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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Queens of Rome to Category:Queens consort of Rome
• Propose renaming Category:Cultural depictions of Roman queens to Category:Cultural depictions of queens consort of Rome
• Propose renaming Category:Cultural depictions of Roman kings to Category:Cultural depictions of kings of Rome
• Propose upmerging Category:Female Roman monarchs to Category:Female Roman royals
• Propose upmerging Category:Cultural depictions of Roman monarchs to Category:Cultural depictions of Roman royalty
• Propose renaming Category:Roman empresses to Category:Roman empresses consort

Nominator's rationale (Queens of Rome): More WP:CATSPECIFIC. All were queens consort. Cultural depictions ditto. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale (Cultural depictions of Roman kings): WP:C2C parent Category:Kings of Rome. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale (Female Roman monarchs): None were "monarchs" i.e. queens or empresses regnant. Only grandchild Category:Byzantine empresses regnant counts (edit: I've removed Category:Roman empresses as a parent of Category:Byzantine empresses, and instead made them siblings), but the overall grouping "Female Roman monarchs" does not make sense and is misleading. Edit: Upmerging per Marcocapelle rather than deleting is a better idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale (Cultural depictions of Roman monarchs): Redundant layer in between which is incorrect for queens consort of Rome and Roman empresses consort. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale (Roman empresses): More WP:CATSPECIFIC. All were empresses consort. Cultural depictions ditto. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle per nom. But merge Category:Female Roman monarchs to Category:Female Roman royals. While I think this is a rather unusual category, it is still a valid target while it exists. On the other hand, just delete Category:Cultural depictions of Roman monarchs because all of its content is already in the tree of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, I've changed Deleting to Upmerging. The cultural depictions one will practically be a delete if upmerged, so I think I can leave that unchanged as nominated. Upmerging is also preferable for metadata reasons.

  Heh, I haven't really taken your advice of yesterday to write down complex nominations first before posting them here, have I? Oops... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle On a related note: could you help me with this? I'm considering splitting Category:3rd-century women rulers to...

  • Category:3rd-century queens regnant: Himiko, Lady Triệu, Toyo (queen), Zenobia (queen regnant of Egypt, 270–272)
  • Category:3rd-century empresses regnant: Empress Jingū (201–269), Victoria (Gallic Empire) (empress regnant of Gallic Empire), Zenobia (empress regnant of Palmyrene Empire, 272)
  • Category:3rd-century empresses consort Empress Jingū (192–200), Herennia Etruscilla (Roman empress consort), Jia Nanfeng (Chinese empress consort), Julia Soaemias (Roman empress consort, Augusta), Ulpia Severina (Roman empress consort, Augusta). We could further populate this category with Category:Three Kingdoms empresses and other cats and items.
  • ? Zenobia (queen consort of Egypt, 260–267; Queen mother (regent) of Palmyra, 267–272), Julia Maesa (Augusta), Julia Avita Mamaea (Augusta).

  There are numerous issues with this, including that there are no Category:Empresses regnant by century or Category:Empresses consort by century trees yet (but to be fair, we do not have Category:Queens regnant by century as a category yet either, only Category:Ancient queens regnant in which we have some "by century" children). There aren't even Category:Ancient empresses regnant or Category:Ancient empresses consort. All we've got is Category:Ancient empresses right now. If we split as I suggest above, we will soon run into SMALLCAT territory, with 4 queens regnant and 3 empresses regnant. I see roughly 3 solutions:

  1. Should we pragmatically categorise "Ancient empresses regnant" as Category:Ancient queens regnant for now? (We already consider empresses 'royals').
  2. Should we combine them as Category:3rd-century queens and empresses regnant (6 item in total)? This allows us to include them in both future Category:Empresses regnant by century and Category:Queens regnant by century trees, and already in Category:Ancient queens regnant for now.
  3. Should we combine them as Category:3rd-century women monarchs (6 item in total) per ancestor Category:Women monarchs?

  If you could think of other women to populate Category:3rd-century queens regnant and Category:3rd-century empresses regnant with, that would also be great.

  Then there are the Augustae (List of Augustae, Category:Augustae), a broad group of women who were somehow related to male Roman emperors, either as wives/consorts/spouses, mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters, or otherwise. Although many of them wielded considerable political influence, including the ability to enthrone their own sons, grandsons, brothers etc. I don't think we can formally describe them as "rulers", "monarchs", "empresses regnant", "co-rulers" or "co-regents" or anything like that.

  The List of Roman and Byzantine empresses is pretty clear that there were no ancient Roman empresses regnant, and only a handful ruled as empresses regnant, governing the empire in their own right without a husband; the latter were all Byzantine, starting with Irene of Athens in 780 (Byzantine Empress co-regent 780–797; Empress regnant 797–802). I do not think the Augustae should be in the empresses regnant tree, and not in the empresses consort tree either unless they were actually married to the male Roman emperor.

  Zenobia is the only 3rd-century woman regent and can't be given her own category, it would be a SMALLCAT.

  I only ran into all these Roman queens and kings because I was trying to solve this 3rd-century women rulers stuff. You could really help me if you gave me advice on how to do this. Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 1 is not accurate, option 2 is acceptable but ugly, so that makes option 3 the winner. I agree that Augustae should not be considered monarchs regnant. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle Thanks! (I always appreciate how concise you can answer a question. Sorry if I'm wordy at times. but I find it important to explain my thinking.) So just a Split into Category:3rd-century women monarchs and Category:3rd-century empresses consort then, purging the non-consort Augustae? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agree! Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: these suggestions do not look like improvements to me. I'll try to be concise in my explanations.

  Since all Roman queens and empresses were consorts, it makes no sense to change the titles of the categories to distinguish them from non-existent Roman queens and empresses regnant. Besides, the terminology of "queens consort" versus "queens regnant" is modern and sounds anachronistic applied to Romans. Even if it weren't, most lists of queens or empresses aren't divided based on which were consorts and which were regnant. I'm not saying the difference is meaningless; I'm saying that it's not how they're usually grouped, and if there's only one kind then applying an anachronistic label doesn't help anyone.

  "Kings of Rome" sounds slightly better than "Roman kings", but it makes the category titles wordier, and that makes a difference in Wikipedia. There's no difference in meaning, and consistency in phrasing is not of paramount concern. Simpler category titles are generally better; taking a five-word category and making it six words, including two consecutive two-word prepositional phrases using the same preposition ("of kings of Rome"), is not an improvement.

