiotis‎
• Propose merging Category:People from Stylida to Category:People from Phthiotis‎

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Lamia (city) (75,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Warning Ensure that dentures are firmly attached before attempting to pronounce Phthiotis‎. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom (picks up dentures from far wall). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. WP:SMALLCAT definitely applies as there are only one or two people per category, which is somewhat contrary to its purpose. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge All for Now These small cats and extra layers certainly do not aid navigation. No objection to recreating any that get up to 5+ direct articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:02, 21 February 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:People from Rethymno (regional unit). WP:Smallcat (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Agios Vasileios, Rethymno to Category:People from Rethymno (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Foinikas, Crete to Category:People from Rethymno (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Lampi to Category:People from Rethymno (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Amari (municipality) to Category:People from Rethymno (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Kourites to Category:People from Rethymno (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Mylopotamos, Crete to Category:People from Rethymno (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Rethymno (municipality) to Category:People from Rethymno (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Arkadi to Category:People from Rethymno (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Lappa, Rethymno to Category:People from Rethymno (regional unit)

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Rethymno‎ (34,000 people) and Geropotamos (8,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per nom. WP:SMALLCAT definitely applies as there are only one or two people per category, which is somewhat contrary to its purpose. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge All for Now These small cats and extra layers certainly do not aid navigation. No objection to recreating any that get up to 5+ direct articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a good start — This is another that could benefit from going one level higher, Category:People from Crete, because there are so few candidates. Should be categorizing from the top down, not the bottom up. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. These categories are for small villages and settlements (most with only a small number of residents) and are unlikely to ever have many articles within them. They can be recreated on an as needed basis if there ends up being "enough" articles to populate them. Until then, this merger makes sense to me. Grk1011 (talk) 15:04, 23 February 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 all categories with less then 5 entries.. WP:SMALLCAT (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Arriana (municipality) to Category:People from Rhodope (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Arriana to Category:People from Rhodope (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Iasmos (municipality) to Category:People from Rhodope (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Iasmos to Category:People from Rhodope (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Komotini (municipality) to Category:People from Rhodope (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Aigeiros to Category:People from Rhodope (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Neo Sidirochori to Category:People from Rhodope (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Maroneia-Sapes to Category:People from Rhodope (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Maroneia to Category:People from Rhodope (regional unit)
• Propose merging Category:People from Sapes to Category:People from Rhodope (regional unit)

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Komotini (54,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:People from Maroneia now has 8 members. --Antondimak (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. WP:SMALLCAT definitely applies as there are only one or two people per category, which is somewhat contrary to its purpose. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Nearly All for Now/Keep Maroneia These small cats and extra layers certainly do not aid navigation. No objection to recreating any that get up to 5+ direct articles though, which Category:People from Maroneia has already done. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @RevelationDirect: — Antondimak has been adding people to Maroneia who are not notably from Maroneia. Sotades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) isn't even known whether was born in Thrace or Greece. Archbishop Michael of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was notably from America, not Greece. Moreover, being born in a place is not notable or defining.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I just added the people mentioned in the "Notable people" section in the Maroneia article, after checking that the respective articles indeed said the people were from there.

"Sotades isn't even known whether was born in Thrace or Greece"

Maroneia is in Thrace. Thrace is in Greece.

There is a chance he was born in Maroneia, Crete, not Maroneia, Thrace, though.

Archbishop Michael of America was from Maroneia and spent most of his life in Greece. He became Archbishop of America aged 57, and it isn't even mentioned if he moved there. According to standard practices, he is categorised in Maroneia. You have shown you disagree with that practice. You should make a wider issue if you want to pursue a different implementation of biographical categorisation policy, and don't use it as a tool to delete specific categories. --Antondimak (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thrace was not part of Greece for all time. Thrace was inhabited by Thracians. Ancient Thracians are not Greeks. Moreover, "He lived in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC)." Alexandria was certainly not part of Greece. He is already properly categorized as Category:People of the Ptolemaic Kingdom.
2. ... of America is only notably American. Indeed, he is only notable for being Primate of America. That any part of his early life was spent in Greece is not notable.
3. Please cite the "standard practice" of which you speak? Our written guidelines explicitly state: The place of birth is rarely notable. An unverified place is certainly not notable.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That part about Thrace makes no sense. For your information, coastal Thrace during this person's lifetime was populated by Greeks (this person being one of them). However this discussion is meaningless. There was no Greek state back then and the city is today in Greece. Ergo, the city we are speaking of is indeed this one, and you were simply mistaken.

