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:Countries and territories by official language. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Countries and territories by language to Category:Countries and territories by official language

Nominator's rationale: WP:V, CfR 2021-02-10, WP:C2B, WP:C2D. As I wrote at Category talk:Countries and territories by language, it's currently unclear when a language "counts": does it need to be [1] the or an official language, [2] the dominant language, or [3] spoken by a signifcant minority (and how significant should that minority be, and can we agree on a percentage without WP:OR?)?

• WP:V Verifiability: I think [1] "the or an official language" is the only reasonable criterion, because it makes verification relatively easy, and it avoids endless debates about demographics and statistics, and which sources are reliable or not, and having to change this all the time, especially if we would accept criterion #3. (What counts as a significant minority will almost inevitably constitute a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT).
• CfR 2021-02-10 Previously widely proposed alternative: This was already widely proposed as an alternative in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Category:Administrative territorial entities by language, where it was recommended to do a future nomination on just such an addition of the word "official" to the category name. Well, let's do it now because I have also just nominated Category:Countries by language family for deletion (see below; that cat is pretty hopeless and has been deleted before as WP:NONDEFINING).
• WP:C2B Established practice: Many subcats already explicitly say that the official status of language X in a country or territory is what defines the category, e.g.:
  • Category:Chechen-speaking countries and territories: Countries and territories where Chechen is the official or national language.
  • Category:Greek-speaking countries and territories: This category lists countries and territories where Greek is used as an official language.
  • Category:Hindi-speaking countries and territories: List of countries and territories where Hindi (हिन्दी) is an official language.
  • Category:Hindustani-speaking countries and territories: This category includes countries and territories where a variety of Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu) is official.
  • Category:Serbo-Croatian-speaking countries and territories: This category includes countries where a variety of Serbo-Croatian is official.
  • Category:Somali-speaking countries and territories: Countries and territories where Somali is the official or national language.
  • Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories: Countries and territories where Tamil language is official.
  • Category:Urdu-speaking countries and territories: List of countries and territories where Urdu (اُردوُ) is an official language.
    • (since 06-04-23) grandchild Category:Municipalities in Slovakia where Hungarian is an official language (renamed per CfR 06-04-23)

The other subcats do not provide a definition, or say that the language just needs to be 'spoken' (Category:Azerbaijani-speaking countries and territories), or 'predominant' (Category:Spanish-speaking countries and territories), or a rather vague non-exclusion clause (Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories: To be included does not require that the country/territory be exclusively Russian speaking. so I guess 1 speaker might arguably be enough?). Or cases such as Category:English-speaking countries and territories, it mixes various criteria up: This category lists countries and territories where English is used as either a first or native language or an official language. Taken literally, every country or territory where at least 1 native English speaker "uses English" counts. They don't even have to live there, it doesn't say how frequently or in which capacity they use it (e.g. at work, while they're stuck in traffic, speaking to their pet or anywhere else) etc. as long as 1 native English speaker ever uses English in country X or territory Y, it counts. Which is obviously absolutely ridiculous. We need more specific, reasonable criteria, because "where English is used" is just WP:ARBITRARYCAT.

• WP:C2D Main articles, i.e. Lists of countries and territories where X is an official language: These main articles of the subcategories are already commonplace. They suggest that the category is defined by the official status of the language in the country or territory in question, and that any country or territory that doesn't qualify for that status does not belong in the category. E.g.
  • List of countries and territories where English is an official language, which neatly fits in the category Category:English as an official language, and is much better than its current mixed description.
  • List of countries and territories where Afrikaans or Dutch are official languages
  • List of countries and territories where German is an official language
  • List of countries and territories where French is an official language
  • List of countries and territories where Portuguese is an official language
  • List of countries and territories where Russian is an official language (a much better definition than its category currently has)
  • List of countries and territories where Spanish is an official language (a much better definition than its category currently has)
  • List of countries and territories where Tamil is an official language

Et cetera.