  "Female Roman monarchs" is dubious enough—none of them really "reigned", or possessed any authority except that derived from their husbands, so they really weren't "monarchs". But "royals" is, as Wiktionary clearly states, informal, and glaringly modern; you won't normally find Romans described as "royals", or even "royalty", a word we usually associate with medieval/modern kings and queens, not Romans. Let's try not to make categories for figures from Roman history sound anachronistic. All Roman monarchs were either kings or emperors; if we must use "monarchs" simply in order to include Roman queens or empresses in the same categories, at least let's not apply terminology that doesn't sound like it should apply to Romans at all. P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @P Aculeius: Thanks for your well-thought-out comment. I agree with a lot of what you say, but have some remarks and explanations.

I agree all ancient Roman empresses were consorts, but just to be clear to our fellow editors and readers that none of them were regnant, adding "consort" makes sense from the point of view of the entire category trees.

Given

1. that some Byzantine empresses were regnant,
2. that some people insist on calling all Byzantine emperors "Roman" (see Talk:List of Roman emperors#Splitting proposal), and
3. that Category:Roman empresses was a grandparent to Category:Byzantine empresses regnant before I came along and changed that,

I think it's evident that confusion may arise easily. Categories should be WP:CATSPECIFIC, that is why I think adding 'consort' is a good idea in many cases to avoid confusion.

One may argue that the terminology of "queens consort" versus "queens regnant" is modern and sounds anachronistic applied to Romans, and I don't disagree. But so are the very words queen and king themselves; they are modern English words which weren't used in Rome in the 8th to 6th century BCE either. (Funnily enough, the word wikt:consort is actually Latin in origin, but I digress). So unless we are considering renaming the whole tree to Category:Reges Romae (which I do not preclude; after all, we've got Category:Augustae, too), I suggest we follow modern English-language conventions.

That kings of Rome is slightly wordier than Roman kings is true, but the main article is King of Rome, so that article's talk page is the place to raise title length issues. (I don't preclude renaming that article either, e.g. for consistency with Roman Kingdom; but if consistency in phrasing is not of paramount concern for you personally, then ok). Otherwise, we should simply be implementing WP:C2D policy.

I've got similar concerns about the phrases "royal" and "royalty" (e.g. see my User:Nederlandse Leeuw/People from Kievan Rus' category tree#Rationale, where I wrote I have come to the conclusion that the terms "royalty" and "royal houses" are pretty useless for categorisation.) So I am quite open to alternatives you may suggest to that terminology. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the choice is between leaving these categories where they are, and moving them to the proposed titles—which by definition it is—then I say "leave them where they are". Wikipedia category policy does not require all categories of a kind to be consistent; factors other than consistency may be just as important or more important—such as, but not limited to accuracy, pointless distinction within monolithic categories, or anachronism. If the policy did say that we must have poor category names in order to ensure consistency, then it would be a bad policy; but it does not so state, so there is no reason to choose poor names just for the sake of consistency.

When you chain together prepositional phrases to make a title wordier, you aren't helping anyone. Just because the main article or category is "Kings of Rome" does not mean that every category concerning them needs to use the phrase "kings of Rome" and avoid "Roman kings". Giving precedence to consistency over natural wording or convenience is the definition of pedantic: we must do a silly thing over and over again because we did something similar in some other case for different reasons.

"Royal families" at least is not a trendy or slangy modernism, as "royals" is. Using "monarchs" when all or virtually all of the entries are going to be kings (or "kings and queens") is silly; the same would be true of emperors. The only justification for doing so would be if those terms would be incorrect for a significant number of entries in a particular list.

And I didn't object to the words "king" or "queen" being English. I objected to a modern concept of distinguishing between "queens regnant" and "queens consort" as one that is anachronistic when applied to Romans, who had no need of such a distinction—and the distinction is not particularly useful as a category in antiquity. Historians treating the rulers of a place over the course of centuries write of "kings and queens", not "kings and queens regnant", ignoring queens consort, nor do they treat all the queens consort separately from the queens regnant. This has nothing to do with what language the terminology comes from; it's about what period and context it's traditionally applied to, and when it's useful to apply it at all. Which in my opinion is not in this case. There may be better titles than the ones these categories have now, but the ones proposed are not them. P Aculeius (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with a lot of things you say we don't need to do. But Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles is a policy we should be following if there are no exceptional circumstances: Where other considerations are equal, titles should be consistent with other titles in the same field and other titles about the same type of topic. Similarly, WP:C2C says there normally should be Consistency with established category tree names. You may find that pedantic, but this is official policy. (Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.)

But exceptions are certainly possible: This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree.

I think it is quite evident that the trees Category:Queens consort, Category:Queens regnant, Category:Empresses consort, Category:Empresses regnant etc. are all well-established (created long before I even started editing English Wikipedia), well-defined (e.g. main articles queen regnant, queen consort, prince consort etc.), and overwhelmingly used within those trees. Compare how Category:Ancient Greek queens consort was already created on 10 May 2006‎, years before I even made my first edit. It has lots of subcategories and items. I don't see why we couldn't have Category:Queens consort of Rome and Category:Roman empresses consort for Ancient Romans if we didn't find it anachronistic for Ancient Greeks all this time for over 17 years.

It may well be that Romans had no need of such a distinction. But we are not Romans. We are Wikipedians, living in the 21st century trying to write things down in an English online encyclopaedia, for a 21st-century English-reading audience. I think I've already demonstrated that we have a need for this distinction because some people insist all Byzantine emperors and empresses were "Roman", and because there have been quite some Category:Byzantine empresses regnant such as Theodora Porphyrogenita, one can argue some "Roman" empresses were regnant. If you don't believe me, just read Talk:List of Roman emperors#Splitting proposal again. I'm not suggesting this for no good reason. I want the category trees not just to be consistent, but also clear and WP:CATSPECIFIC. If you tell me so-and-so was the queen of Fooland, I have no idea whether she was the reigning monarch who formally had all political power, or just the wife of the reigning monarch who had no formal political power at all. We Wikipedians should be clear with our readers what we mean by "queen". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Category:Sasanian queens has just been Renamed to Category:Sasanian queens consort. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Queens Consort": as noted above, the terminology used here is anachronistic, and solves no problems. In the same way that we don't add clarifying brackets like "Ringo Starr (drummer)" to article titles unless there's a reasonable chance of confusion, we shouldn't add unnecessary verbiage to category titles unless the same applies. After all, we could just as reasonably rename "Roman queens consort who lived before 1950", which would equally accurately describe all of them; however, given that there's practically no article that would fit in "Roman queens" but not "Roman queens consort", we should go with the former. Byzantine points well taken but it's pretty well established here that "Roman" doesn't cover the Byzantine empire, and I think any question of changing that is out of scope for this discussion. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:21, 13 August 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: only consensus for Serb.

