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:Bantu-language given names - jc37 08:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bantu-language given to Category:Bantu-language given names

Nominator's rationale: Standard titling. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Bantu-language given names per C2A and C2C. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed a typo (I wrote "name" instead of "names" for the target category) thanks to your comment. Now fixed above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:50, 9 April 2023 (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 for now; no prejudice against a merger nomination Timrollpickering (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting memorabilia to Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting memorabilia collecting

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the article in question (Scouting memorabilia collecting). This could have been a C2D, but I figured more discussion might be warranted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems far too narrow of a category to support collaboration. How many pages could members of this category reasonably be expected to collaborate on? Rename if no consensus to delete. VegaDark (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection to deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom --evrik ^(talk) 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If not kept/renamed then merging to Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting is a better option than straight deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in Scouting like Marco said. Far too niche for its own category, but makes perfect sense as fitting into the larger scouting cat. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:05, 4 April 2023 (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:Books about visual art. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Books about art to Category:Books about the arts

Nominator's rationale: The three articles in "Books about art" could be categorized in "Books about the arts" without much disruption; Also, as far as I am concerned, "The Arts" is a better means of categorizing than "Art" KConWiki (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably it can be merged a layer deeper, to Category:Books about visual art. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That would be acceptable to me as well. KConWiki (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alternative proposal needs evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Books about visual art per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge Category:World Champions in 5.5 Metre to Category:5.5 Metre class world champions‎, and the rest to Category:Soling class sailors. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:World Champions in 5.5 Metre to Category:5.5 Metre class world champions‎
• Propose moving:
  • Category:South American Champions Soling‎ to Category:Soling class South American champions
  • Category:North American Champions Soling‎ to Category:Soling class North American champions
  • Category:European Champions Soling‎ to Category:Soling class European champions
  • Category:Australian Champions Soling to Category:Soling class Australian champions
  • Category:International 14 world champions to Category:International 14 class world champions
  • Category:RS Feva world champions to Category:RS Feva class world champions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffet i halsen (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Following Category:Sailors (sport) by class. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 28#Category:World champions in the 420. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support world champions. Delete regional "champions". Could not find such per class by region in other sailing sports, and these are "open" races. The articles have better annotated listicles and tables. Delete Category:RS Feva world champions as WP:SMALLCAT.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If deleted, Soling XY champions would preferably be merged to Category:Soling class sailors Kaffet i halsen (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or merge. The Soling is somewhat different then classes that never been Olympic like the RS Feva. Dragon Genoa (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does the difference mean in this discussion? Kaffet i halsen (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Supporting William Allen Simpson's proposal (don't know if I should bold since I'm the nominator) Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Professional wrestling in Winter Park, Florida to Category:Professional wrestling shows in Winter Park, Florida
• Propose renaming Category:Professional wrestling in Jacksonville, Florida to Category:Professional wrestling shows in Jacksonville, Florida
• Propose renaming Category:Professional wrestling in Miami to Category:Professional wrestling shows in Miami

Nominator's rationale: All articles in the categories are about shows, not professional wrestling more broadly. User:Namiba 15:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of these categories, this seems pretty consistent Category:Professional wrestling in the United States by city. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, there also is Category:Professional wrestling in the United States by state. I have been inactive for a while so I cannot remember the name of the rule, but isn't there one where if its part of a chain, the subcategories are included? So since there are a bunch of other "Category:Professional wrestling in...", these should maintain the same structure, even with only shows included. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the choice is whether to create another category for shows and keep these or to simply rename these. If another category is created, then these would be emptied. Why is needed to keep empty categories? How does that aid navigation?--User:Namiba 13:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: You're probably thinking of WP:C2C, "consistency with established category tree names". - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all WP:PERFCAT — places where one performance in a series was held. We don't track where any circus performs. We don't track where any sport team plays during each season. We don't track which place holds a playoff. We do often track where a world championship or olympics is held. In any case, these are more akin to a traveling circus or a small sports team.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PERFCAT does not apply here.--User:Namiba 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it does. These are entertainers. Targets are shows.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per WP:C2C, consistency with established category tree names. The Category:Professional wrestling in the United States by city tree is well developed and there's no clear reason why these 3 would be treated differently. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per established tree arguments above. Not likely to be confused with any other cats under the Category:Professional wrestling umbrella so an unnecessary disambiguation. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:37, 4 April 2023 (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:Mound Builders. Some particpants suggested that neither category be kept, but all of them supported merging the two categories as duplicates, and it was noted that the main article is titled Mound Builders. Any proposal to delete the combined category should be proposed at a follow-up CfD. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mound Builders to Category:Mound builders (people)

Nominator's rationale: This category appears to have been created to store people who researched the Mound Builders, so they should be have been added to the existing category about those people. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great idea, wish I’d looked at the categories the cultures were in. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, tentatively. Although, I'd prefer supporting deleting both categories. Archaeological sites and the cultures that constructed them should be categorized that way, and not with a depecated term leftover from 19th century racist misunderstandings of who built the mounds. There was no overarching "mound builders" people, there were a lot of different cultures that constructed them, over a time span of thousands of years, and not all of whom were related to one another. Keeping this categorization in either form helps perpetuate a flawed understanding of Native American cultures and archaeology. Heiro 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Heironymous Rowe: That’s a good point but are you suggesting these articles shouldn’t be in the same category or that we need a better name?

@Doug Weller: The one category deals mostly with sites and cultures. Plenty of categories and sub-categories already exist about those subjects. Ones not already in those can be slotted into the proper ones, or if a few new ones need to be created they can be. More accurate ones than "mound builders". The other category seems to deal with 18th-19th antiquarians, anthropologists, early archaeologists or writers. They probably belong in those categories and not in a category about the "mound builders" anyway. Heiro 20:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge, also to Category:Historians of Native Americans. (But of course that does not apply to the article Mound Builders). Contrary to User:Heironymous Rowe I do not expect the three other articles can be put in a more specific subcategory of Category:Mound builders (people) but if they can that is fine too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as proposed the main article is located at Mound Builders, so I don't see why the category for this topic would decapitalize "Builders". If this is merged it should merge into Category:Mound Builders -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a fair point. After the proposed merge, the target may be speedily renamed to Category:Mound Builders. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the idea of merging into Category:Mound Builders, per the move of the main article. Noahfgodard (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2023 (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 - jc37 08:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Finnish politicians with disabilities to Category:Politicians with disabilities and Category:Finnish people with disabilities

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category has expanded to 4 entries since the nomination began. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The category has more people in it now. I'm going to take a look to see if I can find any more that should be in this category. (Oftentimes folks just don't get categorized...) Mason (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Currently only at 3 people. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per LaundryPizza03. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3 members currently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for Now If/when this gets up to 5 articles, we can recreate the category then. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2023 (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 - Several options, but no clear consensus. And the many verification tags on Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites, would make me hesitant to implement that as a target per C2D, even if this discussion hadn't happened. - jc37 08:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Groups claiming Jewish descent to Category:Groups claiming Israelite descent

