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) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Converts from Judaism to Category:Former Jews

Nominator's rationale: I think it should be renamed to Category:Former Jews to be consistent with other members of the categories here Category:People_by_former_religion, although I understand we might want this title just to specify they are not stopping being ethnically Jewish or a citizen of Israel who is a Jew?Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, being a Jew is not necessarily the same as being an adherent of Judaism, see e.g. Jewish atheism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for the same general reason: Jewishness is as much an ethnicity as it is a religion, and while you can certainly convert to other religions—or simply not practice Judaism—doing so doesn't necessarily make you not a Jew. There are many secular Jews; I'm not sure how often converts to other religions continue to consider themselves Jews or Jewish, but "former Jews" makes it sound like they suddenly became a different race, which is absurd. I know that's not the intention, but it still sounds that way. At least the current title doesn't suggest something impossible. P Aculeius (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (changing !vote from Rename) A few hours ago ThePartOfLife123 created the Category:Ex-Jews as a parent. I think this reminds us that the normal Category tree is Former Fooians, below which is the child Converts from Fooism, below which is grandchild Converts to Barism from Fooism. Therefore, per WP:C2B/WP:C2C technical reasons, I think the name Category:Converts from Judaism is okay and should stay as it is (and I've changed my stance from Rename to Oppose for that reason).

The real question is what to do with this new parent, Category:Ex-Jews, which is the equivalent of Category:Former Jews. Those phrases can have two meanings:

A. Per Apostasy in Judaism: apostates from Judaism / Jewish apostates.

B. Per Jewish assimilation: People who assimilated from being Jewish in every other sense (cultural, ethnic, social, whatever) to something non-Jewish, e.g. Austrian. That's not about religion, not about language (Austrian is not a "language", although "German" is), nor even about nationality (because "Jewish" is not a "nationality", although "Israeli" is). Despite what many people might claim about "once a Jew, always a Jew", cultural/social/ethnic assimilation away from "Jewishness" is possible (on top of being able to apostatise out of and convert from Judaism as a religion).

Because we are dealing with the Category:People by former religion tree here, meaning A. is the relevant one. To avoid ambiguity, I think the name Category:Apostates from Judaism is better than both "Ex-Jews" and "Former Jews". This would be the parent of the (unchanged) Category:Converts from Judaism. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Category:Apostates from Judaism is far less ambiguous than Category:Ex-Jews. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Glad you agree! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "apostasy" has a really negative connotation—even in its technical sense, it sounds extremely judgmental. It also would be inaccurate in many cases—secular Jews haven't necessarily renounced any belief. I'm beginning to think that the current title is the best of the alternatives, in the sense that its scope is limited to converts, and excludes those who simply don't practice religious Judaism for whatever reason. P Aculeius (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apostasy" is meant to exclude secular Jews. "Converts from Judaism" is more ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it does exclude them—but I note that we don't refer to converts to Judaism as "Christian apostates". In fact, we have a category called "Converts to Judaism". But if you look at Sammy Davis Jr. you don't see any mention of apostasy! I wonder why we would want to use a term that's not in widespread use for religious converts, specifically for Jews. The only time I can recall "apostasy" being used to refer to current events was on public radio a few years ago, in a program about people who had left the Jehovah's Witnesses, or questioned that church's key doctrines. And in that instance, I understood "apostasy" to represent the point of view of the church, rather than that of the individuals. There's no governing body in Judaism to decree that individuals are guilty of heresy or apostasy, or to punish anyone or direct the faithful to shun them (individual sects might have a lesser ability to do this to their members). So again, while I think the term might be technically correct in some instances, I don't think it's a good choice for the name of a Wikipedia category. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that is a fair point. But I still oppose the original nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply otherwise. My comments were directed solely at the suggestion that "Apostates from Judaism" would be a better title than the present one. P Aculeius (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P Aculeius you are making very valid points about being careful not to choose a word or formulation which may convey some sort of negative judgement over people who stop believing / participating in Judaism or some other religion. But I think you are confusing apostasy (a change of mind by an individual; but someone else can also accuse an individual of having "committed" apostasy, as if it's necessarily a bad thing) with excommunication (done by an organisation or community as punishment of an individual). Apostasy / apostate may originally have been a pejorative term, and it is still used as an accusation (that can have lethal consequences in some places on Earth) but I've also seen a lot of reclaiming/reappropriation of the term as a badge of pride by people who have left certain religious organisations/communities/sects/cults. Amongst Orthodox Jews the standard expression is off the derech ("path") (OTD): to describe the state of a Jew who has left a Hasidic, otherwise Haredi, or Modern Orthodox way of life or community, and whose new lifestyle is of a non-Orthodox form of Judaism or no religion at all. Despite the term's pejorative and controversially dichotomic and definitive nature, it has become the most popular in use among Orthodox people and has also been reclaimed and used by some OTD individuals and groups to self describe. Because it doesn't necessarily mean "no religion at all", and one has to have been an (ultra)orthodox Jew first before going off the derech, we unfortunately cannot use it for our category. So what else?