• Manual reverse merge Category:Serb diaspora
• No consensus Category:Romani by country
• No consensus Category:Berbers by country
• No consensus Category:Cossacks by country (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Serb diaspora to Category:Serbs by country, but keeping the name "Serb diaspora" for the merged category
• Propose renaming Category:Romani by country to Category:Romani diaspora
• Propose side-merging Category:Berbers by country to Category:Berber diaspora
• Propose upmerging Category:Cossacks by country to Category:Cossack diaspora

Nominator's rationale: In short, renaming/merging all to Fooian diaspora for consistency. These 4 are the odd ones out in Category:Ethnic groups by country, where they don't really belong. Renaming/merging/rescoping them to focus around the Fooian diaspora articles/categories is the best solution.

• Serb rationale: WP:OVERLAP, Category:Serb diaspora <-> Category:Serbs by country are currently a category loop. Per WP:C2D main article Serb diaspora, Category:Serb diaspora should be the name of the merged category.
• Romani rationale: Per WP:C2D main article Romani diaspora. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Berber rationale: WP:OVERLAP, these sibling categories have got essentially the same scope and purpose. The top three subcategories in Category:Berber diaspora – Category:Berber diaspora in Europe‎, Category:Berber diaspora in North Africa‎, and Category:Berber diaspora in North America‎ – contain exactly the same subcategories as Category:Berbers by country. A (somewhat weak) WP:C2D argument can also be made per Berbers#Diaspora, which can serve as a kind of main article section with exactly this scope, which can be expanded. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Cossack rationale: WP:OVERLAP, they have essentially the same scope. E.g. Category:American Cossacks is a subcategory of both, Cossack Americans is an item in both etc. Plus: for consistency with the three above, and because it is also the odd one out in Category:Ethnic groups by country. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Serbian per nom (it is actually a reverse merge). It is telling that in the two categories are both each other's child and parent category. I am not sure about Romani yet, since they are lacking a "home country". Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I was thinking the same, but Romani diaspora is the main article, so WP:C2D applies. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, one might consider Romani people to be a main article as well. In fact the two articles may well be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought you had taught me that as nom I cannot propose "reverse merging". ;) The reason why I'm proposing/phrasing it as 'upmerging' but keeping the subcategory's name, has to do with Fayenatic's preference for upmerging rather than downmerging for metadata reasons. If there's a better way of saying that, I'd happily adopt it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fast learner :-) As nominator, you could have proposed merging Category:Serbs by country to Category:Serb diaspora though, for more clarity. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle Incidentally, I added "Berber" and "Cossack" after you voted. I've completed the nomination process now. It was a bit complicated because each of them required a different solution and rationale, but they should be bundled because what they have in common is being out of place in Category:Ethnic groups by country (ironic, given that "diaspora" people are in a sense also "out of place"). With these kinds of nominations I often make it up as I go along rather than write everything down before I post the nomination here, but sometimes I take about half an hour to set things up and link to all the proper things, so sometimes people already vote, in this case you. Next time I should probably write it down before posting here. ;) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • For next time it may be an idea to use your sandbox page first. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Berber and Cossack categories also include the "home countries" so the nomination as proposed is inaccurate. I am open to alternative solutions though. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Diaspora: The word "diaspora" is used today in reference to people who identify with a specific geographic location, but currently reside elsewhere. So they do not need to have a "home country" in the sense of a sovereign state that exists right now anno 2023, as long as they trace their origins to a shared geographic location.

  For Berbers, this geographic location is evidently North Africa per parent Category:North African diaspora.

  For Cossacks, this geographic location is evidently Eastern Europe per parents Category:Ethnic groups in Eastern Europe,

  Category:Society of the Russian Empire, main article Cossacks: ...originating in the Pontic–Caspian steppe of Ukraine and southern Russia. If they ever had a "home country", the Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporizhzhian Sich probably qualify as such.

  So I don't think the word "diaspora" is a problem. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: But maybe I didn't understand what you meant? We should exclude people living inside this geographic location? A preliminary look seems to suggest that the Cossack Hetmanate was almost completely located outside the Pontic–Caspian steppe where the Cossacks supposedly originated from. Which one should we consider their place of origin? Or are we going to exclude all of Ukraine and Russia just to be sure?

  For Berbers it is going to be even more complicated. Template:Berber diaspora links "Berber homeland" to Tamazgha, but that article states Tamazgha is a fictitious entity and toponym in Berber languages denoting the lands traditionally inhabited by Berbers coined in the 1970s by the Berber Academy in Paris.[3] (...) The term is used by the Berbers because there was not originally a common word that refers to all the geographical territory inhabited by the Mazices, since the Berber people live in several Berber countries, and they are not united politically, with many scattered around the World by the Berber diaspora. So, the name has been created to define an Berber nation, and unify the people of the Tamazgha with their original culture.^{[citation needed]}

  This text is interesting, but trying to have it both ways. Either Tamazgha is real, or it is not. Either the Berbers have a "traditional homeland", or they never had one and just made one up a few decades ago. The latter seems more likely. On the one hand, that may solve the issue of whether or not to exclude Berbers living in North Africa from the "diaspora". On the other, we are faced with an even bigger problem that if there is no actual real "homeland", does it even make sense to speak of a "diaspora"? It might not... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those are difficult questions, and the only objective way to get around it (as far as I can see) is to keep the "by country" structure as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. —theMainLogan (t•c) 03:45, 10 August 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Hebrew Bible nations to Category:Tribes in the Hebrew Bible
  • Propose removing parents Category:Ancient Levant, Category:Ancient peoples of the Near East, and Category:Hebrew Bible geography

Nominator's rationale: Indirect WP:C2D per main article List of minor biblical tribes (mostly tribes mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, but a few New Testament ones as well), indirect WP:C2C per Category:Phoenicians in the Hebrew Bible etc. The word "nation" is a modern concept and anachronistic for the ancient world. Moreover, it currently functions as a synonym for both "tribes/peoples" and "countries/states", and that's mixing up two different things. The latter (e.g. Category:Egypt in the Hebrew Bible) should be moved to Category:Hebrew Bible geography‎, which is about countries, states, regions and geology stuff, and should be removed as a parent.