• Renaming of subcategories: I think the subcats will have to be renamed to include the word "official" as well (to comply with WP:C2C). E.g. Category:English-speaking countries and territories becomes Category:Countries and territories with English as an official language or Category:Countries and territories where English is an official language (whichever wording we prefer), which is in the Category:English as an official language, and has as its main article the aforementioned List of countries and territories where English is an official language. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, this would imply that the whole of Belgium should be put in a German-language category, rather than the German-speaking Community of Belgium. I wonder if that is helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should. German is an official language in the entire country, but in which cases this matters depends on context. As an example, if you live in Antwerp, the municipal authorities are required to only communicate with you in Dutch. But if you are a Netherlands-based company and want to sell certain products in Belgium, you are legally required to provide user manuals in all three official languages of the country, regardless of where exactly in the country (say, Antwerp) you intend to sell your products. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — English is not a de jure official language in Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, or United States. But English is the de facto language for computer programming and anywhere connected to the Internet. So these categories make less and less sense. Better to delete them all, as there seem to be adequate annotated lists. Nobody is navigating categories based on these languages.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Lists of countries by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was deleted, most recently in 2021.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So what? Those 4 aren't the only countries in the world; List of countries and territories where English is an official language indicates there are 54 sovereign states where English is an official language, including India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Canada, South Africa, Ireland etc.; that's significant. Second, we are not talking about computer programming and the Internet. Third, the deletion of Category:Lists of countries by language was per WP:G5, was not about official languages, and has nothing to do with this CfR. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion, e.g. German-speaking is a very defining characteristic of German-speaking Community of Belgium and that is not going to change in the foreseeable future. Oppose nomination for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: I don't understand why you are saying this. This nom is about renaming, not deletion. Moreover, the German-speaking Community of Belgium has German as an official language, so I don't see the problem. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nederlandse Leeuw: the rest of Belgium also has German as official language. So the point of German-speaking Community of Belgium is not that it is officially German-speaking, the point is that lots of people there actually speak German. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but as I explained, German is even "more official" in the German-speaking Community of Belgium because the government needs to communicate in German with its citizens. It can therefore certainly be categorised separately from Belgium as a whole (and Flanders, French Community of Belgium, and Brussels cannot be categorised as such). Its main article List of countries and territories where German is an official language mentions both Belgium as a country and the German-speaking Community of Belgium within it.

    The fact that lots of people in country/territory X speak language Y is too vague for both definitional, statistical/WP:V and maintenance reasons. E.g. one can argue endlessly about whether Luxembourg should be in category:German-speaking countries and territories, when the vast majority of the population speaks Luxembourgish, which they consider a separate language. As List of countries and territories where German is an official language indicates, only 11,000 (2%) people in Luxembourg have German as their native language; so the only reason it should be in this category is because German is also an official language of the country. Opole Voivodeship certainly doesn't have a majority of German speakers either, only 15%; but what is significant is that a large number of communes there are officially bilingual (Bilingual communes in Poland#Polish/German). And so on. Therefore, I reject [2] "majority language" and [3] "significant minority language" as bad options for "counting" a language per country/territory, and have posited [1] "official language" as the most reasonable option that doesn't result in WP:OR/WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So far, nobody has said whether renaming is a better idea than not changing anything. There were only 2 comments about deletion (which this nom is not about). Should I bring in people who participated in the CfR 2021-02-10, where an agreement was reached to do exactly this kind of nomination at some point in the future?

In the meantime, related discussions are ongoing in two other places:

• • At the the Category:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia CfR, where nom User:Skovl proposed Category:Municipalities of Croatia where Hungarian language is co-official (with agreement from User:MirkoS18, who however preferred "municipalities and villages/settlements") and I have proposed Category:Territorial units in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language. As User:Joy said about the proposal: Agree with changing away from this, because it just reads badly – the territorial units don't speak a language, the people in it do.
  • At Category talk:Hungarian communities in Slovakia#Scope, User:Vipz, User:MirkoS18 and I agreed about many issues with the current categorisation scheme, the current name, and the need to adopt objective criteria. We agreed on the criterion of the Act on the Use of Languages of National Minorities (Minority Language Act) of Slovakia, namely, the threshold of having at least 15% speakers of a minority language in a municipality according to 2 consecutive censuses, which makes the minority language co-official at municipal level. I have proposed Category:Municipalities in Slovakia where Hungarian is an official language; they haven't yet responded to it, but Mirko already indicated he was willing to go with what I was going to propose. Vipz compared the situation with Serbian language in Croatia#The co-official use at local government level, which one could rephrase as something like "Local governments in Croatia where Serbian is in co-official use", which is similar to what Skovl and I have proposed. Finally, there is Minority languages of Croatia#Municipalities with minority languages in official use, which one could rephrase as something like "Municipalities in Croatia where minority languages are in official use". All these phrases are very similar to the well-established convention (WP:C2B of List of countries and territories where X is an official language, which are usually the main articles (WP:C2D) of the categories in question. I think the case for renaming is pretty strong. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming per nom, but oppose deletion. --Skovl (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Update (nom) Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_27#Category:Hungarian_communities_in_Slovakia closed yesterday as rename to Category:Municipalities in Slovakia where Hungarian is an official language. This bolsters the case for rename per WP:C2B Established practice, which has yesterday been confirmed. (It's not yet enough for a WP:C2C argument, but its grandchild now has "official language" as a defining element in its name, which I think is significant). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support change. "...by language" is vague, not sure what it means. Official runs into already mentioned pedantry around the English speaking common law jurisdictions, but it is easier to argue about that specific point under the official banner than have to figure out the meaning of the category for each entry. (There may be other ideas that provide some definition to the category, which would also help if official is insufficient.) CMD (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 00:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Rulers of Toungoo to Category:Monarchs of Toungoo dynasty