"Losing one's faith" (Losing My Religion) is a depreciated expression, because it implies one has lost something valuable and that it is regrettable, which is true in some cases, but others feel rather "liberated"/"freed". "Leaving the church" is common to say by former Christians. Former Muslims used to say they "renounced Islam" in the 2000s; I think this one went out of fashion because it implied "complicity" in something bad as long as one didn't "renounce" one's participation. But since the 2010s the more common expression is "leaving Islam", probably by modified analogy of "leaving the church" (because "leaving the mosque" doesn't make much sense in an Islamic context, where mosques aren't both buildings and institutions, but just buildings). A recent trend in literature that I have seen is the metaphor "walking away from religion", which seems to apply to all religions. The "leaving / walking away from" metaphor is probably so popular because it gives the former believer agency as an individual, capable of making their own choices and acting on them, regardless of what the "church" or community might think. I think it might just be difficult to put it in a category name (haha). 'People who have left Judaism'? 'People who walked away from Judaism'? It's a bit wordy, isn't it?

So in the end I think Apostates from Judaism is the best option we've got, per main article Apostasy in Judaism, and to avoid confusion with Jewish assimilation which is a different topic. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To visualise the category tree (because I see some people are still as confused as I was initially), this is what I'm proposing (with 2 examples to make this clear):

• Category:Former Fooians (main article Apostasy in Fooism; they haven't necessarily embraced another religion, they just have left Fooism)
  • Category:Converts from Fooism (they left Fooism and have joined another religion, but we haven't yet specified which one)
    • Category:Converts to Barism from Fooism (they left Fooism and have joined Barism)
• Category:Former Christians (main article is Apostasy in Christianity; they haven't necessarily embraced another religion, they just have left Christianity)
  • Category:Converts from Christianity (they left Christianity and have joined another religion, but we haven't yet specified which one)
    • Category:Converts to Hinduism from Christianity (they left Christianity and have joined Hinduism)
• Category:Ex-Jews/Former Jews (the main article should be Apostasy in Judaism, but Ex-Jews/Former Jews are ambiguous; they can also refer to Jewish assimilation, so I propose to rename this Category:Apostates from Judaism)
  • Category:Converts from Judaism (they left Judaism and have joined another religion, but we haven't yet specified which one. There is nothing wrong with this name, so I oppose renaming this to Category:Former Jews. Even if it were unambiguous, it is in the wrong branch of the category tree; this should have been its parent's name.)
    • Category:Converts to Hinduism from Judaism (they left Judaism and have joined Hinduism)

I hope this helps clear things up. I originally misunderstood this, too. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point; and to be perfectly clear I am not claiming any kind of offense. I simply disagree with the suggestion. I will point out that this is English Wikipedia, so how people speak of apostasy in other languages is not that relevant to what an article or category should be titled here. And in English the words "apostate" and "apostacy" have a very negative connotation—arguing that they shouldn't doesn't change that. If someone referred to me as an apostate, I would feel insulted, even though from a technical standpoint it might be correct—at least from the point of view of someone faithful to some orthodox views I don't adhere to. Whether some people feel empowered by using a term originally intended as an insult is a matter for popular culture to sort out, not a solid basis for deciding titles for Wikipedia; something intended negatively does not become inoffensive merely because some people embrace the label.

I am not going to get bogged down in the complex relationships of various categories, because in my opinion consistency across a category tree is secondary to the overall suitability of a name in individual instances. If a name is not a good choice, then being consistent with other, similar categories will not make it one. The present title is suitable for the category, and is not nearly as problematic as the alternatives; if the main objection to it is that other related categories have different names, then it should stay where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius Thank you very much for your thoughtful response, I genuinely appreciate it. Even though I have read many examples in literature from former believers who reclaim "apostate" as a badge of pride (e.g. Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out (2003)), and I have spoken to people who would proudly call themselves that, it also is true that people like you or others would be insulted, and that it is also often still intended as an insult by the one who says it. Merriam-Webster implies as much with its example sentences. So I guess we do need something else.