So, too, for Category:Ancient Levant and Category:Ancient peoples of the Near East; we are talking about Category:Hebrew Bible content (parent), and not everything written in the Hebrew Bible is to be found in ancient history. Many people in the Hebrew Bible are better described as Category:Literary characters, who may or may not have been based on historical people who really lived on Earth in the past. (There is a Category:Literary duos, but unfortunately not something like Category:Literary tribes, otherwise that would have been a good parent category. I wouldn't go as far as Category:Articles about multiple fictional characters, because the Hebrew Bible is a literary mixture of fact and fiction; we can't pass all of it off as mere fiction, nor accept all of it as completely factual/historical. See, for example, the "Historicity" column at List of Hebrew Bible battles; it's a mixture). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nations" is certainly not the right term here. Perhaps tribes, perhaps ethnic groups, perhaps something else. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Or 'Peoples'. But the main article is List of minor biblical tribes, so per WP:C2D we should pick 'tribes'. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - I agree that "tribes" should be split to the proposed cat. But I'm not certain about all the members. For example:Assyria either needs to be purged in the rename/split, or another cat found for it. I agree that "nation" seems less-than-appropriate for these. Maybe "Ancient state"? I dunno. I did find Category:States and territories established in the 3rd millennium BC. Maybe split between "Tribes" as nominated, and Category:States and territories in the Hebrew Bible. - jc37 19:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Normally I would agree with splitting but in this case the category is meant to collect the neighbours of the Hebrew people regardless of whether we have articles about states or about tribes/peoples. A split seems a bit artificial. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, I support renaming to Category:States and territories in the Hebrew Bible, and purge as appropriate. And it also leaves the parent cats (mostly) in place as well. - jc37 20:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That name could work too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37 @Marcocapelle Guys, I already addressed that issue in the rationale: "countries/states" (...) (e.g. Category:Egypt in the Hebrew Bible) should be moved to Category:Hebrew Bible geography‎, which is about countries, states, regions and geology stuff. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that we should lean towards staying with the intent of the existing category when we can, and (if necessary) create something new (split) from it. So in this case, Rename to Category:States and territories in the Hebrew Bible, and split out (as appropriate) to Category:Hebrew Bible geography, Category:Tribes in the Hebrew Bible, etc. - jc37 19:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no need for states and territories. We can put them all in Category:Hebrew Bible geography, possibly diffuse them to Category:Hebrew Bible regions. But really, Category:Hebrew Bible geography is far from overpopulated, there's nothing wrong with putting all the non-tribe items there. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because I don't think that this will be the last one of these that we will see. For example, there's various articles in Category:Locations in Greek mythology. (And looking at the sub-subcats of Category:Locations in Indo-European mythology, there's a whole variety of naming going on). And then there's this: Category:Mythological populated places. Or how about this: Category:Quranic places. At some point, we will probably be addressing more of these. And while I agree that polity toponyms are a facet of geography in the broader sense (per Category:Four traditions of geography), the common understanding of geography tends to lean more towards physical geography. So i'd like to see if we can follow some current conventions, while also splitting the difference on this by creating a standard, in order to aid in cross-category navigation. Have "geography" as a parent for these kinds of things, and have "States and territories" as a sub-cat. Another way to say this, I guess, is that I'm trying to get ahead of the curve on this and try to future-proof things a bit, if we can. - jc37 23:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly appreciate that effort to make categories future-proof, which I intend as well. But I'm concerned that "states and territories" may become an WP:ARBITRARYCAT, as we are talking about a large collection of literature which is difficult to interpret, and has a mix of fact and fiction. Many toponyms in the Hebrew Bible have not yet been identified/located, if they ever will (a classic example of an unresolved toponym is whether Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai or Mount Horeb? Both? Neither?).

  Similarly, which toponyms should we identify as "states" and "territories" as opposed to toponyms which aren't? Is the Land of Nod a "state", a "territory", or something else (e.g. a village, a city, a desert, a mountain range, a forest, a river? I think the honest answer is: We don't know, and we can't know. (All we know is Cain suddenly "had sex with his wife" who came out of nowhere). And I'm worried we'll get endless debates about this, while I think "geography" will do just fine and not be contentious, and thus future-proof. WP:AINTBROKE. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I just went for an existing phrase. Another option is what's used at Category:Mythological populated places. This could be Category:Populated places in the Hebrew Bible. And that also has the benefit of it fitting in other trees, and also... more future-proof : )

  However, the contents of this category are not exactly all "places", there are "peoples" as well. Perhaps we should be looking at something more like: Category:Indigenous peoples of West Asia. So Category: Indigenous peoples in the Hebrew Bible, or maybe even just Category:Peoples in the Hebrew Bible. I think, in the end, that perhaps this cat should be split between populated places and peoples. - jc37 05:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already Category:Hebrew Bible places (and child Category:Torah places and Category:Hebrew Bible cities. Why add "populated" and create a new category when existing categories suffice? WP:AINTBROKE.

  Category:Peoples in the Hebrew Bible seems a fine Alt rename to my proposal Category:Tribes in the Hebrew Bible, but the latter takes precedence per WP:C2D. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a new attempt: Category:Non-Hebrew peoples and countries in the Hebrew Bible. While it does not match an existing format, this is the purpose of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Whyyyyy? This doesn't help at all. :p What do you even mean by "non-Hebrew"? Subcats already include Category:Hebrews, Category:Ancient Israel and Judah, Category:Jews; items include Samaritans. I would consider all of these Hebrews.

