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:Associates of the Old Swiss Confederacy. – Fayenatic London 11:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For sure "Switzerland" should be replaced by "the Old Swiss Confederacy" as more specific, and then the word "former" becomes redundant. I don't have a strong view on "states" though. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest something like Category:Cantons of Old Swiss Confederacy. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not cantons though, because the whole point of these associates is that they were not a full member canton of the Old Swiss Confederacy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename alt 3 to Category:Associates of the Old Swiss Confederacy which is nicely ambiguous as to whether they were states or cantons or something else. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely agree with this one, per my earlier comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2022 (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 11:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:CSKA Pomir Dushanbe managers to Category:CSKA Pamir Dushanbe managers

Nominator's rationale: This would match the article of the club.Cacrats (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, Pamir instead of Pomir, why not? --Just N. (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename per closed RM result. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that district and subdistrict downcasings are being worked on (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13), which needs to complete before we speedy the subcats. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The main article is still at Amphoe though... the case for the categories would be stronger if the main article was renamed first, but then it's quite conveniently precise and more succint than Districts of Thailand (though Provinces of Thailand indeed uses the English term). --Paul_012 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess it would have been smarter to start with an RM discussion at Talk:Amphoe then. What about the subcategories? Does it make sense to move them to match articles even if we don't move this top-level one? Do we know why the conversion from Amphoe to District was not quite completed? Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I started RM at Talk:Amphoe#Requested_move_22_January_2022. If that works we can speedy this one. Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. per WP:NONDEF (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Brandmeister^talk 20:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Highly Cited Researchers" is a specific published list—the capitalisation indicates it's a proper noun.
    • We don't have a separate article on it, currently it's a redirect. As such, a standalone category looks excessive. Brandmeister^talk 13:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also previous CfD, where it was kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That was a rename nomination though. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all, leaving redirects (partly to help with tracing via Wikidata links). Non-writer sub-cats can be moved speedily. Another full nomination is required for the writer & poet categories. Closer's rationale: A decision one way or the other is required because of the present inconsistencies in the hierarchy. The consensus could be stronger, but is sufficient, with the nominator plus 3 other editors in favour of renaming, compared to only 2 opposing. – Fayenatic London 12:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:16th-century Persian mathematicians to Category:16th-century Iranian mathematicians
• Propose merging Category:Persian physicians by century to Category:Iranian physicians by century
• Propose renaming Category:Medieval Persian people by occupation to Category:Medieval Iranian people by occupation
• Propose renaming Category:Medieval Persian philosophers to Category:Medieval Iranian philosophers
• Propose renaming Category:Medieval Persian geographers to Category:Medieval Iranian geographers
• Propose merging Category:Persian physicians to Category:Iranian physicians

Categorisation of Persian/Iranian people is a mess at present, with no logic to it. This proposal leaves out writers and poets, where categorisation by language may be more appropriate. I think they need a seperate discussion. If we can agree these above then I hope their century based subcategories can be handled speedily. Copy of the discussion about speedy renaming is below.Rathfelder (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dicklyon, BarrelProof, HistoryofIran, Cinderella157, and Johnbod: pinging contributors to earlier speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose These are mostly (except the doctors) historical categories, and (despite some change going on) I tghink "Persian" is still the usual term for the pre-modern. At least Persian-language writers are no longer included. This should not have been attempted as a speedy. Yet another abuse of that much-abused process. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Iran(ian)" is now the most used term in modern scholarship, since its also the most accurate (hence why we also now have article names Qajar Iran, Safavid Iran). The name Iran has been used politically at least since 224, as attested by numerous sources. A lot of historical "Persian" figures are of Iranian descent, but not Persian. It would be nice if experts on this topic could come with their opinion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the Persians are an Iranian ethnic group that make up over half the population of Iran. We cannot expect wp editors to make a distinction between Persian Iranian people and non-Persian Iranian people, especially not for people from earlier centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural note: The dropdown does not contain an accurate copy of the earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. See this link for latest vervion of discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Also, a heap of categories of this type have been moved by bot within the 48 hr period of initial listing. This was noted in the previous discussion (see this edit). Categories already moved should not be excluded from this discussion as a fait accompli. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Persian is an ethnicity, and Persia has been used historically for the region of Iran. Iranian refers to both a modern country (Iran) and to an ethno-language grouping. In this case, ethnicity and and nationality are not interchangable terms and there is the matter of the most appropriate term to apply to historical contexts - where common name independent reliable sources would be the standard to be applied. Looking at one case, Category:16th-century Iranian people by occupation is based on nationality. The category as written implies an equivalence between modern Iran and an Iranian nation in the 16th century. Taking another example, the target of a move per above: Category:Iranian physicians. It is mainly populated with modern day Iranian nationals. It is proposed to merge this with Category:Persian physicians. It makes little sense to me. The matters seem pretty messed up and I think that a simple move will only make things worse. As I said before, this n-gram concerns me. If Iran is the predominant contemporary usage, not just for present day Iran but for the region in historical contexts (other than ancient Persia, then we would probably not be seeing the result we do. It also concerns me that WP may be getting caught up in and facilitating nationalistically driver revisionism. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The category as written implies an equivalence between modern Iran and an Iranian nation in the 16th century. -> The word "equivalence" is not very accurate, I would rather rephrase it as: the relationship between modern Iran and 16th-century Safavid Iran is similar to the relationship between modern France and 16th-century France under the Valois dynasty. As is not a problem to have categories of French people by century despite the fact that society and politics in 16th-century France was very different from now, it should also not be a problem for Iranian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have said [it] implies an equivalence. You would say that it isn't equivalent. I agree. Therein lies the problem. The example of France simply goes to support the case I would make. The English common name and concept of France as a nation state and as an ethnicity has existed since about the 10th century and essentially as we know it today, since about the 15th century. "French" is pretty much interchangeable for both nationality and ethnicity across a broad span of history. You obviously have a perception that forms your opinion; however, we are ultimately here to serve our readers that come here to sate a degree of ignorance. Categories names should be natural. This means they should be based on the English common name appropriate to the context - ie there is a natural connection to the name. "Persian" would appear to better satisfy this than "Iranian" for an historical reference to nationality. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Persian" is also a language, thus the ngram is not useful in this situation. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We cannot have a situation where categories use either Iranian or Persian at random. Can we at least have suggestions that can be applied logically?Rathfelder (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue is whether we are categorising by ethnicity or nationality. Persian is an ethnicity and a target for categorisation by ethnicity. Iranian is not, since (in this context) it is a grouping of individual ethnicities. We have already seen the relevance with the example of Persian language writers who are not Iranian nationals that might have been classified as Iranian (nationals?) if the move had proceeded. If we are categorising by nationality, then we use Iranian for the contemporary and Persian for the historical. The distinction appears to exists some time in the 20th century. It is always possible to add commentary to a categorisation page if necessary by way of explanation. At the very least, I think we would need to make it explicit as to whether a category is being based on ethnicity or nationality. Categories would then need to be populated accordingly. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are all subcategories of Category:People by nationality and occupation. But I think trying to unpick nationality, location, ethnicity and language in mediaeval biographies is not going to work. Most of the articles just say that the subject is Persian, or Iranian, without saying what that means. Rathfelder (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, how the categories have been populated is problematic but these moves are not the solution. There is good reason to explicitly write into the category the "definition" of the category. Nationalities exist for a period in time. Ethnicities are more enduring. Trying to assert that persons from a particular region have an enduring nationality is just plain wrong. It is just trying to drive a square peg into a round hole for the sake of some misplaced perception of trying to achieve conformity. Changing all of the categories to "Iranian" is not a fix. If anything, it might be seen as WP engaging in revisionism. Historically, the English language common name for the nationalities is "Persian". If we presume that nationality defines these categories then we would label them accordingly and make the historical distinction per above (ie Iranian is the modern nationality). However, I think that some "annotation" of the categories is in order. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing definitions into the category will not have much effect if we keep both Iranian and Persian categories. Very few editors will see them, and even if they do very few of these articles contain enough information to guide a decision.Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as highlighted above the present common method in reliable sources is to use Iranian for everything in this time period, unless you mean to refer specifically to the specific group "Persians" which is not the intent of these categories. These categories reflect an older practice in English scholarship to use "Persia" to refer to Iran, but this is no longer the accepted practice among reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim made above offers no substantiation. At Iran, "Iran" and "Persia" are synonymous" The former has always been used by the Iranian speaking peoples themselves, while the latter has served as the international name of the country in various languages and Professor Ehsan Yarshater, editor of Encyclopædia Iranica, propagated a move to use Persia and Iran interchangeably (both cited). There is also the n-gram evidence (above) that doesn't appear to support the claim that was made. WP is to reflect history, not to become part of it. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• People who want to keep the Persian categories need to make some suggestions about how they can interface with the Iranian categories. We cant have the situation where Category:15th-century Iranian people by occupation contains 15th-century Iranian mathematicians‎, 15th-century Iranian scientists, 15th century Persian physicians, 15th-century Persian poets‎ and 15th-century Persian writers with no logic or explanation. Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we "need" to? I can't say it bothers me. Apart from the definition of either term, the writer categories at present mostly have Persian-language writers regardless of "nationality" (itself a highly dubious concept in the early Persianate world) and need to be handled carefully and perhaps differently. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal leaves out writers and poets, deliberately, as I think the answer there might be to classify by language. I dont think language is so defining with these categories. We need to keep the categorisation system as logical as we can. Apart from any other consideration editors will create new duplicative categories if the scheme is not clear. its not helpful to have both Category:Persian physicians and Category:Iranian physicians with no explanation of what difference is intended. Rathfelder (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2022 (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Duplicates a category that is more precise. Grk1011 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: those articles don't belong in this category anyway. It should just be emptied and C1'd. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2022 (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/delete as nominated. – Fayenatic London 11:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Autism by country to Category:Autism
• Propose deleting Category:Autism in Australia‎ (2 P)
• Propose deleting Category:Autism in Denmark (1 P)
• Propose deleting Category:Autism in India‎ (1 C)
• Propose deleting Category:Autism in Jamaica (1 P)
• Propose deleting Category:Autism in Singapore‎ (2 P)
• Propose deleting Category:Autism in Trinidad and Tobago (1 P)

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, a very underdeveloped tree. A merge for the country subcats is unnecessary because the content of these categories only consists of organizations that are already in Category:Autism-related organizations and e.g. Category:Disability organisations based in Australia‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:SMALLCAT does not apply here; that only applies to categories that by their definition can't grow. These cats can grow if more autism-related things happen in those territories in the future. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/upmerge per nom, not useful categorization with only one or two articles. No prejudice to recreation if there are actually five separate articles that would go into any of these cats. (t · c) buidhe 03:51, 10 February 2022 (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 Fighting games. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- English nobility would be the holders of English peerages created before 1707. Before that there were also separate creations of Scottish peerages. Irish peerages also existed and were sometimes used to give a person a title without a seat in the British House of Lords. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• But Category:Medieval Scottish nobility should not be in the United Kingdom. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A "by country" category is fine, as long as it is restricted to the life of that country (i.e. post 1801). It is likely, however, that this category is polluted with entries from multiple centuries (I have not looked too deeply into it). Far safer would be a category of "Peers in the Peerage of the United Kingdom". Does it already exist? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does - for example Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Why not stick with that? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At present there are many articles about people who lived before 1800 in this category. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's because many people use "British" for the nation (if such a thing exists) when they instead mean the state. That's another reason why I oppose it - nation vs state confusion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "British nobility" should be a parent category to the UK category, the English category, Scottish category, Irish category. These other kinds of nobility should not be categorized under the UK category when they are concerning topics that predate and expired before the creation of the UK -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesnt make sense to make UK a parent of British categories. Rathfelder (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You've reversed what I said. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2022 (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) 09:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Glad to hear it; no objection as creator. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2022 (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.