No he is not only notable for being Primate of America. He had a notable career in the church in Greece before that. And, as I said, there is no mention in the article that he even went to America when he became Primate.

Looking around at biographical categorisation in Wikipedia you will see that people are generally not categorised by place of birth, but by place of residence. When those two coincide, they are of course categorised there. That's how categorisation works in Wikipedia. If a person is notable enough to have an article, and is a musician, they will be categorised as a musician. If a person is notable enough to have an article, and is from a certain place, they will be categorised as a person from that place. Now, what "from that place" means can be debatable, and there is an argument not to categorise people by place of birth, when it's only the place of birth and they lived somewhere else (which is what I do, I don't categorise by place of birth solely, otherwise many of these categories would be quite larger). --Antondimak (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even removing these two (and Metrocles, who you removed because "Aristotle and Crates did not visit him there"), the category is still large enough, by the way. --Antondimak (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• More will be purged after this discussion closes. I'm not prone to altering the contents to circumvent discussion. But I'll revert any that I've found you change during discussion. Your practices are not acceptable.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's your practices that are in fact not acceptable. You have been removing articles from categories during discussions, some of them having been there for months, citing different reasons each time. I am working on these categories both before and during the discussions, as I am the main contributor in the area. Categories such as these are deleted only in the case that there both aren't enough articles in them, and that there won't be in the future. If a category is proposed for deletion, and there are enough articles to fill it, it would be better to preempt the deletion rather than delete it and then recreate it, wouldn't you say? --Antondimak (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as a good start — This is another that could benefit from going one level higher, Category:People from Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, because there are so few candidates. Should be categorizing from the top down, not the bottom up. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. These categories are for small villages and settlements (most with only a small number of residents) and are unlikely to ever have many articles within them. They can be recreated on an as needed basis if there ends up being "enough" articles to populate them. Until then, this merger makes sense to me. Grk1011 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 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; no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Dinosaur films to Category:Films about dinosaurs