  I thought I had covered every issue in my rationale. Every non-tribe item can be moved elsewhere in the existing tree. There is no need to create or invent new categories or trees. It's a relatively simple Rename, Re-Parent and Purge. Maybe I made the rationale needlessly complicated and thus invited discussions that got us sidetracked? I don't know... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In your rationale you said "it currently functions as a synonym for both tribes/peoples and countries/states", and that is exactly what the new proposal covers. Category:Hebrews does not fit because it is circular categorization, Category:Jews does not fit because that category goes far beyond the Hebrew Bible and while we are at it we can just as well purge Category:Ancient Israel and Judah too. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Category:Ancient peoples in the Hebrew Bible (or Category:Peoples in the Hebrew Bible) and Category:Populated places in the Hebrew Bible. Based upon the various discussions above, I think these are the best targets. It avoids WP:OR for what type of people or populated place that may be being referred to, and avoids assigning "fiction" to religious legend/pre-history. We don't know that all the peoples were "tribes", nor that all the places were "states". And it's plural to match Category:Mythological peoples and Category:Ancient peoples. "People" (singular) categories are generally for individuals. I'm not suggesting that this be Category:Hebrew Bible peoples for clarity reasons, and I think the former probably should be renamed to Category:Peoples in mythology. There's also Category:Mythological populated places and Category:Fictional populated places, and if we start the "populated places in..." standard, we could clean up those variously named categories as well. - jc37 02:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In English Bible translations "Tribes" is used mainly of the tribes of Israel; "nations" refers to Israel's neighbours both large and small, sometimes including Israel. E.g. here is the Jewish Publication Society translation. I see no benefit for navigation in separating large neighbours into different categories from small.– Fayenatic London 07:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename alt 2 to Category:States and territories in the Hebrew Bible per @Jc37: original idea. Talk about splitting on another day. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A fair amount of articles is about tribes or peoples though. The category name should cover that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 8 August 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Asturian American to Category:Asturian Americans – main article Asturian Americans
• Propose renaming Category:Breton American to Category:Breton Americans – main article Breton Americans
• Propose renaming Category:Cornish American to Category:Cornish Americans – main article Cornish Americans
• Propose renaming Category:Irish American to Category:Irish Americans – main article Irish Americans
• Propose renaming Category:Manx American to Category:Manx Americans – main article Manx Americans
• Propose renaming Category:Scottish American to Category:Scottish Americans – main article Scottish Americans
• Propose renaming Category:Welsh American to Category:Welsh Americans – main article Welsh Americans

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B: plural per WP:SETCAT. WP:C2D per main article Fooian Americans. Opposed speedy request moving to full discussion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Would be confused with categories of people, such as Category:American people of Asturian descent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In the Asturian case, wouldn't merging Category:Asturian American and Category:American people of Asturian descent be a good idea? Main article Asturian Americans states Asturian Americans are citizens of the United States who are of Asturian ancestry. How is that different from Category:American people of Asturian descent? Having two separate categories for the same thing seems redundant. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - these are all topic categories, including material not about individual people (eg Category:Scottish-American history). Oculi (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This cfd renamed Category:African American to Category:African-American society. Oculi (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't history made by people? I don't see a contradiction between the subcategories and the Rename proposal.

    E.g. Category:History of the Aromanians is a child of Category:Aromanians.

    Category:History of the Slovenes is a child of Category:Ethnic Slovene people.

    You could even turn them around, as in Category:Toltec people‎ being a child of Category:Toltec history.

    I don't see why the ethnonym needs to be singular in the catname. In all similar cases they are plural. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Ethnic Slovene people says "This category is for ethnic Slovene individuals" so Category:History of the Slovenes should not be a subcat. Neither a child nor a parent in my opinion.Oculi (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. I don't see a category for ethnic Slovenes as a group though, so maybe it's just a bad example?

    Category:History of the Aromanians is a child of Category:Aromanians (group), as opposed to Category:Aromanian people (individuals). Would that be a good example? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is there something I am missing here about the purpose of these categories in general?

• Why is there no Category:British Pakistani or Category:Pakistani British, but there is British Pakistani, there is Category:Pakistani diaspora in the United Kingdom and there is Category:British people of Pakistani descent?
• Why is there a Category:Pakistani American, and there is Pakistani Americans, there is Category:Pakistani diaspora in the United States, and there is Category:American people of Pakistani descent?

What purpose does Category:Pakistani American serve that its parent Category:Pakistani diaspora in the United States could not serve? For one thing, both have got Category:American people of Pakistani descent as a child, while both Category:American people of Pakistani descent and Category:Pakistani American claim to have Pakistani Americans as their "main article". Seems to me that Category:Pakistani American is a redundant layer which its equivalent UK category tree does not need either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are Category:Pakistani-American history‎ (1 C, 8 P) and Category:Pakistani-American culture‎ (5 C, 5 P) subcategories of either Category:Pakistani diaspora in the United States or Category:American people of Pakistani descent? —DIYeditor (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are all siblings of each other. Why? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 8 August 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 consensus to delete Category:Germanic warriors. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Germanic people to Category:Early Germanic people
• Propose renaming Category:Germanic warriors to Category:Early Germanic warriors

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Category:Germanic women being Renamed to Category:Early Germanic women (11 July 2023).

Category:Early Germanic warriors would also be a better match with parent Category:Early Germanic warfare (WP:C2C) and main article Early Germanic warfare (WP:C2D). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per nom, and also per List of early Germanic peoples. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are no "Early" Germanic people, unless you believe that there are "Modern" Germanic people—an idea which is very much an abandonded thing of the past. Our main article about the ancient peoples is called "Germanic peoples", not "Early Germanic peoples". There is a firm scholarly consensus about this. Articles entitled "Early Germanic ..." are remnants of a push to keep 19th-century ideologies about contemporary "Germanic peoples" alive. We shouldn't fix the present imbalance of article titles in favor of the wrong choice (= "Early Germanic"). I suggest to flip all earlier changes from "Early Germanic" back to "Germanic". –Austronesier (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• While in theory that is a good idea, it is important to realize that we had, not so long ago, "Germanic" container categories with modern country subcategories. And we may still have a few. By adding "early" we can avoid that. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with @Austronesier that "modern" Germanic people(s) do not exist (and so does Marcocapelle, if I'm not mistaken), but I agree with @Marcocapelle that this is exactly a reason for renaming/deleting/merging certain categories. I've only mentioned 1 precedent (Category:Germanic women being renamed to Category:Early Germanic women) and Marco 1 other (the RM leading to List of early Germanic peoples), but this is just the latest in a much longer series of CfRs/CfDs/CfMs and RMs to address this issue. E.g. I got Category:Germanic culture by country, Category:Germanic empires and Category:Germanic ethnic groups deleted (which Marco alluded to), I got Category:Germanic rulers, Category:Germanic music, Category:Chilean people of Germanic descent etc. deleted, and last year Marcocapelle got all post-12th-century Germanic people by century categories deleted etc. Moreover, Germanic warfare was already moved to Early Germanic warfare in 2019, we had nothing to do with that.