Nominator's rationale: The overlap is extremely heavy, the Jews are descended from the Israelites anyway, and there don't seem to be any groups specifically claiming to be Israelite but not Jewish. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the articles aren't clearly about claimed descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you elaborate? An anonymous username, not my real name 22:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For example Dönmeh is about crypto-Jews and belong in Category:Crypto-Jews rather than in a category about claimed descent. Other example: House of Israel (Ghana) is about a Jewish community, just stated as a plain fact, not as a claim. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comment I must correct myself for stating that there are no groups claiming to be Israelite but not Jewish, as there are a few, but still the overlap is extreme, and many vary significantly internally, and furthermore their articles often don't clearly explain their views. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom because of the duplicate, but a further renaming to Category:Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites would probably be even better, after main article Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites. Note that articles currently in Groups claiming Jewish descent sometimes talk about putative descent from the famous Ten Lost Tribes, which qualify as Israelite but not Jewish (e.g. Genetics and the Book of Mormon), or sometimes no descent at all but mere self-adoption of the Jewish religion (e.g. Jews of Rusape). Place Clichy (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose renaming Category:Groups claiming Jewish descent to Category:Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites, then Merge Category:Groups claiming Israelite descent to Category:Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites — WP:C2D, tagged, per Marcocapelle and Place Clichy. Note that the religion of the Kingdom of Israel was Samaritanism not Judaism. So not all Israelites became Jews, only those in the Kingdom of Judah (and Benjamin). Judah->Judaism->Jews.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also with this alternative I have doubts about the "claiming" aspect. For example Dönmeh is about Crypto-Jews and belong in Category:Crypto-Jews rather than in a category about claiming. Other example: House of Israel (Ghana) is about a Jewish community, not claiming Israelite affiliation. I think the category should rather be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed I support removing groups that do not claim affiliation of any kind, whatever the outcome, but are just different religious groups within Judaism. Place Clichy (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:31, 3 April 2023 (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: Purge "of all content that is related to black and African nationalism" - Please feel free to do so at editorial discretion. There was No Consensus on rename. - jc37 08:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Propose renaming Category:Anti-white racism to Category:Anti-white sentiment
• Propose renaming Category:Anti-white racism in Africa to Category:Anti-white sentiment in Africa
• Propose renaming Category:Anti-white racism in the United States to Category:Anti-white sentiment in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Bringing this here for centralized discussion after a sub-category was contested at Talk:Racism in Zimbabwe, this category currently seems like an exercise in WP:OR. Academic RS generally do not refer to anti-white sentiment or discrimination as racism, intentionally using more precise terminology, and exclusively using "racism" to refer to the racial hierarchies established by European colonialism and its associated ideologies of scientific racism and white supremacy. We should use terminology that reflects top-quality RS, and thus "Anti-white sentiment" or "Anti-white discrimination" are more appropriate. I chose "sentiment" over "discrimination" to mirror Category:Anti-Christian sentiment, Category:Anti-LGBT sentiment, among others. Beyond the name, the inclusion criteria need to be revisited, as it's currently a mixed bag of anti-colonial slogans and movements, political parties, heads of state, fringe figures and crimes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider the use of the "Anti-White Racism" sections and categories in the Economic Freedom Fighters page proper usage? 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of those instances appear to be cited to news sources, not peer-reviewed articles. I haven't reviewed them closely, but whether or not it's valid to use the term within the context of a single article, it shouldn't be applied so broadly as a category. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: It's difficult to see value in a renaming proposal based on such a vague justification as: "Academic RS generally do not refer to anti-white sentiment or discrimination as racism". How does one quantify what 'Academic RS generally do' exactly, do we just start throwing RS at one another or is there something deeper we do? Furthermore, while it is true that academia will refer to the establishment of colonialism and racial hierarchies as manifestations of racism, it will also term discrimination, negative sentiment towards individual racial groups, and individual acts as racism too. Therefore I'm not sure the assertion that RS draws the distinction as strictly as the nominator suggests. Alssa1 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that "racism" has multiple meanings is itself reason to rename the categories, in order to avoid subjective and/or vague inclusion criteria. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently the community consensus-defined definition of racism says: "Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." But if there is a case on renaming in this case on the grounds of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, would it be worth bringing some consistency to all categories in: Category:Racism? Alssa1 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The two definitions given ("belief" and "prejudice, discrimination or antagonism") show why "racism" is too vague a descriptor. I'm not opposed on principle to renaming other categories containing the word "racism", but this specific renaming should go ahead regardless, given the consensus of academics that "anti-white racism" is a nonentity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, there has certainly been an assertion that "...the consensus of academics is that "anti-white racism" is a nonentity.", but there hasn't been a demonstration of that; it just seems to be a belief asserted by some axiomatically. Alssa1 (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to point out that the reason this vote is happening in the first place is because you pushed the "Anti-White racism" category into the "Racism in Zimbabewe" page. Not neccesarily wrong, but you've went to multiple pages to do with South African politics either erasing any sourced reference to white supremacist ideologies or slapping "Anti-White" on any political subject to do with black people. Including many of my own edits from months ago. All over this website, and it caught two different people's attention.

  You have removed longstanding mentions of white supremacy that are sourced and demanded a rationalization from other users as to why it should stay, but at the same time you add mention of anti-white racism into a page without any source or backing and demand a rationalization as to why anyone is quesitoning it. Then you accused me of shadowing you. Twice. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I would be very happy to have a discussion open for this category as it appears to be misused all over this website. To boot the name itself feels loaded with accusations that may or may not be accurate, even if sources agree an anti-white sentiment exists, it creates false equivilance to incidents of racism (Systemic or otherwise) perpetuated by or not involving white people. Even if people disagree I feel it's an important issue to raise. I am changing my arguement because I have realized this is in fact the discussion to change it or not. I've noticed users have a habit of dubbing black nationalist ideas as "Anti-white" via these categories even if these black nationalist ideals show ethnic hatred to other "Black" ethnicities as well as Asians, Indians, Middle Easterners, Native Americans, other indigenous populations, etc. It is heavily misused as per two other users pointed out and also suggests systematic structures which simply do not exist in the Western World. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC) — 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alssa1. The idea that racism against a particular ethnic group isn't "real racism" is itself racist. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Our articles on Racism and Reverse racism suggest that assertion is a fringe position. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've said to another editor, the current definition of Racism would apply to all manifestations of racial prejudice. But if there is a case on renaming in this category on the grounds of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, would it be worth bringing some consistency to all categories in: Category:Racism, would be happy to support the bringing of consistency to all of those categories. Alssa1 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:NONDEF. The top Google Scholar results for "anti-white racism" present the concept as a perceived phenomenon and politically charged accusation rather than a real thing. It's difficult to see how an imaginary phenomenon can be a defining characteristic of anything. (There's no Wikipedia article on anti-white racism either.) "Anti-white sentiment" is more neutrally descriptive and avoids the vagueness of the term "racism", which often (in academic usage) means a system of social advantage/disadvantage as opposed to mere prejudice. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, much of this rather belongs in Category:African and Black nationalism. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as, although I do not entirely agree with your argument, I do agree that "anti-white racism" sounds rather forced and unencyclopedic. Regardless of what group is being viewed negatively, saying "anti-[group] racism" does not come across anywhere near as neutral and natural as "anti-[group] sentiment". An anonymous username, not my real name 22:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:Alssa1. For my second choice, support and also rename Category:Anti-black racism to Category:Anti-black sentiment and Category:Anti-indigenous racism to Category:Anti-indigenous sentiment. "Sentiment" refers to racist thoughts or speech (all the dictionaries I checked defined it this way), which is only a subset of racism against any particular group. Neither discrimination nor violence is an example of sentiment, even if it is motivated by racist sentiment. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have Category:Discrimination based on skin color and Category:Racially motivated violence against white people, neither of which is synonymous with anti-white "racism". The comparison to anti-black racism and anti-indigenous racism is an obvious false equivalence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it a false equivalence? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Racism refers to systematic social costoms that disadvantage a group of people.