The present title is suitable for the category. Which name for which category? I've argued to keep Category:Converts from Judaism as it is, but to change Category:Ex-Jews into something else. What are your opinions on "Ex-Jews"? How do we solve the ambiguity? Maybe something like "former believers in/of Judaism" would work? "former believer" or "ex-believer" is a very common term in these communities. It's not controversial, and not wordy, and makes clear we are talking about religious belief in Judaism as a religion, not in "being" or "behaving like" a "culturally Jewish" person (in every other way unrelated to religion). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with both "ex-Jews" and "former Jews" is that they depend on Jewishness being defined exclusively by religious practice, which is not the case, whereas the only sense in which someone can stop being Jewish is in the case of religion. The only people who can logically be described as "ex-Jews" are converts; Jews who no longer practice the Jewish faith, but do not profess any other religious belief, cannot really be described as "former Jews" even in the religious sense. Truth be told, the distinction is nebulous and the concepts of religious and ethnic Jewry are just too badly confused to separate easily. But the point is that converts from Judaism are really the only "former Jews", and it is unclear to me how there can be two distinguishable categories. P Aculeius (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose being a Jew is not necessarily the same as being an adherent of Judaism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:14, 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: rename. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Kievan Rus' to Category:Princes of Kiev

Nominator's rationale: Friendly advice for people unfamiliar with the topic: please read WP:KIEV and Grand Prince of Kiev#Background first before commenting. Thanks!
The reason why it is good that there is a separate category for Category:Grand Princes of Kiev is that the earliest sources indicate that the earliest monarchs of Kiev / Kievan Rus' weren't referred to and didn't call themselves "grand prince" velikiy knyaz until the reign of Yaroslav the Wise (r. 1019–1054). Some were even called kagan. It's only in later sources from the 14th century onwards that the title of "grand prince" is retroactively applied to all Yaroslav's predecessors. So, "prince" is better for pre-1019 people. Secondly, "Kievan Rus'" was not a dynastic title, but is a historiographic term invented in the 19th century. It's good enough for the main article Kievan Rus', but for categorising those earliest princes, I would prefer simply calling them "Princes of Kiev", exactly like the earliest historical sources do. Category:Grand Princes of Kiev is a good category for Yaroslav and all others after him. I should also note that all people mentioned in Category:Rulers of Kievan Rus' are currently also already mentioned in Category:Grand Princes of Kiev; I think all pre-1019 Princes of Kiev should be moved up to Category:Princes of Kiev to make this work. (Sidenote: there is more work to do on this category tree, but let's take one step at a time). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an excellent idea. Thanks for proposing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: is the distinction between prince of Kyiv and grand prince of Kyiv defining? After Kyivan Rus prince of Kyiv wanes again, becoming I believe one of the titles of the king of Galicia and Volyhnia, and later of some king in Poland-Lithuania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzajac (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good question. Maybe it is not. But the category tree already makes this distinction, and I have introduced this distinction in Grand Prince of Kiev for historical correctness. Functionally, it might not mean much. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: I'm inclined to agree with Dimnik 2004's hypothesis that the addition of velikiy to the title knyaz comes from the fact that, probably during or shortly after his life, Volodimer I of Kiev acquired the epithet "the Great", as he was called Volodimer velikiy or velikiy Volodimer in primary sources. Or, famously in the Sermon on Law and Grace, великааго кагана нашеа земли Володимера ("the great kagan of our land Volodimer"), even though the rest of the text just calls him каганъ нашь ("our kagan"). This may have then mixed up with the title of knyaz to combine to velikiy knyaz during the reign of his successor Yaroslav, even though it doesn't change the status of the title. (Unlike grand duke, which was created in 1569 for Tuscany as a rank higher than duke).

  Another reason might be that it was introduced by the purported Greek originals of the Rus'-Byzantine treaties (which have never been found, and the authenticity of the surviving Slavonic texts is questionable).

  A third alternative which Dimnik 2004 discusses is the idea that Kievan Rus' gradually evolved into an amalgam of principalities as appanages of Kiev (mainly Pereyaslavl and Chernigov), and that velikiy was added to the title of "Prince of Kiev" to indicate he was primus inter pares or something (a "high king" or "overlord" or "king of kings" idea). This was connected to Yaroslav's system of dynastic succession, by which "the supreme ruler or velikiy knyaz [had] the right to rule (...) over all the other princes descended from Yaroslav". (p. 307) The system of succession infamously failed, however, and at the Council of Liubech all senior princes acquired the title of velikiy knyaz (in that sense the senior princes were "grand duke" versus the junior princes just "dukes"). Thereafter, there was fierce competition between them all as reflected in the sources, especially between Kiev and Suzdal/Vladimir.