  If we do not name it "Early Germanic", but just "Germanic", lots of people will be arguing that "Germanic people(s)" still exist today, and go around creating post-12th-century "Germanic" categories and putting modern items in it based on that mistaken assumption. (Compare how much effort I had to make in order to clean up North Germanic peoples, where previous and subsequent users repeatedly misinterpreted sources with WP:SYNTH to say they still exist today, quod non). Other editors and readers who are not informed about the topic may not see how inappropriate such categories are for years, decades even, after they are created.

  "Early Germanic" is a well-established remedy to avoid giving the impression that "Germanic people(s)" still exist today and can be categorised as such. The same principle has also been applied elsewhere to Celtic, Slavic, etc. categories. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ. Just because some editors cling to outdated 19/20th century macroethnic concepts does not mean that we should produce inaccuracies. "Early Germanic" is well established for early Germanic (let's say for things documented by Tacitus and Caesar), but not for everything Germanic. Among scholars who still consider "Germanic" a useful label beyond its linguistic use, any meaningful identification of tribes and kingdoms as "Germanic" ends with the Late Antiquity. How is Alaric "Early Germanic"? I'd prefer vetting Germanic-related categories for the addition of nonsense over mislabeling. And besides, misapplying the term "Early Germanic" as proposed will in fact encourage people in their erroneous belief that "Germanic people(s)" still exist today (as in "if Suebi and Goths are early Germanic, who is modern Germanic then? Luxembergers and Afrikaners!"). –Austronesier (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have place a notifcation in Talk:Germanic_peoples#Categories_for_discussion, since the category directly refers to the article in its definition (without conforming to the temporal range covered by the article by stretching it to the 12th(!) century). –Austronesier (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a valid point. I'll try to bring together some literature.

  • Dennis Howard Green, Language and History in the Early Germanic World (2000), has as its scope "ranging in date from before Caesar to about AD 900" according to the backcover.
  • Brian Murdoch and Malcolm Read, Early Germanic Literature and Culture (2004). The chronological scope of this work is not entirely clear, but a 2006 review by Annette Volfing suggests that "Early Germanic" includes Gothic language, Old High German, Old Low German/Old Saxon, Old Norse/Icelandic language, and Old English. All these languages transitioned to their "Middle" phase between the 11th and 14th century (depending on which language, and which linguists you ask).

  Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Austronesier On the other hand...

  • Marcocapelle created Germanic people by century categories up until the 8th century in June 2018.
  • Then Krakkos created the rest until the 21st century in July 2018 (we can tell from Krakkos's talk archive).
  • Marcocapelle thought that all categories after 11th century should be Renamed "Category:11th-century people speaking a Germanic language" etc., see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 12#Category:21st-century Germanic people. This resulted in a keep, but while that was going on, Krakkos (and perhaps Fastily) emptied the 13th- to 21st-century Germanic people categories out of process, while Krakkos argued 11th- and 12th-century Germanic people should be kept. Two editors said Krakkos shouldn't do that and should be warned for it, and Krakkos in fact admitted it: Categories for the later centuries have been emptied (by me) can be deleted per WP:C1. Krakkos (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2022, but wasn't warned for it. Krakkos received C1 Twinkle notification for each of those categories they created and then emptied out of process.
  • So the result that our current Category:Germanic people by century ends in the 12th century is the decision of one single editor emptying categories out of process and not being corrected for it. For the record, emptying categories out of process in order to enable their deletion is sanctionable as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, see my essay User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Emptying categories out of process.
  • This refutes my assumption that the 12th century was a limit for "Early Germanic" people that was established by CFD consensus. We will have to establish a new consensus on where to put the limit. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it's not logically tight but it's better to do it than to allow future naming wars. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As Austronesier said, there are no "modern Germanic peoples", so there is no reason to change the name.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Remark. In the case of Germanic warriors there are much bigger problems and I tend to think that it simply needs to be removed. The category is dominated by later groups such as Category:Medieval Austrian knights, Category:Teutonic Knights, Category:Medieval German knights, Category:Norman warriors, and most of the people in Category:Frankish warriors. But it has also long been used to cover almost any "Germanic" man, such as kings, statesmen, or administrators. The Norman and Frankish groups are particularly strange. It also includes Category:Heroes in Norse myths and legends. It might be argued that it can be patched up, but I don't see any way for this category to ever really become useful. Medieval knights are best handled differently of course, but ancient sources don't tend to define other people as "warriors", so how can the criteria of this category really ever be set in a useful way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support purging too. This is precisely what happens when not having "early" in the category title 😞 Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see this; if the criteria for this cat were being described in any RS as a "Germanic person" there would be very few members of these categories indeed. Other definitions and criteria lead to a slippery slope. I'd like to discuss this further before firmly agreeing that the category should be deleted. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: to be clear, I am not decided about whether simply adding "Early" will improve things in every case, although I accept that this can help in some cases. FWIW I also agree with Ermenrich and Austronesier about the "point of principle" involved, but I am not sure that principle is always sufficiently clear in practice, in every case. In short, I deliberately avoided "voting" on that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Germanic Warriors. That would be the best solution for that particular one. We do not need to try to find some way of saving all these IMHO. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrew Lancaster: plainly deleting Category:Germanic warriors does not make sense for the content that is appropriately in this category. The remaining content after purging should at least be merged to Category:Germanic people and Category:Warriors of Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really know which content is "appropriately" in this category? Can you give more than one example? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some subcategories belong here, e.g. Alemannic, Burgundian, Gothic, as well as most individual articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andrew Lancaster All subcategories and items before the 13th century (before the year 1200). That is what preceding discussions have confirmed. Category:12th-century Germanic people was allowed to stay, but Category:13th-century Germanic people and after have all been deleted. The term "Early Germanic" covers all "Germanic people" before 1200. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle and Nederlandse Leeuw: how do we decide when someone is a "warrior"? Do academics or primary sources use this term? Please name a Burdundian or Gothic "warrior". Please note that this is not a word which gives a very encyclopaedic or neutral impression. Would we call Roman, Greek or modern soldiers, politicians, and administrators "warriors"? Clearly not. The word is more suitable for fantasy fiction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrew Lancaster How about... Maiolus of Cluny and his entourage? (...) The mistake of the alpine Muslims was not so much the capture of Cluny's early head as it was his release upon payment of a ransom. Majolus was exchanged for gold. This would have been fine commerce were it not for the fact that the abbot was a powerful man, with influence among the Burgundian warrior class. Majolus consequently organized a successful attack on the Muslim stronghold at Freinet (...) Anthony Pym, Negotiating the Frontier: Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic History (2014), p. 33.