Nominator's rationale: Just like its parent, Category:Films about reptiles, this would be more clear under Category:Films about dinosaurs, wouldn't it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I do not think that Category:Films about birds belongs here as a subcategory and purged it but, there is nothing in the subcategory that relates to dinosaurs, but User:Randy Kryn appears to have a different opinion and reverted it. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tis your lucky day Marcocapelle, the day you learn that birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are all over the place (a really fun thing to know), one of the most successful and long-living animals on Earth. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a category about taxonomy but a category about fiction. The fact that birds are in a same class as dinosaurs of million years ago is nice to know for sure but it is not relevant for the films in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A film about a bird is a film about a dinosaur. Sub-category fits this category, as the category is named 'Dinosaur films' and not 'Non-avian dinosaur films'. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is too pedantic imho. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• birds are not dinsaurs. They may be taxonomically related to dinosaurs, but very few people would allow that I spoke the truth if I said "thousands of dinosaurs live in Michigan", but they would accept that "thousands of birds live in Michigan". If I said "I saw some dinosaurs sitting on the roadway on Belle Isle yesterday" they would not accept that as true. Films about birds are not about dinosaurs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, not just "related", birds are dinosaurs. Millions of them live in Michigan. Maybe a good bar bet in the making? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, birds are not dinosaurs. You are engaging in an idiosyncratic, one person use of language which is non-standard. You also need to stop edit warring to try to enforce your unique, non-standard or agreed upon use of words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please glance at, it just takes a few seconds each, Wikipedia articles Bird, Dinosaur, Dinosaur size, etc. In all of these birds are correctly labeled dinosaurs. And it's a simple subcategory-parent category thing, and for that we should go with the defining language in the above articles and the sources that they are based upon. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked at this, after your very insulting comment. No, the article on birds does not place birds in the clade that has dionsaurs, it does not say birds are dinosaurs. This is your totally iniosynmatic use of the langyuage, it is not standard language use, it is not how the word dinosaur is used, and this is not how artistic works should be categorized. If I was asked "draw a picture of a dinosaur" and drew a picture of a robin virtually no one would argue I met the expectations of the request.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But you would have met the expectations, as a robin is a dinosaur. Yes, the article on birds says they are dinosaurs. I apologize if something has been taken as an insult, it's just that I enjoy these conversations when someone learns that there are a huge amount of dinosaurs within walking distance. It's a fun thing to know. But maybe move this discussion, which now covers maybe four pages if we count edit summaries as a page, to the pages Bird, Dinosaur, Dinosaur size. This is just a sub-category, easily defendable per those pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an issue of word meaning, and bird and dinosaur are distinct words meaning distinct things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bird films do not belong in this category, at all, ever, until English changes the meaning of words, which has not happened and will take a long time to happen if it ever does. The bird category needs to be removed ASAP. Both me and Marcopelle have removed it, yet Randy Kryn has insisted on putting it back in. Althoug as I look further, this unaccepted, irregular grouping is being back handed pushed all over the place. Films about birds do not in any way shape, means or form relate to dinosaur films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Because the disruptive editor who wants to place bird related films here thinks it is a good idea, so it very, very clearly is not, because films related to birds do not belong here, and I will do all I can to make sure they are not placed here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You oppose because you think that I think it's a good idea? Okay, but how am I being disruptive? Birds are dinosaurs, and the category fits the subcategory. Just because I enjoy it as a topic doesn't mean I'm disruptive, just interested and keep the categories on my watch list. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source. To support your totally non-standard use of the words you would have to cite actual reliable sources using these terms, not just Wikipedia. However see I have cited two very reliable sources showing that you are just plain wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are English words, which have meanings government by common usage, not claudistic analysis. In common English usage dinosaur refers to a class of animals that all went extint millions of years before the first humans came to be. THis is how my Physical anthopology professor used the term in arguing that dionsaurs and humans never coexisted. Here [1] states dinosaurs died out 65 million years before the first humans existed. Here [2] is another firm no to dinosaurs and humans ever coexisting. I could cite lots and lots and lots and lots more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your second source says that birds are dinosaurs, and it is a major point of the article which has a misleading sub-headline. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment In my view the "disruptive editor" here is Johnpacklambert, trying to disregard scientific knowledge in favor or arbitrary classifications. Dimadick (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I myself was taught in the 1950s that birds were descended from dinosaurs (the parent Category:Paravians of Category:Birds leads eventually up to Category:Dinosaurs). (Much as humans are apes, reflected by Category:Humans being a subcat (eventually) of Category:Apes.) Oculi (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact Category:Films about dinosaurs was deleted at cfd: 2008 March 11#Category:Films about dinosaurs (Carlossuarez46 is consistent on these matters). Oculi (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another "film about" category without any objective determination of how much about dinosaurs a film must be and reliable sources that tell us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:CSD#G4. Also, birds are not dinosaurs, any more than humans are reptiles. They are all descended from ancient reptiles. While there is an reptilian embryonic stage during human gestation, that does not make it possible for intra-phylum procreation.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Much clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or keep, but surely DON'T delete as this category is useful to have. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:42, 25 February 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. The other categories referred to were not included in this nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Madrilenian footballers to Category:Footballers from the Community of Madrid

Nominator's rationale: This is intended to be a bundled request, along with 18 others at Category:Spanish footballers by autonomous community, apologies if not labelled correctly. Naming consistency for such subnational categories worldwide, as far as I am aware, is for '[Occupation]s from [Place]' rather than '[Denonym] [occupation]s.'

As well as the 19 football categories, there is also an equivalent parent set at Category:Spanish sportspeople by autonomous community which contains 12 cyclist cats, 3 golf cats, 9 golf cats, 1 for Category:Basque triathletes, 1 for Category:Valencian pilotaris, umpteen cats relating to Catalonia (including several unique among sportspeople within Spain gender subcats and many including a 'by nationality' cat which isn't quite right) and two at Category:Basque rugby union players and Category:Catalan rugby union players with their own issue: they are in amongst lists for persons born/raised in the Spanish autonomous communities but are organised along the thinking of their respective 'greater regions' which extend into France, and of course France has a more notable rugby culture so several of the players in there are from Perpignan, Biarritz etc. I realise that is a categorization issue rather than renaming as such, but there will be a knock-on effect if all relevant categories are re-named as suggested, particularly for the Basque rugby one where the likes of Imanol Harinordoquy would incorrectly show under Rugby union players from the Basque Country (autonomous community) or whatever, until manually removed or amended.