  To my knowledge there are no systemic structures in the west or in any African country that disavantages white people. Many that are accused of such (Such as the Economic Freedom Fighters) often target other "Black" ethnic groups and non black/white ethnic groups alongside whites, and are made often without thought of any white person.

  Sentiment just refers to plain ethnic hatred. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Using the logic that the existence of Category:Discrimination based on skin color and Category:Racially motivated violence against white people precludes the existence of a specific Category:Anti-white racism, seems flawed in my view. We have a category called: Category:Racially motivated violence against black people, does that mean we remove the Category:Anti-black racism? I too struggle to see the supposed false equivalence between anti-white racism, anti-black racism, and anti-indigenous racism. Alssa1 (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Have a look at some of the sources cited at Reverse racism, especially the United States overview section. This should help resolve any confusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately it doesn't. In the first paragraph it states: "The concept of reverse racism in the United States is commonly associated with conservative opposition to color-conscious policies aimed at addressing racial inequality, such as affirmative action. Amy E. Ansell of Emerson College identifies three main claims about reverse racism: (1) that government programs to redress racial inequality create "invisible victims" in white men; (2) that racial preferences violate the individual right of equal protection before the law; and (3) that color consciousness itself prevents moving beyond the legacy of racism." (1), (2) and (3), are not relevant to the topic at hand and do not demonstrate that there is a false equivalence. In that same section it also talks about: "According to sociologist Rutledge Dennis, individual members of minority groups in the United States "may be racists" toward white people, but cannot wield institutional power or shape the opportunities available to the majority as the white majority does in relation to minorities. Sociologists Matthew Desmond and Mustafa Emirbayer distinguish between institutional racism and interpersonal racism, arguing that while "members of all racial groups can harbor negative attitudes toward members of other groups", there is no "black institutional racism" or "reverse institutional racism" since people of color have not created a socially ingrained system of racial domination over white people." Now it may be true in the US that there is no black institutional racism, but the sources don't say that interpersonal racism doesn't constitute racism. Furthermore, while I realise that English Wikipedia seems to be US-centric, you cannot extrapolate views expressed in a US cultural-climate and apply it globally. Alssa1 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here are some sources you left out:

  • Yee (2008): "Scholars argue that a critical component of racism is the broad exercise of authority and power and that isolated instances of favoring the disadvantaged over the privileged cannot be seen as constituting racism."
  • Cashmore (2004): "One big difference is that white racism is a legacy of imperialism, whereas the black version is a reaction to the experience of racism. This qualitative difference is disguised by the term 'reverse racism' ... which implies too simple a comparison with its white counterparts."
  • McKinney (2005): "most claims that whites are victimized as whites rely on false parallels, as they ignore the power differences between whites and people of color at the group level. Schwalbe and others argue that while people of color can be prejudiced, just as whites can, they are not socially positioned as a group to be racist ..."

  One doesn't need to extrapolate to realize that "anti-white racism" is a loaded and imprecise term. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry but you explicitly said earlier that: "...the consensus of academics is that "anti-white racism" is a nonentity.", you're now citing sources that say (among other things) "Scholars argue...". And as McKinney says about Daniel Tatum's work (which you left out when you cited it) Page 146.: "[W]hen I am asked 'Can people of colour be racist?' I reply, 'The answer depends on your definition of racism.' If one defines racism as racial prejudice, the answer is yes...". The sources are indicative of a debate in academia, not the categorical decision that you (and a few others) are asserting without explicit evidence. Furthermore, the sources you're using to make this judgement seemed to be based entirely within a US-centric cultural climate, and therefore attempting to shoe-horn that viewpoint onto what would be a global phenomena; in the sense that the American cultural understandings of race and racism are not necessarily relevant to every country on the planet. Alssa1 (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Without explicit evidence that other cultural understandings of race and racism differ significantly from the US, this is an argument from ignorance. It's enough that reliable sources like McKinney define "racism" as ambiguous to show that it runs afoul of SUBJECTIVECAT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The "debate" is not within academia, but between academia and the general public. What the general public believes should not dictate what we do. McKinney quotes Beverly Daniel Tatum to support the idea of an academic consensus about anti-white racism. In McKinney's words, "theorists argue that only whites can be racist" (p. 147). Tatum continues (my bolding):

  "People of color can and do have racial prejudices. However, if one defines racism as a system of advantage based on race, the answer is no. People of color are not racist because they do not systematically benefit from racism. And equally important, there is no systematic cultural and institutional support or sanction for the racial bigotry of people of color."

  —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Without deliberately turning this into a forum-esque discussion, I didn't realise it was a matter of dispute that the US has its own history, its own culture and its own experience of race and race relations. The suggestion that the opinions expressed in the sources apply as a default to the experiences of the whole world unless there is a source that explicitly says otherwise, is silly. Particularly when (for example) the reviews on the back of McKinney's book (page 300), and the statements made by her, explicitly state that the discussion sits within an American context (hint being in phrases like: "McKinney captures the racial obliviousness that shapes the world of white youth in America").

  As for the specific section from McKinney's book (seeing as that's the part we're discussing now) it doesn't say the general public at all, that's your reading of the situation. It poses the question/challenge/suggestion: "...if one defines racism as a system of advantage based on race...", it doesn't say (as you falsely claimed): "...the consensus of academics is that "anti-white racism" is a nonentity." It seems to me that unless you can find a source that says that using the the phrase: anti-White racism is false or referring to "non-entity", your reasons for supporting a change seems flawed. Alssa1 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is disputing that the US has its own history, its own culture and its own experience of race and race relations. My point is that the consensus of US academics is that "racism" implies a system of advantage rather than mere individual prejudice. Therefore the term "(anti-white) racism" is an inappropriate name for a category encompassing topics relating mainly to individual prejudice. Unless you are claiming that the views of US academics don't matter at all, the term is inherently vague and subjective.