Nominator's rationale: merge, two categories with the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Isn't "Monarchs of the Toungoo dynasty" more grammatically correct? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Monarchs of Toungoo.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Merge. The rulers of Toungoo and monarchs of the Toungoo dynasty were not the same. The rulers of Toungoo were governors, viceroys and at times self-proclaimed kings of Toungoo--a small rebellion-prone vassal state from the 13th to 17th centuries. The monarchs of the Toungoo dynasty were kings of Burma (and at times beyond). On a separate note, yes, monarchs of the Toungoo dynasty would be more accurate. Hybernator (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hybernator makes some good points. The Toungoo dynasty (1510–1752; first part known as the First Toungoo Empire, 1510–1599; second part known as the History of Myanmar#Restored Taungoo Kingdom (Nyaungyan Restoration) (1599–1752)) really is something distinct from what some literature is calling the "Principality of Toungoo (on the river Sittang)", although nobody seems to agree when it was founded. '1280', 'end of the 13th century', '1347', 'mid-14th century', are some dates mentioned. But that there was a "Principality of Toungoo" at this time seems well-established. The obvious question then is, was it run by a "prince"? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The List of rulers of Toungoo states: The region was ruled by hereditary viceroys as well as appointed governors, depending on the power of the high king at Pinya, and later Inwa (Ava). I'm not sure what the titles of these offices were in Burmese, but these seem to be compatible with the notion that it was a 'principality', and that these princes were normally hereditary, unless the high king decided to remove them from office and appoint someone else. To claim all appointed people were 'governors' suggests they couldn't have their relative succeed them upon death, but that seems like a claim which needs evidence and cannot be assumed. I notice that the "Relationship to predecessor(s)" column often indicates that a son or other relative of an appointed person succeeded them, which strongly indicates that appointees were frequently hereditary princes as well. Just because someone like Pantaung of Toungoo was not succeeded by a relative, but removed from office by the overlord king Minkhaung I after about a year, is not strong evidence that his appointment was always intended to be on a temporary, non-hereditary basis. That's just easy to say in hindsight: He appeared to have been an interim governor as his overlord King Minkhaung I of Ava replaced him with Thinkhaya III about a year later.[1] An alternative is that Minkhaung did intend to grant Toungoo as a royal appanage to Pantaung Min, but was disappointed in him after only a year, changed his mind and had him replaced. That simply means Pantaung Min never got the chance to establish a princely dynasty; it doesn't mean he therefore was just a "governor", let alone necessarily an "interim" one. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But before we can conclude that "princes" is a better name for this supposed "Principality of Toungoo" (and thus that a rename to Category:Princes of Toungoo is better than merging), and that all appointees were actually or intended to be hereditary governors/viceroys, we should do some more research into the exact Burmese terminology, and make sure our English vocabulary matches it. Based on some Google Translations of Burmese Wikipedia and Wiktionary, this is what I got:

  • en:wikt:မင်း mang = [1] "monarch, king, ruler of a state" [2] "royalty and aristocracy" [3] "high government official"
  • en:wikt:မင်းသား mang:sa = "prince", lit. "king-son"
  • en:wikt:ဘုရင် bhu.rang = "monarch, king"
  • en:wikt:ဘုရင်ခံ bhu.ranghkam (en:wikt:ခံ hkam can mean many things such as "accept/receive/bear/endure/suffer/tolerate/resist/enjoy", so I suppose it literally means "king-bearer") "[1] governor, viceroy [2] ruler of a country or state on behalf of the king." I find this very suspicious; it indicates that the same Burmese word is translated in two different ways in English, even though the first ("governor") has a strong non-hereditary connotation and the latter ("viceroy") has a strong hereditary connotation. I suppose [2] comes closest to the literal meaning: someone who bears the authority of and responsibility to the king.