That issue is actually part of a much larger one relating to the display of all persons with political/cultural connections to the regions of Spain: Where is the distinction between cultural identity and regional geography - Category:Basque footballers is one of 19 such cats so clearly relates to the autonomous community, but Category:Basque people by occupation seems to relate generally to the wider region with Navarre and the French part? And to give one example regarding naming in general from the 19 communities, why do we have Category:Andalusian people with its 8 occupation subcategories, should all of these not be at Category:People from Andalusia, etc? Not sure how that should all be addressed, but certainly from looking at it with no previous knowledge on the history of this vast category tree, I see no no real reason for displaying them like this against convention from most if not all other parts of the world, other than a convenient denonym in most cases - although the likes of Castilian-Manchegan sportspeople are a bit awkward, and certainly more so than Bavarian sportspeople or Tuscan sportspeople would have been, but instead for those we have Category:Sportspeople from Bavaria and Category:Sportspeople from Tuscany. Crowsus (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, a bundled request requires listing all categories with their proposed name in this nomination, and tagging all category pages. See WP:CFD for more detailed information. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with @Marcocapelle: that this should not be considered a bundled request. Instead I suggest that nominator @Crowsus: wait until the outcome of this discussion and if that is positive, use the consensus here to nominate all the other categories at a later date. GiantSnowman 08:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - no offence to nominator @Crowsus: but the nom is very much TLDR. All that needs to be said is that the long established standard for national categories of this nature is 'X footballers' (see subcats of Category:Association football players by nationality) whilst the long established standard for regional categories of this nature is 'Footballers from X' (see subcats of Category:Footballers by city or town in England and Category:Footballers by county in England etc.). As this category is part of the latter, it should be 'Footballers from X'. GiantSnowman 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:CATNAME#Occupation ((Fooers from Boo)) — the rest can be speedied.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fooers from X is the standard approach for people from cities. SFB 18:21, 27 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Henry the Lion

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

When royalty and other officials from other states visited the German Duchy of Brunswick, the Order of Henry the Lion was given out as souvenir. Ernst II, Duke of Saxe-Altenburg, Frederick Augustus II, Grand Duke of Oldenburg, and Duke Adolf Friedrich of Mecklenburg are not remotely defined by the award and just mention it in passing. (There are also a few officials from Brunswick like Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick and William, Duke of Brunswick but it doesn't seem defining to them either.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this overcategorization by award has become absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 22 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Banner of Gold

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

The Banner of Gold is issued by the Chamber of Senators (Bolivia). The category is not likely to aid navigation because there is no common thread among the 5 recipients listed: a former senator, the country of Venezuela, a Japanese religious movement, a folk music group, and the country of Cuba. Most of the articles don't even mention the award so it doesn't seem defining. The recipients are already in the text of the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 20 February 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who use NPWatcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: User:MDP23/NPWatcher is marked as ((historical)) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If it's no longer used, we can't collaborate around its use to improve the encyclopedia. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:10, 21 February 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. (Note: I was leaving this to be closed by someone else, since I had closed the previous one which was then disputed, but that hasn't happened after a month, and the consensus here is clear.) – Fayenatic London 09:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Russian Empire photographers to Category:Photographers of the Russian Empire

Nominator's rationale: These categories were nominated for speedy renaming based on the precedent of a discussion which resulted in the "Imperial FOOs" and "Russian Empire FOOs" categories renamed to the "FOOs of the Russian Empire" form.