  Tatum's hypothetical definitions of racism do not occur in a vacuum; McKinney specifically cites Tatum to support her statement that "people of color can be prejudiced, but not 'racist'" (p. 147). This is all presented as a counterpoint to "white complaints of cultural victimization" (p. 145) from her research subjects and students, i.e. members of the general public. I already quoted two other academic sources saying reverse or "anti-white" racism is not really racism. Here's another (my bolding):

  "Reverse racism, which would indicate that Whites are now on the bottom of the racial hierarchy, is not real ... In almost all postcolonial societies, including and perhaps especially the United States, Whites are at the top of the racial hierarchy ... the system of power that is racism only works in one direction, from the top of the racial hierarchy toward the bottom. In other words, members of the dominant race are never the recipients of institutionally-derived racial discrimination ..."

  — Austin, Duke W.; Bowser, Benjamin P., eds. (2021). "Introduction". Impacts of Racism on White Americans In the Age of Trump. Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75232-3. ISBN 978-3-030-75232-3.

  —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The consensus of academics is that "anti-white racism" is a nonentity is my personal summary based on the multiple sources cited at Reverse racism. Needing a published source to use those exact words sets an impossible standard. We can infer an academic consensus from statements like "Scholars argue that a critical component of racism is the broad exercise of authority and power" and "theorists argue that only whites can be racist". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, "Someone Who's Wrong on the internet" has notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe of this discussion. I am new here, and I don't want to be a certain kind of guy but IDK if this is appropriate, this would be considered summoning a personal army in other websites [1] Can I have an opinion on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How is that "summoning a personal army"? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I ask why you chose to notify them then? Like I said I am new and I am not sure if it was the appropriate thing to do 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing wrong with a neutral notification as such, but it is pretty odd to post it on Wikiproject Europe, while most of the content of the category is about black nationalism in the US and in Africa. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If wider input is needed, the logical place to post notifications would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, so I've done just that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge all content that is related to black and African nationalism, that is a different topic than anti-white discrimination or sentiment. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible oppose To dispute that racism against white people does not or has never existed is in itself utterly racist.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any laws or practices that are "racist" against white people? Catboy69 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or more properly, peer-reviewed RS in such quantity that they establish support for your position above and beyond the many sources cited at Reverse racism, some of which have already been quoted above at length. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the sources quoted support your particular edit position though... Alssa1 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They do, actually. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:B5A2:AB44:ABA5:983C (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless assertion. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an RS to back your statements up? 2603:8080:F600:14E7:D455:3218:9F68:BC74 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reccomend you read the case instead of just reacting 2603:8080:F600:14E7:B5A2:AB44:ABA5:983C (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Category:Anti-black racism. Although I would never say these historical and present-day phenomena are two perfectly equivalent sides of the same coin, as theoretical concepts, these categories are reasonably mirroring each other. I do suggest we remove parent categories Category:Anti-European sentiment and Category:European diaspora, both of which are geographical category trees and not racial/ethnic ones. Millions of white people aren't European, and millions of Europeans aren't white; equating "white" and "European" is white nationalist nonsense. (Same goes for "white" and "Christian", and "European" and "Christian"). Also, we should add Category:White supremacy to Category:Anti-black racism, because Category:Black supremacy is in Category:Anti-white racism. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories are not meant to encompass all theoretical possibilities. Instead we look for defining characteristics. Anti-black racism is more than theoretical, and there is no reasonable real-world equivalent where white people qua white people are the victims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sangdeboeuf, you've now replied to about half of the oppose !votes. Obviously, I can't tell you what to do, but WP:BLUDGEON might be good reading. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to alert WP:ANI of any user you suspect of editing disruptively. You can then explain why you thought it was a good idea to WP:CANVASS WikiProject Europe here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already said they are not equivalents, so don't strawman me. What is reasonable in science and the humanities is falsifiability: an idea needs to be able to be disproven. If group A defines a crime in such a way that they are always the victim by definition and cannot be the perpetrator by definition, while group A simultaneously defines group B as always the perpetrator by definition and never the victim by definition, it is a useless idea. It has no scholarly value. Just like with Karl Popper's black swan analogy (assuming for the sake of argument there are only white and black people), you can't claim "all perpetrators of racism against black people are white", and whenever a black person appears to perpetrate racism against a white person then claim "that is not racism because X" (special pleading), or "that is not really racism because Y" (no true Scotsman). Historically in the past several centuries up to the present, anti-black racism by whites has been far more prevalent than the other way around, I wouldn't dispute that at all (and it's important not to make it a false equivalence, as white nationalists/supremacists would), but that doesn't mean the other way around doesn't exist. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You sound like you have an unrelated issue at hand

  He said racism referrs to systemic issues, not plain ethnic hatred. this is common knowledge, albiet personally I'd use "Prejucide" to describe systemic issues as racism id often confused for non-legal, grassroots hate, which nobody denied black people were capable of. Speaking as a black person myself. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:50D:6B3B:96FC:A8BA (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Multiple published RSes (see above) say anti-white racism doesn't exist by definition, armchair logical analyses notwithstanding. This is exactly the kind of exercise in WP:OR that the nomination refers to. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've changed my !vote to Alternative, see below. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now I have two counts of Someone who's wrong on the internet behaving in bad faith. First of all trying to summon Europeans to discuss racial politica in Africa. Secondly branding every single one of my comments here with the following disclaimer: [2] [3] 2603:8080:F600:14E7:50D:6B3B:96FC:A8BA (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing wrong with a comment that another editor, you in this instance, is a single purpose contributor. It is for the closing admin to weigh that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative (changing my !vote from "Oppose" above): I've taken another look at the category trees and related articles, and I'm seeing some things nobody has said yet, namely (indirect) speedy criteria:

• "Anti-black racism" redirects to "Negrophobia", which therefore arguably should be viewed as the main article of the Category:Anti-black racism, which per WP:C2D should therefore be renamed Category:Negrophobia.
• "Anti-white racism" was renamed a few months ago to "Reverse racism", which therefore may be regarded as the main article of Category:Anti-white racism, which per WP:C2D should therefore be renamed Category:Reverse racism. (This should probably have happened already when the article was renamed; we may still consider re-creating Anti-white racism a redirect to Reverse racism for navigational purposes.) I maintain and repeat my suggestion to remove parent categories Category:Anti-European sentiment and Category:European diaspora for the reasons I have given above. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the page logs saying Anti-white racism was ever moved to Reverse racism, so I'm not sure where that idea is coming from. Several redirects including "Anti-white racism" were deleted after a discussion a few months ago. Several users there proposed creating a separate article about anti-white racism, which has yet to happen. Given the academic consensus that "reverse racism" is nonentity (being an epithet specifically used to denigrate affirmative action policies), using it as a category name seems to make even less sense than the current name. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it was retargeted rather than moved+redirected (on your own request, actually), but that's not my point. My point is WP:C2D. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a circular argument. The page was not renamed "Reverse racism". WP:C2D applies only to speedy renaming, and only when the name of the topic page is unambiguous and uncontroversial. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge all content that is related to black and African nationalism, that is a different topic than anti-white discrimination or sentiment (per Marco). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge, then Rename all (without redirect) as nominated WP:C2C siblings, and Remove parent categories Category:Anti-European sentiment and Category:European diaspora — per Laurel Lodged, Marcocapelle, Nederlandse Leeuw, et alia. Not all "whites" are European. Not all Europeans are "white". It has already been decided that the current name is not even appropriate as a redirect per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1#Anti-white racism. Nuke it.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom. It's clear that many editors don't understand systemic racism. I think what several of you are actually referring to is "bias", not "racism". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, its more than many oppose the idea that systemic racism is the only form of racism that exists. The idea that biases don't count as racism may be popular in some academic circles but academics don't decide how words are used in general.★Trekker (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These are pretty bold statements. An explicit racist system like the Apartheid regime that takes active measures to discriminate against a specific group is in no way comparable to legacy economic differences among social groups in a society based on legal equality (which would qualify as systemic bias), so none are the only form of racism that exists. Also, resistance to oppression is not racist in itself by principle, even if that oppression is itself based on racism. Mandela and the ANC, Ghandi, MLK raised against very different oppressive systems but where not racist. However, anti-white racism and/or prejudice does of course exist, and can overlap with liberation movements. The problem of these categories is that they entertain the confusion between the different kinds of oppressions, and also entertain confusion between the different kinds of resistance against oppression. Place Clichy (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One doesn't have to believe systemic racism is the only form of racism to see that "racism" is too vague to be a useful descriptor here. Indeed, that statement implicitly acknowledges that different things can be called "racism", which supports the rationale for renaming. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge content related to e.g. Black or African nationalism or liberation movements that would not qualify as explicit racism or prejudice + Rename as nom per siblings + Remove all parent and children categories about "Europe[an]". White and European and not synonymous, far from it, and there are many arguments that the somewhat artificial black/white divide is in itself a product of out-of-Europe colonial societies, pre-colonial Europeans would probably have found very strange to be qualified as white or black rather than along their hometown, nation, social group or language. Place Clichy (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong Venue/Close for Now CFD is great for helping to group existing articles to aid reader navigation but, with a content dispute like this one, I would normally open an WP:RM on the main article's talk page. There is neither an Anti-white racism nor an Anti-white sentiment article though. Once that main article gets created with the reliable sources quoted above and then stabilizes, it would ground both the category naming and the inclusion criteria. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming while this might not be as prevalent as racial discrimination against other ethnic groups, it is fully possible to be racist against white people. Nick Cannon is living proof of that. To suggest it doesn't exist is absurd and (as StarTrekker correctly points out) a racist notion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide any WP:RS to support that analysis? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sangdeboeuf: I'm not so sure requesting reliable sources in this venue moves us toward consensus. It's not that I'm against verifiability, but CFD nominations are temporary and you can't edit text written by other editors. Those factors makes it tougher to incorporate sources to reach a consensus here, like we do in the article space. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be fine with any policy-based rationale, something other than original research, personal taste, this proposal is racist, etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC) edited 10:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Most oppose tags have been from users with a habit of tacking "Anti-White Racism" on anything and everything to do with black nationalism or anti-imperialism in African countries. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:D455:3218:9F68:BC74 (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of all the examples, why Nick Cannon? He was excised and canceled for making anti-semetic statements, not "Racism against whites"?

  This is just an opinion from people who dislike Nick Cannon 2603:8080:F600:14E7:D455:3218:9F68:BC74 (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Racism is racism no matter who it's aimed at. It is simply not true that racism is not accepted as applying to white people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Many articles tagged with this category are more to do with black nationalism and black supremacy (At worst) than racism against white people. This is a suspicious pattern, and it makes the category feel more like an accusation than an actual assessment, especially when you consider the vast majority of RS that define "Racism" as systematic structures and laws that target certain groups, not as isolatd issues or mass ethnic hatred with no legal/cultural backing.

  Hence, according to that definition, "Racism" against white people does not exist in America and the Western world. Many of the pages include incidents of black people and black africans being racist to Indians, other "Black" ethnicities or from different countries, East Asians, occasionally Jews of all races (Not just white jews) but these are never dubbed anti-semietic, anti-asian, anti-indian, etc. Only "Anti-White".

  Personally, I would use the word "Prejudice" to describe this, and relegate "Racism" to occurances that have no legal backing or support. But RS do not describe it this way.

  The inciting incident which created this discussion was a Scottish (European) user attempting to argue African Politics and deem Zimbabwe and the Economic Freedom Fighters racist due to their reaction and negative attitudes towards colonialism. As well as the folk song Dubul' ibhunu 2603:8080:F600:14E7:9475:A7DB:1671:7A9 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Sockpuppet of June Parker (talk · contribs). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Multiple published RSes cited here and at the Racism article refute the view that Racism is racism no matter who it's aimed at. That is just a personal opinion, and a misinformed one at that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the British legal system certainly agrees. Racist offences can quite specifically be committed by a person of any race against a person of any other race. So, no, it is neither a personal opinion nor ill-informed. On my part, that is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2023 (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. bibliomaniac15 19:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Monarchs of Bohemia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Monarchs of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Monarchs of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category duplicates the content of Category:Bohemian monarchs. Created without discussion on CfD, on the principle of emptying the above category. There is no justification for the existence of two categories with the same scope. The same applies to the other categories. Marcelus (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural problems only one of the above noms has been properly nominated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They remain untagged as of this time stamp. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed as of this time stamp. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Disclosure: I created the above categories. I have tried to explain to @Marcelus: the difference between a tree structure that is "by state / country" one that is "by nationality". He doesn't seem to understand or more likely has stopped listening. Once again, many monarchs of Bohemia were not Bohemian nationals. For example, the Habsburgs were Austrians / Germans. There have been many Category:Chinese monarchs, but not all were monarchs of the whole of China; some were only monarchs of small states such as Lu (state) or Wei (state). See the parent category (Category:Monarchs by country) which has 47 children. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. No, you started emptying the category without getting a consensus, based on your own assessment, not WP:RS. You ignored my requests to undo the changes, and instead impertinently shared the "good news" with me.

  2. Categories such as Category:Bohemian monarchs or Category:Chinese monarchs are not based on ethnicity/nationality. This is your own assumption unsupported by anything. I don't know if you know, but many Chinese dynasties were not of Chinese (Huaxia/Han) origin. Many were Manchu, Turkic, Tibetan, etc.

  3. Dividing Bohemia's rulers on the basis of "ethnicity" makes as much sense. First of all, what is "Bohemian" ethnicity anyway? Can you define it? What makes you think that Habsburgs weren't Bohemians? They ruled the country.