  I don't know what happened, but I find a combination of no. #1 and no. #3 most likely. I mostly want to have the Category:Princes of Kiev so that we can categorise the pre-1019 people such as Oleg of Novgorod as just "Prince of Kiev", because I think it would be historically incorrect to add "Grand" to it, regardless of what the exact difference is and why it arose, which is still unclear. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:13, 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: rename & reparent. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Genoa to Category:Heads of state of Genoa

Nominator's rationale: "Ruler" doesn't fit. All people in the category were either a doge of Genoa, Podestà, Capitano del popolo or (Jean II Le Maingre) French governor of Genoa; all of these are non-hereditary, non-sovereign positions which are either elected or appointed. Therefore also re-parent from Category:European rulers to Category:Heads of state of Italy (alongside Category:Doges of Venice) and/or Category:Heads of state of former countries. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming and re-parenting to Category:Heads of state of former countries per nom. Parenting to Category:Heads of state of Italy is not accurate as it concerned just one city state in Italy, while 'of Italy' suggest of the whole of Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I was thinking the same. I guess that means Category:Doges of Venice should also be removed from 'of Italy' then. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done that one. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- "Rulers" is an appropriately vague term to cover a variety of positions or titles. The parent would be better called Category:Heads of state '''in''' Italy. Until Garibaldi united Italy, it consisted of a number of separate states, but Italy's existence as a geographic entity was well recognised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and re-parent to Category:Heads of state of former countries
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Balance so far: 3 rename & re-parent (myself included), 1 keep + suggestion to rename the parent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:33, 27 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 and rename. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Kings of Armorica to Category:Kings of Brittany
  • Alt proposal: upmerging Category:Kings of Armorica to Category:Kings of Brittany and renaming to Category:Monarchs of Brittany

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, and both are already in parent category anyway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, too much overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename to "Monarchs of Brittany". Per main article, "In different epochs the sovereigns of Brittany were kings, princes, and dukes. The Breton ruler was sometimes elected, sometimes attained the position by conquest or intrigue, or by hereditary right. Hereditary dukes were sometimes a female ruler, carrying the title duchesse of Brittany.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a good alternative, I'll add that. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I have tagged the target as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 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. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cherusci rulers to Category:Cherusci chieftains

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B The opening lines of the bios of all 4 people in this category identify them as "chieftain". WP:C2C parent Category:Tribal chiefs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 8 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: speedy rename. C2D. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Movement for Socialism (Bolivia) to Category:Movimiento al Socialismo
• Propose renaming Category:Movement for Socialism (Bolivia) politicians to Category:Movimiento al Socialismo politicians

Nominator's rationale: C2D per Movimiento al Socialismo. Charles Essie (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per WP:C2D. I don't think I agree with the main article name, but that's an issue for an WP:RM. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:33, 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: option A (rename to Journalism in Foo.) (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 16:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Algerian journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Algeria
• Propose renaming Category:American journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in the United States
• Propose renaming Category:Argentine journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Argentina
• Propose renaming Category:Australian journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Australia
• Propose renaming Category:Bangladeshi journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Bangladesh
• Propose renaming Category:Brazilian journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Brazil
• Propose renaming Category:Canadian journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Canada
• Propose renaming Category:Chinese journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in China
• Propose renaming Category:Colombian journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Colombia
• Propose renaming Category:Emirati journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in the United Arab Emirates
• Propose renaming Category:Indian journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in India
• Propose renaming Category:Irish journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Ireland
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism of South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in South Korea
• Propose renaming Category:Moldovan journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Moldova
• Propose renaming Category:Nepalese journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Nepal
• Propose renaming Category:Nigerian journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Nigeria
• Propose renaming Category:Pakistani journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Pakistan
• Propose renaming Category:Slovenian journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Slovenia
• Propose renaming Category:Tajikistani journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Tajikistan
• Propose renaming Category:Vietnamese journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Vietnam
• Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in Yugoslavia

OR

• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Austria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Austrian journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Azerbaijani journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Estonian journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:French journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:German journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hungarian journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism of South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:South Korean journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Latvia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Latvian journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Lithuanian journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Philippine journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Polish journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Portuguese journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Romanian journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Spanish journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Thai journalism
• Propose renaming Category:Journalism in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Turkish journalism

AND

• Propose merging Category:British journalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Journalism in the United Kingdom or vice versa, conditional on the outcome of A or B above