Extra background: During that discussion Johnpacklambert created most of these categories in the "Russian Empire FOOs" format, apparently presuming that that would be the result of the discussion, which it was not. He has now opposed that these categories be renamed speedily to match the standard that was adopted. There is no justification for keeping some categories in one format and these in another. Johnpacklambert's opposition looks to me like simply a case of disappointment about the outcome of the previous discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Good Olfactory: I assume that the proposed renaming of Category:Russian Empire political activists to Category:Patrons of music of the Russian Empire is a typo? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it was. Thanks – I have corrected it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for consistency of naming per the consensus of the previous discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all - per the consensus of the previous discussion, a consensus evident to anyone who reads the last few lines thereof (the contributions of 24 Jan 2021). (Including Category:Russian Empire women medical doctors to Category:Women physicians of the Russian Empire per Category:Russian physicians, Category:Physicians of the Russian Empire, and Category:Russian women physicians, which is an obvious speedy on both counts.) Oculi (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support the previous consensus in the discussion 2020 December 3#Russian Empire people, to which I did not contribute. Oculi (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no consensus. It was an out of process close imposed at the last minute. For almost all of it people were supporting Russian Empire x.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just read the contributions of 24 Jan 2021. Your claim repeated ad nauseam is simply false. It is quite common for an alternative to emerge at the end of a cfd and be generally supported (in this case unopposed except by JPL). Oculi (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If Johnpacklambert really believes that there was no consensus at that the CFD of 3 Dec, he should take his complaint to WP:DRV. If he is so confident that there was no consensus, it should be a slam dunk for him. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all WP:C2C and WP:CATNAME#Former nationalities.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin note: Thank you Good Ol’factory for bringing this nomination; I had spotted the need for it, but did not have the time. If a new consensus were to emerge here which opposed this nomination, I would retrospectively revise my close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_3#Russian_Empire_people accordingly, i.e. to use the target names as originally nominated there by Johnpacklambert after all. – Fayenatic London 10:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to Russian Empire x, this is shorter and simpler and more clear. The last discussion only agreed to stop using the "Imperial" form. Most participants either did not weight in on the issues of Russian Empire x v X of the Russian Empire, or stated they had no preference. To treat the discussion as a clear endorsement of how it closed is just plain inaccurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• rename except... Sorry to complicate matters but: Category:Imperial Russian military personnel killed in action, Category:Imperial Russian military personnel by war, Category:Imperial Russian military doctors, Category:Imperial Russian military leaders seem to be in the correct format as the Imperial Russian military was not merely "in" or "from" the Russian Empire but "of" it. See e.g., Category:Soviet military personnel killed in action and similar. I would also delete the WP:OCEGRS problem categories, but recognize that doesn't have traction yet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it is 'of': Category:Military personnel of the Russian Empire. Oculi (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carlossuarez46, you said that those categories are "of" the Russian Empire and not "in" or "from" it. But the proposals are to use "of". Category:Military personnel of the Russian Empire killed in action, and so forth. What am I missing here? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Good Olfactory If consistency is the goal, the format for the military categories is Country-name-adjectival military ... Thus Category:Imperial Russian military personnel by war to match Category:American military personnel by war or Category:French military personnel by war, not Category:Military personnel of the Russian Empire by war, as proposed above, which would be akin to Category:Military personnel of the United States by war or Category:Military personnel of France by war, which is inconsistent with our nomenclature. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Carlossuarez46, that is true, but it is also the case with every other category that is here nominated. The standard format for all of these categories is "FOOian XXXXs", but consensus in the last discussion was to change this to "XXXXs of the Russian Empire". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Good Olfactory It's odd - the ones I looked at seemed to have roll-ups like the javelin folks Category:Sportspeople of the Russian Empire that left them a jobsector of the Russian Empire similar to the the proposed renaming. If we do this, is this a prelud to having all these categories moved from adjectival forms to "of the country name" forms? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Carlossuarez46, no, as far as I am concerned this is isolated to Russian Empire categories. I personally don't like the change: I think "Russian Empire FOOs" would be fine. I find the "FOOs of the Russian Empire" form to be confusing and ambiguous at times. This nomination was really just meant to clean-up the incomplete previous one. It doesn't represent what I think is best. But having some in one format and some in another seems the worst option, hence this nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Good Olfactory OK, less than best is still better than worst. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      It's used for most 'Empire' categories such as the British Empire; see Category:People by former country. There was 2012 November 28#Category:Imperial Russian people, which is of interest. Oculi (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm not saying it's inconsistent with some other stuff. I'm just saying I don't like it, and it's inconsistent with the vast majority of by-nationality category trees. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Olfactory has a long memory. We initially decided upon Imperial Russian, and Good Olfactory recorded that decision. JPL wanted to change the consensus, he tried repeatedly many times over many years, but then doesn't like the alternative that was chosen. We've also switched to Roman Empire (consistent form with Roman Republic), but there are still some "Imperial Roman" categories that haven't been renamed yet. This leads to longer names, but allows consistency within certain categories and year ranges. It is inconsistent with the majority of names, but that's why we have both ((Fooian fooers)) (since 2005) and ((Fooers from Boo)) (since 2010).
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all The titles make the scope clearer, and eliminate some ambiguity. These are people from the Empire, not necessarily employed by it. Dimadick (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposed wording is more idiomatic than Russian Empire fooers. Note that I also supported the original move for the same basis. I find it fair for the speedy renames to be contested and this discussion will confirm if there is agreement on naming. SFB 18:19, 27 February 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.