  4. Category:Monarchs by country was created by you, in order to make even more mess and duplicating existing, perfectly fine category tree. For what purpose? I have zero idea. Marcelus (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Re point 4 Of the 47 members of Category:Monarchs by country, I only created 3 of them. Do you intend to WP:Stalk the other 44 editors and tell them how they got it wrong? Will you amend this nomination to include all 47? If you do, please remember to tag them; two of the above noms have still not been tagged, despite two gentle reminders to do so. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I tagged them already; I don't stalk anyone, so I would appreciate if you don't accuse me of that again. Marcelus (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the scope is different; Category:Monarchs of Croatia differs considerably from Category:Croatian monarchs, much as those in Category:Emperors of India are not all Indian. Oculi (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It makes sense to rename/rescope all "fooian monarchs" to "monarchs of foo", but this discussion started in a wrong way. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I'm inclined to agree. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Croatian monarchs" category shouldn't be about ethnicity, because it's just not something we can apply to the premodern aristocracy. And I really don't feel like measuring their skulls or examing their genealogical tree in order to determine if they are more Croatian, German or Irish.
• In my opinion, the category "Monarchs of Croatia" should include all monarchs who bore the title "X of Croatia" (so kings, dukes as well as bans). And "Croatian monarchs" should be its parent category, gathering all monarchs within Croatia (e.g., Dukes of Slavonia, etc.). In principle, a good rule of thumb would be if the title "X of Y" referred to a specific title. And "Y-ian X" to an area. Marcelus (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply If a man was just a Duke of Slavonia, then was he really a monarch? If he was part of a larger sovereign entity (the Kingdom of Croatia), then he was not really the head of a sovereign state himself. So that contorted logic will not work I'm afraid. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation The creation of the Monarchs of Bohemia category was suggested by nominator himself at this earlier CFD. Yet now he is nominating his own idea. Strange. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Observation I'm inclined to agree with Oculi and Laurel Lodged that there is a difference between Category:Monarchs of Croatia and Category:Croatian monarchs, but ultimately they are both in the Category:People by nationality tree:

Category:Croatian monarchs > Category:Croatian nobility > Category:Croatian people > Category:People by nationality

Category:Monarchs of Croatia > Category:Monarchs by country > Category:Heads of state by country > Category:Political office-holders by country > Category:Political people by nationality > Category:People by occupation and nationality > Category:People by nationality

So the question is: what is the difference, really? Marcelus' claim that Categories such as Category:Bohemian monarchs or Category:Chinese monarchs are not based on ethnicity/nationality appears to be incorrect; they, too, are in the Category:People by nationality tree. But Laurel's claim that there is a difference between a tree structure that is "by state / country" (to) one that is "by nationality" also appears to be at least partially incorrect, because although "by country" shows up 3 times between Category:Monarchs of Croatia and Category:People by nationality, it's ultimately still part of the Category:People by nationality tree.

Suggestion A Perhaps that means either "monarchs of foo" or "fooian monarchs", or both, should be somehow taken out of the Category:People by nationality tree? I've argued elsewhere that pre-modern monarchs often cannot really be defined by "nationality" (nor by "ethnicity" btw, as Marcelus correctly points out: "Croatian monarchs" category shouldn't be about ethnicity, because it's just not something we can apply to the premodern aristocracy), and that by becoming/being the monarch of a certain area, they often defined the state rather than the other way around (which is a modern idea). I haven't yet found a way to solve this problem.

Suggestion B If we cannot determine what the difference is, this gives credence to Marcocapelle's suggestion to rename/rescope all "fooian monarchs" to "monarchs of foo".

I haven't decided yet, but I think these are questions we need to answer first. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is an error in the category tree at Category:Political office-holders by country > Category:Political people by nationality? In certain countries it's possible to hold certain political offices in country A without being a national of country A (but country B). For example, as of 2017 in the Netherlands, mayors / burgemeesters need to be Dutch nationals, but deputy mayors / locoburgemeesters (which are in the Category:Political office-holders tree) can be foreign nationals. If this analogy holds true, this would mean that monarch C can become the queen of A while being a B "national". (However, if we presume that monarchs define the state (L'État, c'est moi), then becoming queen of A automatically makes C an A "national" as well). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should just rename Category:People by nationality to People by nationality or ethnicity? It would save a great deal of time. I'm not talking about this category in particular, but many related discussions. Marcelus (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion B is my preference. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcelus That wouldn't be a good idea, they are completely different category trees.

  To everyone: Would you agree Category:Political office-holders by country should be taken out of Category:Political people by nationality, because many political offices can be held by foreign nationals (and monarchs might be an example of that, but Dutch deputy mayors certainly are, and there are probably thousands of other examples)? If we agree on that, we might be able to solve the question what the difference between "fooian monarchs" and "monarchs of foo" is. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: It's also possible to do both: rename/rescope all "fooian monarchs" to "monarchs of foo" AND take Category:Political office-holders by country out of Category:Political people by nationality. Especially if we agree that either monarchs define the state and its nationality, or that "nationality" is irrelevant to monarchs, fooian monarchs becomes an irrelevant category tree, and there is a strong rationale to take monarchs of foo out of the "people by nationality" category tree. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Nationality" in the sense of belonging to a particular state (citizenship) is essentially a modern invention, and it is arguable whether it should be referred to pre-modern times at all. In this sense, if someone was a ruler of a state or held a position in it, he or she might be referred to as a "fooian office holder".

  In my opinion, the 'monarch of foo' categories should refer to specific titles that were borne by rulers of different ranks, e.g. the monarchs of Poland bore the titles of princes and kings, the monarchs of Austria the titles of margraves, dukes, archdukes and emperors, and so on. On the other hand, "fooian monarchs" should refer to monarchs whose rulerships belonged to a particular state, e.g. the categories of dukes of Silesia, Mazovia, Poznań, etc. should be included in the category "Polish monarchs". Marcelus (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you about preferably not using "nationality" for pre-modern people in general, and for rulers/monarchs etc. in particular.

  On the other hand, I think 'monarch of Austria' is a legitimate parent category of margraves, dukes, archdukes and emperors of Austria.

  I'm very hesitant with your claim that "fooian monarchs" should refer to monarchs whose rulerships belonged to a particular state, e.g. the categories of dukes of Silesia, Mazovia, Poznań, etc. should be included in the category "Polish monarchs". Because this has the potential of nationalistic claiming of certain territories "belong[ing] to a particular state. Polish nationalists could lay claim to Lithuania by putting Grand Dukes of Lithuania in the Category:Polish monarchs while pointing to the Commonwealth era. Czech nationalists could lay claim to Silesia by putting Dukes of Silesia in Category:Bohemian monarchs while pointing to Lands of the Bohemian Crown. Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalists could lay claim to Kievan Rus'... etc.