Nominator's rationale: Significant inconsistency issue in this tree, with some categories named "[Nationality] journalism" and others named "Journalism in [Country]" — with the added bonus of one country (South Korea) that's named "Journalism of South Korea" and will have to be renamed either way, and one country (the UK) where both "British journalism" and "Journalism in the United Kingdom" exist simultaneously, with the latter both sistering the former in Category:Journalism by country and parenting it at the same time. (In the other three cases in Batch A where "Journalism in Foo" is already a blue link, it's just a redirect to "Fooian journalism" rather than a separate category, but in the UK they're actually two separate categories for the same thing.) I'm personally of the opinion that Option A, "Journalism in Country", should be chosen for consistency with related trees like Category:Broadcasting by country ("Broadcasting in Foo" across the board) and Category:Radio broadcasting by country ("Radio in Foo" across the board) and Category:Television by country ("Television in Foo" across the board), though I've listed both options for discussion regardless since other people might have different opinions — but one way or the other, these need to be standardized on a consistent form. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer Option A (Journalism in Country), since it's the format used in related trees. V27t [ T • C ] 21:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Journalism in Fooland per V27t. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A (Journalism in Country) per eg Category:Mass media in Latvia etc. Oculi (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A For "Congolese" and "Dominican", it should always be "x in y" not "xian y". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A down with the tyranny of demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A per nominator's rationale. –Vipz (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Option A per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A: I find option B-style categories to be far worse for searchability. The defining trait of a category (in this case journalism) should always be first so all results can come up in a search together more easily. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:27, 11 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: downmerge. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose downmerging Category:20th-century rulers in Oceania to Category:20th-century monarchs in Oceania

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Downmerge, redundant category layer, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 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: downmerge. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose downmerging Category:19th-century rulers in Oceania to Category:19th-century monarchs in Oceania

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Downmerge, redundant category layer, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 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: downmerge. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose downmerging Category:18th-century rulers in Oceania to Category:18th-century monarchs in Oceania

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Downmerge, redundant category layer, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 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: downmerge. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose downmerging Category:17th-century rulers in Oceania to Category:17th-century monarchs in Oceania

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Downmerge, redundant category layer, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 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: rename. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Japanese empresses to Category:Japanese empresses consort

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C in line with parent Category:Empresses consort, and to make the distinction with Category:Japanese empresses regnant even clearer. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 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 and reparent. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Women rulers in Indonesia to Category:Queens regnant in Indonesia; re-parent from Category:Women rulers in Asia to Category:Queens regnant in Asia

Nominator's rationale: All people in this category and the subcat Category:Queens of Majapahit were queens regnant. (Sidenote: the subcat Category:Queens of Majapahit is CfM'd for upmerging, but this CfR can proceed independently.) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 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: merge to Category:Monarchs of Majapahit and Category:Queens regnant in Indonesia. Participants agree that Category:Kings of Majapahit should be merged as well for the purpose of preserving gender neutrality. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Queens of Majapahit to Category:Women rulers in Indonesia (separately proposed to rename to Category:Queens regnant in Indonesia), and to Category:Kings of Majapahit (2nd step: propose renaming to Category:Monarchs of Majapahit)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. The current two women were queens regnant Suhita and Tribhuwana Wijayatunggadewi (who are also already in Category:Queens regnant in Asia). Rather than deletion, I think it's a better idea to merge them with both parent Category:Women rulers in Indonesia (which I nominated for renaming to Category:Queens regnant in Indonesia, because all members were queens regnant; that CfR can proceed independently) and sibling Category:Kings of Majapahit (currently only 4 items; it would then have to be renamed Category:Monarchs of Majapahit to make it gender-neutral). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/rename per nom. I have tagged Category:Kings of Majapahit too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:35, 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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose downmerging Category:Women rulers in Oceania to Category:Queens regnant in Oceania
• Propose downmerging Category:Women rulers in Europe to Category:Queens regnant in Europe

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, has only 1 cat, 0 items. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A Queen regnant is not the same thing as a woman ruler. "Queen" is a title, but there were women rulers with the title empress, duchess, chief, sultana and others. To name the category "women ruler" is neutral and avoids misunderstandings. It means the category can contain women who ruled, regardless of title. A category named Queens regnant would eventually be reserved for women rulers with the title queen, and thus be less usefull. It will also give the incorrect impression that "queen regnant" is a synonym to a woman ruler, when women rulers and monarchs could have many different titles. There is a regrettable tendency to make it seem as the title queen is not a title but a synonym to female ruler, and that is not correct. --Aciram (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant to the fact that these are WP:SMALLCATs. At the moment these are unnecessary intermediary layers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Downmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:36, 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: rename. No quorum. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Yaxchilan to Category:Kings of Yaxchilan