  Meanwhile, the template my:တမ်းပလိတ်:တောင်ငူခေတ် has a top row with ဘုရင်များ bhu.rang-mya "monarchs/kings", a row under that with မင်းများ (ဘုရင်ခံများ) mang-mya (bhu.ranghkam-mya) "monarchs/kings/royalty/aristocrats/high government officials" (governors/viceroys)". Note that en:wikt:-များ -mya: is a suffix that makes nouns plural.

  There is no "prince" in this template about the Toungoo Dynasty (even though we are interested in the pre-1510 period, this is the closest I could find). The word you would use for "prince", mang:sa, isn't part of any of this. In fact, I'm not even sure Burmese has a word for "principality". Google Translate, DeepL and Wiktionary have no idea. The only word I could find was in my:လစ်တန်စတိန်းနိုင်ငံ, where "Principality of Liechtenstein" is translated as ပရင်စီပယ်လ်တီ အော့ဖ် လက်ချင်စတိန်း Prainhcepaallteaaw aothp Laathkyinhctein, which is either a literal home-made transliteration from English, or means that Prainhcepaallteaaw is an English loanword that has entered Burmese very recently. Given that ပရင်စီပယ်လ်တီ leads to only 3 hits on Google, 2 of which are Burmese Wikipedia and a copy of it, I think the former. So, I think "Principality of Toungoo" is a very questionable English/Western description for the Toungoo state prior to 1510.

  Unfortunately this raises more questions than it answers. I was hoping to solve the mystery, but it all got worse! Hahaha I guess that's how Wikipedia works. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — modified my !vote — note that List of rulers of Toungoo is in Category:Lists of Burmese monarchs, not either of these under discussion. So I'm comfortable with "monarchs".
  1. Much of this appears to be translation as to equivalency of an empire or a kingdom or a principality.
  2. Western nomenclature is full of self-declared Dukes and Archdukes and Kings and High Kings and Emperors; they are all monarchs and sundry nobility.
  3. A dynasty implies a line of heredity. Hereditary viceroys are monarchical vassals that are subserviant to another monarch. An appointed or hereditary governor isn't usually a ruler per se, s/he is an arm of the monarch. But there's no certainty of the translation.
  4. No need for finely grained wording. Sub-categories of these would all be small and short lived.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) After the above discussion I agree that merging both to Category:Monarchs of Toungoo is the best solution. (Alternatively, Category:Rulers of Toungoo might be renamed to Category:Monarchs of Toungoo and the subcategory might be kept.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my vote to Merge both to Category:Monarchs of Toungoo per William. The monarchs of the Toungoo dynasty (from 1485/1510 onwards) are a subset of the monarchs of Toungoo (including pre-1485 ones, whatever their titles and positions versus any foreign overlords/high kings) in general. It seems impossible to translate the Burmese terms exactly, but "monarchs" seems to be correct in all cases. There is no clear evidence that any of the appointees were (intended as) non-hereditary "governors", but there is evidence that some appointees were succeeded by family members, and thus hereditary in practice. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Nederlandse Leeuw, amazing research! The term en:wikt:မင်း (min) literally means lord, and it was used to as an honorific to denote several positions: kings, viceroys, governors, etc. The status of Toungoo was quite fluid to the early 17th century. It was at times ruled by hereditary rulers (min) some of whom paid (nominal) tribute to their supposed overlords, at times by mere governors (myosa), and at times by self-proclaimed "kings". Not all of them were hereditary rulers. That's why I used the term "rulers" as opposed to any other. IMO, changing the category to monarchs is too restrictive, and leaves out mere appointed governors on the list. I continue to vote for Don't Merge.
• Note: we are using the "List of rulers of X" format for several notable (vassal) states: like List of rulers of Prome, List of rulers of Martaban, etc. Again for the same reasons. Not every ruler was a monarch or a duke. Many never even proclaimed as such. Hybernator (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hybernator: you're welcome! I should thank you in return for having written much of the text of the articles in question. As a native Burmese speaker, you've got a lot better access to the sources and literature than we do. I'm really struggling to understand Burmese script, vocabulary and grammar because it is all new to me (although the historical amd cultural context is somewhat familiar to me, because Bayinnaung is the protagonist in the Burmese campaign of Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition).