  How about... Simon MacDowall's 2015 description of a painting on the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains? Catalaunian Fields AD 451: Rome’s last great battle. Osprey Publishing. Page 20:

  Weakened by his wounds, the Burgundian King Gundicharius (1) is barely able to lift his sword to fend off a new attack by mounted Hun warriors. (...) Their highly decorated, loose over-tunics are typical of the Western Germanic warrior elite. (...) The dead Burgundian warrior (5) was unable to use his francisca, or throwing axe, before succumbing to the Hun arrows. His short sword, known as a seax or scramasax, lies on the ground beside him.

  So, Do academics or primary sources use this term? Yes. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry but I really can't follow your reasoning. You are citing WP to show what "academics" say? (We obviously don't just quote anything academics say, only their most serious work, and we select what is encyclopaedic.) Furthermore your examples make no sense. None is currently in the category we are talking about, and I hope they never will be. One is not a person, and the other is a cleric. Why would either ever be called an article about a "warrior"? You mention Hun warriors in a work of art, as if to prove my point. The term "warrior" is for artistic works. When it comes to a "warrior class" as far as I know this is another romantic term. More neutral terms would include "military class". Would we saying that Julius Caesar or Edward III were part of a warrior class, caste, or elite? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I am citing academic books, I'm not citing Wikipedia.

  No, Majolus wasn't a warrior himself; academic Anthony Pym described his entourage as the Burgundian warrior class.

  Yes, the examples I bring up are not in the category we are discussing. All I set out to do was demonstrate that academics use terms such as "warrior", "Germanic warrior", "Gothic warrior", "Burgundian warrior" etc. and so these are fit terms for encyclopaedic categorisation.

  More:

  • Dahm, Murray (2021). Late Roman Infantryman vs Gothic Warrior: AD 376–82. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-4728-4526-9. (already cited in article Biarchus).
  • Tetzner, Noah (2022). Viking Warrior vs Frankish Warrior: Francia 799–911. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 80. ISBN 9781472848833.

  Just like MacDowall's book, both are from Osprey Publishing, an imprint specialising in military history of Bloomsbury Publishing's (award-winning) "Academic & Professional division": https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/academic/history/military-and-naval-history/?Imprints=b127856f-4c7d-42dc-76e7-08d893083dfe&SortId=new&Page=1 Note the /academic/ part of the URL. I'm not making it up.

  And this is just the first two examples that came up when I searched for "Gothic warrior" in Google Books. They have the term "Gothic warrior"and variations such as "Viking warrior" and "Frankish warrior" in the titles of their books. Why the Romans are called "infantrymen" and the Goths "warriors" is a legitimate question, but the fact that academics do so shows this is not a neutrality issue, but a commonly accepted academic convention.

  You can try this yourself with Google Ngrams: "gothic warrior,gothic soldier,gothic warriors,gothic soldiers". Historically "Gothic warrior(s)" has almost always been the WP:COMMONNAME, and in recent decades the difference even seems to be increasing.

  If you don't like it, you can always nominate Category:Gothic warriors for renaming, but I think you are unlikely to convince the community for this reason. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are at least different problems with these warrior categories. One is the one you mention: in effect it is used to imply distinct "tribal" peoples who have no armies or governments, and is as you say non neutral, and misleading. A second one is being forgotten by you because of your use of irrelevant examples that have nothing to do with the category problem we really have. The collective term "Gothic warriors" is a lot more meaningful than the term "warrior" when it is being used to categorize an individual. The kinds of people being categorized this way are kings, statesmen, generals, and so on, not foot soldiers. Remember I asked you for some correct examples of real WP articles in these categories. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • When applied to individual people, the criterion is presumay whether they fought in war. That is also what the term "warrior" originally means. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 16 August 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:Ministers of Internal Affairs of Moldova. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Moldovan Ministers of the Interior to Category:Moldovan Ministers of Internal Affairs

Nominator's rationale: Per Ministry of Internal Affairs (Moldova). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why not Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs (Moldova)? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSISTENT with subcategories at Category:Government ministers of Moldova. That might be a better format for all those subcategories, but my nomination is focused strictly to the category proposed for renaming. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as an intermediate improvement. The whole tree may be revisited later. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs of Moldova to match other categories in Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs by country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs of Moldova is a better alternative as it matches a format that occurs in both of its parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Observation Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs by country has interior minister as main article. Vast majority of siblings are called Category:Interior ministers of Fooland. If anything, that category should be Rename Category:Interior ministers by country per WP:C2D / WP:C2C, and Category:Moldovan Ministers of the Interior Renamed Category:Interior ministers of Moldova. Currently, Bar ministers of Moldova cats are slightly fewer than Moldovan ministers of Bar, but given the parent's name is Category:Government ministers of Moldova and most siblings in Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs by country are named Category:Interior ministers of Fooland, my conclusion is:

Rename to Category:Interior ministers of Moldova per WP:C2C. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, category names should not get ahead of article names. If article names are not harmonized (sometimes interior, sometimes internal affairs, sometimes something else) then category names need not be harmonized. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but while nom invokes Ministry of Internal Affairs (Moldova), they rejected my (WP:C2D) suggestion Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs (Moldova) per WP:CONSISTENT with subcategories at Category:Government ministers of Moldova (which comes down to a WP:C2C argument). So unless I'm mistaken, nom does let 'category names get ahead of article names', and you agree with nom, so you're not applying the principle you're telling me to apply. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your initial alternative was not bad at all. We can/should change it that way but probably in conjunction with sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, so Rename to Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs (Moldova), and then follow that up with renaming the sibling cats if this closes as Rename to Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs (Moldova)? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, that is fine too. We will have to do this in two steps anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming to Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs of Moldova. WP:C2C is a nice guideline, but it assumes that the current state of a parent category was arrived at through something other than an editor or editors preference as opposed to driven by content. For instance, Category:Interior ministers of Albania is not consistent with the office in Albania, Ministry of Internal Affairs (Albania); looking at Flamur Noka that Ministry is referred to in the text as "Minister of the Interior" but links to Ministry of Interior Affairs (Albania), a redirect to the current title (Internal Affairs). What I see is potentially an effort to homogenize the treatment of the agency toward "Ministry of the Interior" when that is certainly not the native name in a number of countries. My preference would be to be consistent with the relevant government's terminology. Further, '... (Moldova)' and 'Moldovan ...' are at odds with the format of most (not all) other such categories, only a couple of which use the country name parenthetically (referring to Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs by country, instances being Liberia and Pakistan), this being an alternate take on WP:C2C. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 17 August 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: Renaming according to Option 1 User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1:

• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of Azerbaijan to Category:Treasure troves in Azerbaijan
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of Belarus to Category:Treasure troves in Belarus
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of Belgium to Category:Treasure troves in Belgium
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of China to Category:Treasure troves in China
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of France to Category:Treasure troves in France
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of Germany to Category:Treasure troves in Germany
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of India to Category:Treasure troves in India
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of Italy to Category:Treasure troves in Italy
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of South Korea to Category:Treasure troves in South Korea
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of Poland to Category:Treasure troves in Poland
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of Spain to Category:Treasure troves in Spain
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of Turkey to Category:Treasure troves in Turkey
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of the United States to Category:Treasure troves in the United States
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves of Vietnam to Category:Treasure troves in Vietnam

Option 2:

• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves in Bulgaria to Category:Treasure troves of Bulgaria
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves in Denmark to Category:Treasure troves of Denmark
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves in Hungary to Category:Treasure troves of Hungary
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves in Ireland to Category:Treasure troves of Ireland
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves in Jersey to Category:Treasure troves of Jersey
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves in Romania to Category:Treasure troves of Romania
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves in Russia to Category:Treasure troves of Russia
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves in Slovakia to Category:Treasure troves of Slovakia
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves in Ukraine to Category:Treasure troves of Ukraine
• Propose renaming Category:Treasure troves in the United Kingdom to Category:Treasure troves of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Recommended by Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 23#Category:Hoards in the United States, who noted that the subcategory names in Category:Treasure troves by country are inconsistent. They should all use in or they should all use of. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 We are interested in location ("in country X"), not ownership ("of country X"), because most of these countries didn't even exist at the time these treasure troves were buried, so they had no ownership. The treasure troves were just found in country X. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have just tagged all of these and notified the creators.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option 1, per User:Nederlandse Leeuw's rationale. -- GreenC 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Option 1 Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:27, 10 August 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:The House of Black members to Category:House of Black members

Nominator's rationale: C2D: Consistency with main article's name. McPhail (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 8 August 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Species named after Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. A related category will be deleted after this preceding CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think this quite fits WP:SHAREDNAME, which is for unrelated subjects that incidentally share a name (like people with the surname Jackson for example). In this case, all the subjects are related because they're biological subjects named after a specific person. They aren't all named "Obama" incidentally and unrelatedly, they're connected to one particular person named Obama. Furthermore, the connection to Barack Obama is a defining feature as much of the coverage surrounding these species relates to their names. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Question, if it is kept will categories then be created for species named after John Diederich Haseman, Carl H. Eigenmann, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. (which, at this time, are probably more numerous)? Gooseneck41 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the articles in the category are completely unrelated to each other (apart from the fact that they share Barack Obama's name). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. Looks like they have all been listified already at List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present) anyway, so no need to listify. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:37, 8 August 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Blackburn Rovers L.F.C. players to Category:Blackburn Rovers W.F.C

Nominator's rationale: To match the article title at Blackburn Rovers W.F.C. which was moved on 4 July. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iggy the Swan: Should it be:

• Category:Blackburn Rovers L.F.C. to Category:Blackburn Rovers W.F.C.
• Category:Blackburn Rovers L.F.C. players to Category:Blackburn Rovers W.F.C. players Joeykai (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes @Joeykai, I failed to check the Blackburn Rovers L.F.C. category also exists. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move all they all look to meet WP:C2D, consistency with main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move all per C2D, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 18:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there was a missing dot after the C in both the redlink targets, which I have now amended. Hope that's the right way to go about it. Crowsus (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category tags updated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 8 August 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Species by name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. See earlier consensus. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 8 August 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:Featured articles needing translation from Alemannic Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Featured articles needing translation from Swiss German Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as "Swiss German Wikipedia" so there are no featured articles, and there is nothing to translate. Swiss German is not a written language. Not sure what to do with the handful of articles in that category now. Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Category:Featured articles needing translation from Alemannic Wikipedia, which seems to be the actual intention as the template in question links to that wiki. (Independently of this, the entire tree could be speedy renamed to add a "the" to the name for grammar) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that rename would make sense. I wouldn't be too hasty about the the issue, though:

  • 17,293 "from French Wikipedia" <==> 671 "from the French Wikipedia"
  • 16,655 "from German Wikipedia" <==> 898 "from the German Wikipedia"
  • 8,174 "from Spanish Wikipedia" <==> 351 "from the Spanish Wikipedia"

  I think what you might be noticing, is the need to be definite when there's more than one item in the class, as is the case with a few language-Wikipedia pairs where at least one of the languages has a modifier, like Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia (arz:, #10) and Arabic Wikipedia (ar:, #17); do you find yourself needing the definite article more for the former? I do. That might be the case for "Swiss German Wikipedia", if we had one, too. Other paired examples are minor, like Haitian Creole Wikipedia (ht:, #89) vs. Guianan Creole Wikipedia (gcr:, #289), where I seem to want to use the with both of them, implying an answer to the unstated question, "Which Creole Wikipedia?"Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]