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of kings of Yaxchilan, which I have just renamed, because its two sources consistently refer to the heads of state as "kings", and only occasionally "rulers". The only doubt is Lady Eveningstar, who was certainly a queen consort while her husband was alive, but not the most prominent one; but her son later succeeded the throne after an "interregnum" of 6 to 9 years. During this period, she may or may not have been a queen regnant, or just a regent for her son, who appears not to have ascended to the throne until she died. If she was a queen regnant (which is a real and interesting possibility), then she should stay in this category, and it should probably be renamed "monarchs" rather than "kings" to make it gender-neutral; but as it stands, it's probably better to remove her from the category. She is not mentioned in the List of kings of Yaxchilan either. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:51, 8 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 to Category:Chiefs of Tutul-Xiu. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Tutul-Xiu to Category:Chiefs of Tutul-Xiu

Nominator's rationale: Tutul-Xiu is described and categorised as Category:Mayan chiefdoms of the Yucatán Peninsula, from Kuchkabal ("chiefdom"). The indigenous title Halach Uinik is translated as "supreme ruler, overlord or chief". The items in the category and mentions of the heads of state of Tutul-Xiu elsewhere in Wikipedia range from "chief, chieftain, king, ruler," to "lord". In many cases, people are named "chief/king/lord of Maní" as well, after Maní, Yucatán the capital city of Tutul-Xiu. For consistency's sake, I think we should go for "chiefs of Tutul-Xiu". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, and add Category:Tribal chiefs as an extra parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:36, 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: rename. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Iximche to Category:Kings of Iximche

Nominator's rationale: The indigenous title Ahpo Xahil is usually rendered as "king". Hun-Toh indeed states Ahpo Xahil (sort of a king). Iximche itself is referred to as a "kingdom" (12 times), and its heads of state "king" (5 times) or "ruler" (5 times; 2 times "co-ruler"). See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_13#Category:Rulers_of_Dos_Pilas. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom (or "monarchs" would also be ok). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 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: rename to Category:Former Islamic monarchies. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Muslim empires to Category:Islamic states
  • Alt proposal: rename to Category:Former Islamic monarchies; re-parent to Category:Islamic monarchies and Category:Former monarchies

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. See precedent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_24#Category:Historical_Hindu_empires. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added an alt proposal that seems to make sense in light of the current category tree. All items in "Muslim empires" are former monarchies and former Islamic states. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming "Muslim" to "Islamic": people can be Muslims, but a state can't be (a) Muslim. The other issue is that in this tree "empire" is a somewhat vague type of monarchy, but I think just merging to Category:Islamic monarchies may also do the job. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Empires are almost always monarchies, according to some even by definition. There are republics that have nevertheless been called "empires", such as the Roman Republic before Augustus (especially since it acquired its first provinces during the Punic Wars), the Dutch Empire (colonial empire, even though the Dutch Republic was, well, a republic), the "Venetian Empire" (of the Republic of Venice), the French colonial empire (even during the times when France itself turned from the First to the Fifth Republic), the "Soviet Empire" (Union of Socialist Soviet Republics), or the "American empire", etc. Fortunately for us, all "Muslim empires" in this category were hereditary monarchies as far as I know. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I wrote above was in support of the nomination, for not having a separate "empires" category in this tree. Only now I realize I did not get to my point. Which is, we do not really need "former", since nearly all Muslim monarchies are former anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I'm sorry, but unlike with "Hindu kingdoms", that is not quite true:

    • Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
    • Qatar Unitary authoritarian parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy
    • Kingdom of Bahrain
    • United Arab Emirates
      • Emirate of Abu Dhabi
      • Emirate of Ajman
      • Emirate of Dubai
      • Emirate of Fujairah
      • Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah
      • Emirate of Sharjah
      • Emirate of Umm Al Quwain

    And that's not all. For some reason the following Islamic monarchies are not in the category yet:

    • Kingdom of Jordan Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
    • Brunei Unitary Islamic absolute monarchy
    • Kuwait Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy
    • Sultanate of Oman

    So, there are plenty of present-day Islamic monarchies in the world. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    9 out of 13 of the States of Malaysia plus the federation are also Islamic monarchies. At least, all their monarchs are Sunni Muslims. Monarchies_of_Malaysia#Table_of_monarchies. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How could I forget the Kingdom of Morocco? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am withdrawing my side note and fully support the alt proposal after above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:38, 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 to Category:Hindu states. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historical Hindu kingdoms to Category:Hindu states