  The reason why Marcocapelle, William Allen Simpson and I are insisting on a different term than "ruler" has to do with a long process that we are currently engaged in, namely the Category:Rulers CfR. There is broad agreement that in most cases the word "ruler" is just too vague to describe what someone's position really is/was, because it can mean anything from a hereditary Roman or Chinese emperor in an absolute monarchy to a non-hereditary elected or appointed head of state, head of government of president of a parliament in a constitutional republic. We are currently going through all subcategories that have the word "rulers" in it, looking for a better way to name it, and usually the best alternative is "monarchs". I've tried very hard to take your objections seriously and see whether "princes" or "viceroys" or "governors" might be a better idea. But in the end, I don't see clear evidence that any of the appointees to reign over Toungoo was a "governor" that was explicitly intended to serve for a limited term (let alone for a fixed period of years, like in modern U.S. states for example) and not allowed to be succeeded by a relative. Your list indicates clearly that some appointees were succeeded by their sons, brothers, son-in-law or nephew. If the overlords / high kings of Pinya, Pegu or Ava really wanted to prevent their vassals in Toungoo from establishing a local dynasty, they wouldn't have allowed power to be transferred in that hereditary manner (or they were apparently practically unable to prevent it). None of the Burmese terms used appear to indicate that the appointees were somehow legally or constitutionally or customarily prohibited from reigning for life and having a relative succeed them (in other words, founding their own dynasty) once appointed to reign over Toungoo as vassals. And as I tried to illustrate, the fact that appointee A was succeeded by appointee B doesn't necessarily mean appointee A was always intended to be a non-hereditary governor; that is essentially WP:SYNTH. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that "monarchs" is the best term to describe all these people reigning over Toungoo. Cheers, and thanks again for all the texts you've written, they are really interesting. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The question of what we need to do with the other lists and categories of rulers is probably best for new, separate nominations. Moreover, as you explicitly wrote yourself in List of rulers of Prome: Unlike in other locations, the high kings at Ava by and large did not allow hereditary viceroyship at Prome. A new governor, usually a senior prince close to the royal family, was appointed. This implies that in "other locations", like Toungoo, they did "allow hereditary viceroyship". This is yet more evidence that "monarchs" is a more appropriate word for the "rulers" of Toungoo. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: Lieberman 2014 p. 34 states: the bayins of Toungoo (and possibly other centers) maintained the right of hereditary succession. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge per Hybernator. If rulers must absolutely be avoided, it would be better to fall back on the Burmese term unless there's another English term that is shown to be consistently used by reliable sources. Deciding to call them monarchs based on our own definitions would be original research. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, in that regard it's useful reading this page from Lieberman 2014, p. 33. It says lots of things, like Toungoo was a monarchy, and that there is a great deal of uncertainty about which titles were used by contemporaries, how we should translate them, and which ones are the "standard terms". Tellingly, Lieberman names two words – bayin (en:wikt:ဘုရင် bhu.rang) and bayin-khan (en:wikt:ဘုရင်ခံ bhu.ranghkam) – as "the standard term in the UK", even though that means there are actually two "standards" in one country alone, and other countries have other standards. He isn't even saying they are the "standard term(s) in English", so we can't use them as such either). Even though bayin (Lieberman: "chief" or "sovereign") and bayin-khan (Lieberman: "viceroy") are "the standard term(s) in the UK" according to Lieberman, It is unclear whether this term was invariably used by contemporaries, because it is found in one single copy from a later time. Only nei-mìn, "solar king", is used, but it's unclear if it's a "title". So the Burmese term doesn't exist, there are lots of different ones, and there is no English term that is shown to be consistently used by reliable sources.

  Secondly, I've also recovered pretty good evidence by now that there is no standard transcription of Burmese script. For example, en:wikt:ဘုရင် is transcribed by 4 different romanisations on Wiktionary as MLCTS: bhu.rang • ALA-LC: bhuraṅʻ • BGN/PCGN: băyin • Okell: băyiñ, by IPA variously as /bəjɪ̀ɴ/ or /ba̰jɪ̀ɴ/, by Google Translate as bhurain, by Lieberman as bayin, and by RTGS as bureng. (I guess this is similar to Rangoon versus Yangon?). Even if we went with this/these "standard term(s?) in the UK", we have no consistent way of transcribing it. With this word alone, all transcriptions can only agree that it should have a 'b' and at some point somewhere also an 'n'. Wikipedia can't build on such vagueness and inconsistency.