  I should note that "Category:Belarusian rulers" was recently deleted precisely for this reason of being "anachronistic": the modern state didn't yet exist at the time for which it tries to lay claim to various local rulers. This is also precisely why I think we should not assign "nationality" for pre-modern people in general, and for rulers/monarchs etc. in particular, which is exactly what "Category:Belarusian rulers" did. We found that "Belarusian princes" was probably a modern nationalistic concept that had no place in Wikipedia categories. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing wrong about having categories broad, overlapping categories, it's basically inevitable. Right now the tree is like that (going up to bottom): Dukes of Mazovia -> Dukes of Poland -> Polish monarchs. Which I think is overall good. Marcelus (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't, for the reasons given. I presume you would find something wrong with Dukes of Silesia being categorised as "Bohemian/Czech" monarchs, or even "Saxon/German" monarchs, for various contestable reasons? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI The "Category:Rulers of Lithuania" CfM, which is closely related to this CfD, has been updated with an Alt proposal (by me as nom) to rename Category:Lithuanian monarchs to Category:monarchs of Lithuania, in accordance with Suggestion B to rename/rescope all "fooian monarchs" to "monarchs of foo". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & implement Suggestion B to rename/rescope all "fooian monarchs" to "monarchs of foo", AND take Category:Political office-holders by country out of Category:Political people by nationality, because it is unclear whether "nationality" is even relevant to monarchs:
  1. because foreign nationals are permitted to hold certain political offices (perhaps including monarchs, certainly including deputy mayors in the Netherlands) in another country, so that "nationality" is WP:NONDEFINING for Category:Political office-holders;
  2. because "nationality" is a modern concept ("nationality" cannot define monarchs if "nationality" itself doesn't exist yet), and there are many pre-modern situations in which monarchs appeared to define the state rather than the other way around; and
  3. because "fooian monarchs" has the risk of being/becoming an WP:ARBITRARYCAT/WP:SUBJECTIVECAT due to the risk of anachronistic/nationalistic claiming of certain former states "belonging" to certain modern countries (see also the "Belarusian rulers" CfD).

I took my time to carefully look at all the arguments, and I'm now confident to take stance. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good soultion. We do not need two categories that can be interpreted as simply containing all the people who have exercised monarchical authority in a country. I am absolutely against classifying the rulers of Bohemia in terms of ethnicity and separating the "Czech" ones from the rest. Marcelus (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:1793 establishments in the Dutch Empire (1 C) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire
  • Propose upmerging Category:1793 establishments in the Cape Colony‎ (1 P) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire and Category:18th-century establishments in the Cape Colony
• Propose upmerging Category:1794 establishments in the Dutch Empire‎‎ (1 P) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire
• Propose upmerging Category:1795 establishments in the Dutch Empire‎‎ (1 P) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire
• Propose upmerging Category:1798 establishments in the Dutch Empire‎‎ (1 C) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire
  • Propose upmerging Category:1798 establishments in Aruba‎‎ (2 P) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire and Category:18th-century establishments in Aruba and Category:1798 establishments in North America
• Propose upmerging Category:1790s establishments in Aruba‎‎ (1 C) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire and Category:18th-century establishments in Aruba Category:1790s establishments in North America
  • Propose upmerging Category:1798 establishments in Aruba‎‎ (2 P) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire and Category:18th-century establishments in Aruba Category:1798 establishments in North America
• Propose upmerging Category:1790s establishments in the Cape Colony‎‎ (2 C) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire and Category:18th-century establishments in the Cape Colony and Category:1790s establishments in Africa
  • Propose upmerging Category:1793 establishments in the Cape Colony‎‎ (1 P) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire and Category:18th-century establishments in the Cape Colony and 1793 establishments in Africa
• Propose upmerging Category:1798 establishments in the Cape Colony‎‎ (1 P) to Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire and Category:18th-century establishments in the Cape Colony and Category:1790s establishments in Africa (note: Auwal Mosque was built in 1794, not 1798, but the year category hasn't been fixed yet, and 1794 establishments in Africa doesn't exist)
  • The latter would best be fixed by renaming Category:1798 establishments in Africa, as it currently has no other members. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? It would still be SMALLCAT. Let's just put that building in the 1790s category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. The total number of actual pages in this category jungle is... 8. Every cat has only 1 or 2 items, or 1 subcat. Let's just make it a decade cat, because this splitting doesn't aid navigation at all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support that as part of a larger nomination, such as for Easter Island above. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you mean? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • For example by nominating all years, establishments and disestablishments categories in the tree of Category:Years in the Cape Colony. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought this was a good first step. With 8 items it would no longer be a SMALLCAT. The larger steps we take, the more likely someone will object to something and the whole thing could come to nothing. Of course, if you'd like to nominate more related cats for a merger, you could do that once we are done with this one. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment agree - it can't be piecemeal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — As an exemplar. I am opposed to mass nominations without precedent. Although some are listed twice?
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nederlandse Leeuw, can you please add the merge targets? — Qwerfjkltalk 16:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The target of all nominated cats is Category:1790s establishments in the Dutch Empire. Perhaps that was not clear from my comment Let's just make it a decade cat? The decade I meant was "1790s", the target I mentioned. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, there are 30 year categories in Category:Disestablishments in the Dutch Empire by year. Even though they are always a "poor cousin", disestablishments should generally match the structure for establishments, which in this case has 169 year categories. – Fayenatic London 14:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the nom needs to be a wider upmerge: Sturk's Tobacconists is removed from Category:1793 establishments and from Category:Cape Colony altogether by this nom. Also Category:1798 establishments in Aruba is not tagged; neither is Category:1790s establishments in the Cape Colony. Oculi (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Conceptual Support/Procedural Close I'm on board about piecemeal fixing these whole trees with 1 or 2 articles since they were created over time. But this nomination needs explicit target categories so everyone knows what they're iVoting for and, for some categories, we need dual upmerges for Aruba and Cape Colony categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Update thanks to @Fayenatic and @RevelationDirect for pointing out I needed to properly define the targets. I've added them now. Does this make sense? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Nederlandse Leeuw. I would add targets for "year" in "continent" establishments, e.g. 1793 establishments in Africa. IMHO the intermediate parent 1793 establishments in South Africa should either be a merge target, or should be nominated as well for deletion. I suggest also nominating the 1798 sibling in Cape Colony. Please tag all the nominated pages (remembering to add the parameter for this section heading). As this is an old nomination, it may be easiest to relist this discussion, so that new CFM page tags will then link to the correct (current day) log page. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, rather than start with a sample decade within Dutch Empire, it may be better to withdraw this, then take your time building a more complete nomination in a sandbox, e.g. for all Cape Colony establishments and disestablishments. – Fayenatic London 15:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (after edit conflict) @Fayenatic like this? The last target can't be merged to a year in Africa so I made it a decade. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      PS: Oh please don't make me do this all over again. I'm never gonna do years and decades and centuries SMALLCATS again. It's an intricately interwoven web of categories with barely significant content that however fights very hard against being reorganised more sensibly. It's just not worth the effort. I just wanna complete this one and be done with it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • You're a brave editor! I've been toying with doing this with the Puerto Rican year categories for awhile. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        See, he was going to do it for a whole country, not just one decade of an empire. Austrian Netherlands is another example of how to do it. At present this nomination would be a procedural fail because the listed categories have not been tagged, so you are on weak ground to complain about starting again. It should even more clearly fail because rather than using this as a test nomination before a comprehensive follow-up, you now say you won't be doing any more. – Fayenatic London 22:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        @Fayenatic london I tagged all nominees now, sorry, I forgot. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        I wanna complete this CfM properly. I do not intend to start over, or to do it on a larger scale, etc. This is clearly something that other users (like Marcocapelle) are better at, but I don't want to leave this like a mess; I wanna clean it up and move on to other things. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While there are some other years to clean up, this improves the encyclopedia by reducing categories that will likely always be small and not aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Academics of the University of Birmingham to Category:Academic staff of the University of Birmingham