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. See precedent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_24#Category:Historical_Hindu_empires. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removing "historical" as redundant. Possible alternatives are Category:Hindu kingdoms or Category:Hindu monarchies, not against the nomination either. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, but you do realise that pretty much all members of Category:Hindu states are already monarchies, don't you? What would be really significant is finding a Hindu republic. I don't think any has ever existed (but I'm open to learning as always). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • True. In any case I am in favour of the merge. Perhaps we can discuss in a fresh discussion if Category:Hindu states may become Category:Hindu kingdoms but it is not urgent. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominated and precedent.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:39, 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: rename but delete the last one as empty following removal of Nita Spilhaus (as German rather than Portuguese). As a consequence, new subcats created during this discussion will also be merged, namely Category:Emigrants by country back to Category:Emigrants by nationality, Category:Emigrants from the United Kingdom to Category:British emigrants, Category:Emigrants from the Netherlands to Category:Dutch emigrants, and Category:Emigrants from Portugal to Category:Portuguese emigrants. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC) – Fayenatic London 13:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Emigrants from Liechtenstein to the Austro-Hungarian Empire to Category:Liechtenstein emigrants to Austria-Hungary
• Propose renaming Category:Emigrants from Liechtenstein to Germany to Category:Liechtenstein emigrants to Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Emigrants from the United Kingdom to Tonga to Category:British emigrants to Tonga
• Propose renaming Category:Emigrants from the Netherlands to the South African Republic to Category:Dutch emigrants to the South African Republic
• Propose renaming Category:Emigrants from the Netherlands to the Cape Colony‎ to Category:Dutch emigrants to the Cape Colony‎
• Propose renaming Category:Emigrants from Portugal to Cape Colony‎ to Category:Portuguese emigrants to the Cape Colony‎

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy request. C2C: Emigrants are categorized by (original) nationality, not by country of origin. We have Category:Liechtenstein emigrants (there's also an open discussion regarding its name), Category:British emigrants, Category:Dutch emigrants, Category:Portuguese emigrants. V27t [ T • C ] 14:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging speedy discussion participants: Oculi, Laurel Lodged, TSventon. V27t [ T • C ] 14:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - these should have been speedied as no rational objection was offered. Oculi (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, it occasionally happens that migrants do not stay in their new country but move on to a next country. In those cases I find it more intuitive to categorize them by their original nationality. But admittedly one can argue both ways. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The claim that "Emigrants are categorized by (original) nationality, not by country of origin" is simply not true. We have tree structures for both "by nationality" and "by state/country". And why not? Both are equally valid and valuable. See Category:Emigrants from former countries which has 73 members. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disclosure 1 I have WP:Boldly created Category:Emigrants by country which seems to be a bizarre omission. 10:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Disclosure 2 I have WP:Boldly added the nominated countries to the Country category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is completely unnecessary to create these as there is eg no overall Category:People from the United Kingdom. Category:Emigrants from former countries is for emigrants from countries that no longer exist, and is a nationality category. An alternative would be to delete these irritating categories as they are nearly all singletons. Oculi (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and is a nationality category". Not true. It is a "by state/country" category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree either. Having two parallel trees will lead to an enormous amount of overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since I have demonstrated that the nominated basis is untrue (The claim that "Emigrants are categorized by (original) nationality, not by country of origin" is simply not true) and nobody has refuted this assessment, the correct course is for the nominator (@V27t:) to withdraw the nomination. Before submitting a fresh nomination using a different rationale, he should, also nominate all 75+ subcategories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have done no such thing. You have instead muddied the troubled waters even further by introducing yet more ill-defined and unnecessary categories into the existing mess. (Expatriates, emigrants, immigrants, migrants, 'xxx people of yyy descent' with no doubt 'people from xxx descended from people from yyy' to follow.) Oculi (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would hope that @Oculi: would reflect and withdraw those ill-tempered comments when he considers that I did not create any of the 73 country categories noted above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Emigrants from Portugal to Cape Colony is an empty category so doesn't need to be renamed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — there is currently a single article in Category:Immigrants to the United Kingdom who was born of Nigerian parents in Spain on the way to the UK. Folks have repeatedly changed categories, because nobody can say whether he was ever a citizen of Spain or Nigeria. But there's no question he is of nigerian ancestry by parentage. Make clear that these are not based upon citizenship.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:53, 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: rename. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sixteen Kingdoms rulers to Category:Sixteen Kingdoms monarchs