  In conclusion, the reason why "monarchs" is most appropriate is that is the best general term for a hereditary sovereign who (in principle) reigns for life, and is part of a dynasty or can found one. This isn't WP:OR, it's WP:C2B and WP:C2C, and has some backing in literature such as Lieberman. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Nederlandse Leeuw, not all pre-1510 rulers of Toungoo were monarchs or had hereditary rights. Some like Min Nemi, Letya Zeya Thingyan, Pantaung were governors that served at the pleasure of the king. Others like Thawun Nge, Sithu Kyawhtin, and Mingyi Nyo were rulers with hereditary rights. In theory, they still served at the pleasure of the king (assuming that the king was powerful enough.) And of course a number of Toungoo rulers proclaimed outright independence, with varying levels of success. Anyway, I'm not sure we can neatly place the Burmese/Southeast Asian mandala political structures into a European mold.

  As for bayin, it means the monarch, the top dog. It has a more specific meaning than min (lord), which can be used to refer to kings, viceroys and senior officials. (To be sure, bayins could pay tribute to the high king or the emperor (ekarit)). Net/net: only a handful of the Toungoo rulers ever proclaimed themselves to be bayin. Obviously, Tabinshwehti no doubt considered himself a bayin; he gave the title bayin-naung (lit. "elder brother of the king", more commonly translated as "Royal Elder Brother") to his brother-in-law. The bayin in the title Bayinnaung refers to Tabinshwehti. Cheers. Hybernator (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Hybernator, thank you for that additional information! So if I understand you correctly, even rulers with hereditary rights (..) served at the pleasure of the king (assuming that the king was powerful enough.) Then "serving at the pleasure of the king" is WP:NONDEFINING for non-hereditary "governors" versus hereditary "rulers". Any king that was powerful enough could fire whoever was in charge in Toungoo, and replace them with someone else at his pleasure. So, what evidence is there that Min Nemi, Letya Zeya Thingyan, Pantaung were non-hereditary "governors", other than the fact that they were fired by the powerful-enough king, or died in office without being succeeded by a relative?

  Second, isn't Pantaung Min an odd name for someone who has previously been the "governor" of Pantaung? It just means "lord of Pantaung", it's not a personal name or given name, but a toponym (Pantaung) plus an honorific (min, "lord"). His real name could be anything. His biography is shrouded in uncertainty. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've found a source, The Burma Gazetteer (1914). I'm not sure how useful it is, but it may help. The narrative goes as follows:

  He (Phaungga of Toungoo?) died in 1397 and was followed on the throne by his son Saw U (Saw Oo I of Toungoo). On account of his youth and incapacity Saw U was deposed by order of the King of Ava, who put one Nemi (Min Nemi of Toungoo) in his place. Toungoo seems to have been dependent on Ava, and for some years was ruled by a succession of princes who were merely viceroys appointed and removed at the pleasure of the king. One of these, Sawlu Thingara (Thinkhaya III of Toungoo), eventually managed to assert his independence and reigned over Toungoo for fifteen years; in alliance with the king of Pegu he crossed the Yoma and invaded Prome. He died suddenly while hunting on the Talaing [Pegu] border. His daughter [sic] Uzana (Uzana of Toungoo) was deposed by the Talaing king, who reinstated Saw U [sic?], but allotted to Uzana certain villages in the south of the kingdom for her [sic] support. After this the Northern kingdom [Ava] seems again to have asserted its rights over Toungoo, and from 1440 to 1466 appointed governors. In 1468 one of these, Letyazalathingyan, revolted at the death of king Narapati (...)

  What does this tell us, when compared with List of rulers of Toungoo?