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 3. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename WP:C2C
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it was kept along with all the others in Category:Academics by university or college in the United Kingdom at the cfd 2022 October 3#Academic personnel in Europe. Oculi (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – that precedent specifically excluded UK and Ireland. – Fayenatic London 13:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Racing drivers' wives and girlfriends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEFINING. There is a notice on the category page to include only those where this is a defining characteristic but that criteria seems to be being ignored and I fail to see how this could ever be a defining characteristic. See also other WAG categories listed for deletion as well, same reason applies. Anyone with an article is notable for individual accomplishments, not their relationship to someone else. I also find it jarring to categorize women this way. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fully agreed on this being jarring, and these women are definitely known for more than their relationships with other folks. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, based on earlier discussions, my understanding is that is primarily a British tabloids topic and that the common local term is WAGs. We might limit this category with the ones below to Category:WAGs in British tabloids. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining. I would also argue that the occupation of the spouse qualifies as a WP:TRIVIALCAT. SSSB (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People are not notable on the basis of who they date per se, so it's not a defining characteristic. Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends is a different matter, since that's actually a tabloid classification that really exists in British media — that is, it's a genuine concept that some women have actually surfed to the point of passing WP:GNG for it, but it has no equivalent in other sports and thus doesn't justify the creation of "Every other sports' wives and girlfriends" siblings alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I clicked on the articles to see if they were known for more than this association. The ones that I clicked on all were so, in addition to being sexist, it's also WP:NONDEFINING. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In some cases, being the wife of someone famous is defining, but not here. Place Clichy (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per those above. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Baseball players' wives and girlfriends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEFINING for any of the members. See also other WAG categories listed for deletion as well, same reason applies. Anyone with an article is notable for individual accomplishments, not their relationship to someone else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not at all defining, just like the other sports categories listed on this nomination page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People are not notable on the basis of who they date per se, so it's not a defining characteristic. Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends is a different matter, since that's actually a tabloid classification that really exists in British media — that is, it's a genuine concept that some women have actually surfed to the point of passing WP:GNG for it, but it has no equivalent in other sports and thus doesn't justify the creation of "Every other sports' wives and girlfriends" siblings alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete NOTDEFINING. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In some cases, being the wife of someone famous is defining, but not here. Place Clichy (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American Football players' wives and girlfriends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. An equivalent category was deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Category:American footballers' wives and girlfriends. Arguably CSD G4 could apply, but the different name does address some (not all) of the deletion rationale. Word on the street is that "wives and girlfriends" is a real thing in the UK, but I doubt there's anyone for whom association with an American football player is a defining characteristic. The presence of people like Simone Biles, Ciara, and Hope Solo in the category makes it kind of ridiculous. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Background A similar CFD nomination ended with "no consensus" last year. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @RevelationDirect: I wouldn't qualify the linked discussion, which is about association football, as similar. There is arguably a specific coverage of the British tabloid press towards association football WaGs in the UK, which some could argue translates as Wikipedia notability for them. However there are little reasons to extend this reasoning to other sports or other countries. Place Clichy (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete people are defined by things of their own merit, not a relationship to someone else. It's not much different from the hockey or basketball categories I nominated for deletion here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes please, let's not. This is not a defining characteristic. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we were simultaneously working on proposing this one, it looks like (I was quite slow about it.) My argument was The reason is mostly "really?? We're categorizing women by who they dated?!?" There are reasons to have categories such as First Spouses, I suppose, but this category is limited to female folks who have dated (or married without dating, I suppose) the players from one American football league (out of the several professional leagues that have played here, such as the USFL and the XFL) and only if it's to male players (all these limitations come from the category description, not the title.) It claims WAGs as the main article for the category, but that's a much broader subject linked to professional athletes in general. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People are not notable on the basis of who they date per se, so it's not a defining characteristic. Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends is a different matter, since that's actually a tabloid classification that really exists in British media — that is, it's a genuine concept that some women have actually surfed to the point of passing WP:GNG for it, but it has no equivalent in other sports and thus doesn't justify the creation of "Every other sports' wives and girlfriends" siblings alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I clicked on the articles to see if they were known for more than this association. The ones that I clicked on all were so, in addition to being sexist, it's also WP:NONDEFINING. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:G4. Place Clichy (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Basketball players' wives and girlfriends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Questionable-at-best categorization per my rationale for the similar hockey category below. This should also be deleted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Anyone with an article is notable for individual accomplishments, not their relationship to someone else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a defining characteristic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People are not notable on the basis of who they date per se, so it's not a defining characteristic. Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends is a different matter, since that's actually a tabloid classification that really exists in British media — that is, it's a genuine concept that some women have actually surfed to the point of passing WP:GNG for it, but it has no equivalent in other sports and thus doesn't justify the creation of "Every other sports' wives and girlfriends" siblings alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I clicked on the articles to see if they were known for more than this association. The ones that I clicked on all were so, in addition to being sexist, it's also WP:NONDEFINING. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In some cases, being the wife of someone famous is defining, but not here. Place Clichy (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hockey players' wives and girlfriends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing people by their relationships to athletes doesn't feel appropriate per WP:Overcategorization#Non-defining characteristics. They're definitely known for more than such affiliations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Anyone with an article is notable for individual accomplishments, not their relationship to someone else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a defining characteristic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People are not notable on the basis of who they date per se, so it's not a defining characteristic. Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends is a different matter, since that's actually a tabloid classification that really exists in British media — that is, it's a genuine concept that some women have actually surfed to the point of passing WP:GNG for it, but it has no equivalent in other sports and thus doesn't justify the creation of "Every other sports' wives and girlfriends" siblings alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I clicked on the articles to see if they were known for more than this association. The ones that I clicked on all were so, in addition to being sexist, it's also WP:NONDEFINING. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In some cases, being the wife of someone famous is defining, but not here. Place Clichy (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:NCSSS schools

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC)

The school articles in this category generally don't mention being a member of the National Consortium of Secondary STEM Schools trade association. Usually I would suggest listification but the main article was deleted in AFD for being non-notable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2023 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Association of European Airlines

• Propose Deleting Category:Association of European Airlines members

• Propose Deleting Category:Former Association of European Airlines members

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC)

According to the intro of the main article, the Association of European Airlines "was the voice of the European airline industry for over 60 years. It shut down in the end of 2016." Even when it was active, it was way too ubiquitous to be defining. There is already both a template and a list in the main article for readers interested in navigating this topic. (Alternatively, if kept, we only need the "Former" subcategory.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, also too much overlap with Category:Airlines of Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2023 (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.