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parent Category:Chinese monarchs. All children are also about monarchs: "monarchs, princes, emperors, dukes." (Some of these subcats have been renamed after similar recent CfRs. As an aside, I've also already BOLDly renamed the Template:Sixteen Kingdoms rulers to Template:Sixteen Kingdoms monarchs, because all of them are in the monarchs category tree already). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:47, 8 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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dukes of Carniola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:NONDEF, the Duchy of Carniola was one of the many small possessions of the Austrian Habsburg rulers, it was not an independent country. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Many Dukes of Carniola were members of the Habsburg dynasty; I think that some were not members of that house. For those members of the Habsburg dynasty that were were Dukes of Carniola, not all were emperors; some were second or third sons. Since there is not a perfect overlap, it should remain. And yes it was defining - only a Duke of Carniola could govern the duchy; an Archduke of Austria, in virtue of his office of Archduke of Austria by itself, could not govern Carniola. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The duchy was created by the Habsburgs and only ruled by them. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I was thinking of Carinthia. But I still think that it's worth retaining. It did sometimes go to 2nd/3rd sons in the Leopold line. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for Now The category clearly overlaps with the current articles. If there were non-Habsburg rulers and articles appear for them, we can revisit. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Laurel Lodged's rationale. Dimadick (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This doesn't give us any significant information and is WP:NONDEF for all people thus categorised. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- All the people named seem to be rulers of Austria, which suggests to me a cat-redirect. WE should not have categories for every subsidiary title of a ruler. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — these honorary titles.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:57, 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: not renamed per the RM being closed as moved. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine to Category:China during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with main article: China during the Russo-Ukrainian War Amigao (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename article instead, "during" is very vague, it may include everything in China (since the war started) that is entirely unrelated to the war. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — we just renamed this category, over my objections that this is all the same war. Since these categories apply only to the most recent invasion, not the whole war, and the article is explicitly Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, then China during the Russo-Ukrainian War is misnamed.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Related RM I just opened a requested move for the main article right here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always most welcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer Per WP:C2D this category should match the outcome of the RM nomination, whether I agree with that outcome or not. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending RM.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The requested move of the article has had a lot of input and is still open right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:37, 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: merged/deleted. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Gran Colombia by millennium
• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Gran Colombia by century
• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Gran Colombia by decade
• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in Gran Colombia by year
• Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in Gran Colombia
• Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium disestablishments in Gran Colombia
• Propose deleting Category:19th-century disestablishments in Gran Colombia
• Propose merging Category:1820s disestablishments in Gran Colombia to Category:Disestablishments in Gran Colombia
• Propose merging Category:1830s disestablishments in Gran Colombia to Category:Disestablishments in Gran Colombia

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, redundant category layers, under all these categories there are only two categories populated with articles, which is not too surprising because Gran Colombia only existed from 1819 to 1831. The two bottom categories with articles are not part of this nomination, this is just about the intermediate layers. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a lot of category overhead that seems unlikely to aid navigation between articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:40, 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: merged/moved. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1933 wildfires to Category:1930s wildfires
• Propose merging Category:1949 wildfires to Category:1940s wildfires
• Propose merging Category:1974 wildfires to Category:1970s wildfires
• Propose merging Category:1975 wildfires to Category:1970s wildfires
• Propose merging Category:1980 wildfires to Category:1980s wildfires and move 1980 Ash Wednesday bushfires to Category:1980 fires

Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated 1- or 2-article categories. Merging to fires by year is not needed, all articles are already in that tree (save one case as mentioned). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:05, 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) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hanseatic families whose members were heads of state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, as head of state is not meant here in a hereditary sense it is not a defining characteristic of a family. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These are family articles, not ones on individual people. And most of those family members were never heads of state. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:23, 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) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sindhi-language dictionary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no need to merge because the article is already in appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:46, 8 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) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Royal houses of Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:British royal houses. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:40, 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) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:English-language Filipino films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:English-language Philippine films, since "Filipino" here presumably means produced in the Philippines rather than films that are also partly in the Filipino/Tagalog language Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:46, 8 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) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 01:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging: Category:California Democrats by region and its subcategories to Category: California Democrats:

• Propose merging: Category:California Central Coast Democrats to Category: California Democrats
• Propose merging: Category:Greater Los Angeles Democratic Party politicians‎ to Category: California Democrats
• Propose merging: Category:Sacramento Valley Democrats‎ to Category: California Democrats
• Propose merging: Category:Democratic Party San Francisco Bay Area politicians to Category: California Democrats
• Propose merging: Category:San Joaquin Valley Democrats‎ to Category: California Democrats
• Propose merging: Category:California Sierra Nevada Democrats‎ to Category: California Democrats
• Propose merging: Category:California Southern Border Region Democrats to Category: California Democrats

Nominator's rationale: In discussion with @Marcocapelle:, subcategories of Category:California Democrats should be by elected office, not by geographic breakdown.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificDepths (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, there isn't e.g. a California Southern Border Region Democratic Party so these are trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 8 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.