  1. In the period from 1397 to 1420, the king of Ava appointed and removed 'princes'/'viceroys' over Toungoo at his pleasure. In that time, the king of Ava allowed Thinkhaya II of Toungoo to succeed his father Thinkhaya I of Toungoo, who died in office in 1415. This shows that 'princes'/'viceroys' of Toungoo in this period can be hereditarily succeeded. The reason why the apparently unrelated Pantaung of Toungoo was appointed next seems to be that Thinkhaya II himself was killed in battle just 3 years later (1418/9), apparently before reproducing and thus ending the local dynasty founded by his father.
  2. Thinkhaya III of Toungoo is described as a 'prince'/'viceroy' (through the words One of these), and reigned over Toungoo for fifteen years means The Burma Gazetteer started counting his "reign" from 1420 to 1435, which includes the 1420–1426 period; but the Wikipedia article Thinkhaya III of Toungoo labels him "Governor of Toungoo" during that time, and "King of Toungoo" in 1426–1435.
  3. The Burma Gazetteer makes two apparent errors when calling Uzana of Toungoo his daughter; Uzana was his son-in-law, married to Thinkhaya III's second daughter. It also says the Talaing king (that is, king Binnya Ran I of Pegu) reinstated Saw U, which would mean Saw Oo I of Toungoo and Saw Oo II of Toungoo were the same person. If Saw Oo I was still a "youth" in 1399, he might still have been alive in 1435. But the Wikipedia articles in question reject that, saying Saw Oo II was the son of Thinkhaya III (so the brother-in-law of Uzana), not the son of the guy who died in 1397.
  4. Other than that, the narrative appears accurate: Binnya Ran I deposed Uzana and imposed Saw Oo II to succeed his father Thinkhaya III. That means there was a succession crisis in which the king of Pegu was now the kingmaker by virtue of late Thinkhaya III's alliance with him, and that Saw Oo II had legitimacy to succeed because he was the son of Thinkhaya III. That's another local dynasty, consisting of 3 people.
  5. In the period from 1440 to the 1466, the king of Ava appointed 'governors'. Nothing in the text, the List of rulers of Toungoo or other Wikipedia articles suggests these were non-hereditary either. Their Wikibios call them 'viceroys'. The very first Ava appointee Tarabya of Toungoo was succeeded by his son Minkhaung I of Toungoo. Then the Ava crownprince's son Minye Kyawhtin seizes Toungoo and proclaims himself king, ending another very short 2-generation local dynasty. So just because the term 'governor' is used in The Burma Gazetteer doesn't mean the author indicates this position was non-hereditary.

  Conclusion: the terms 'viceroy', 'prince' and 'governor' are used interchangeably, and say nothing about whether one has hereditary rights or not. In all three periods of Ava, Pegu and again Ava overlordship, the kings allowed an appointee to be succeeded by his son on at least one occasion. That the kings could appoint and remove anyone at their pleasure doesn't mean they were always intended to be non-hereditary posts, as the counter-examples show. The kings were quite content to have a son succeed a father they appointed if that suited their own interests as well, thus allowing a local dynasty to emerge. Also, every single appointee seems to be a member of the Ava royal dynasty and is also categorised as Category:Ava dynasty. We're not talking about a non-hereditary system of government where anyone can be elected or appointed governor for life, let alone for a fixed term. Nor was the order of succession fixed, but the record shows that hereditary succession could proceed with approval of the overlord, which is unthinkable in a non-hereditary system. In both theory and practice, it was a monarchy with alternating vassalage (the so-called "independence" period under the Thinkhaya III dynasty from 1426 to 1440 was in fact a vassalage to Pegu). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I must commend you for your tenacity and eagle eyes in your research again. Yes, as you keenly noticed, Pantaung Min simply means "lord of Pantaung". The use of such popular names in the chronicles appears quite frequently -- even for kings. E.g., kings Mohnyin Min, Nyaungyan Min, Tharrawaddy Min, Pagan Min, Mindon Min, Thibaw Min, etc. were/are known by where they first became widely known. Some other idiosyncratic (posthumous) titles/monikers were: Anaukpetlun (lit. "Died in the West" [of the Irrawaddy]), Sanay Min ("Saturday born king"), Taninganway Min ("Sunday born king"), Naungdawgyi ("Royal Elder Brother" to his successor younger brothers), Bodawpaya, ("Royal Paternal Grandfather" to King Mindon), Bagyidaw ("Royal Elder Paternal Uncle" to King Mindon), etc. Now, of course, the chronicles also state the official title(s) of the kings when they are available.

  Back to Toungoo, as much as we might want to draw consistency, I'm afraid the history of early Toungoo was pretty much in flux, and their rulers' status was too. I'm not aware of any books, in English or in Burmese, that states that all pre-1510 Toungoo rulers had hereditary rights, or that they were all monarchs. As mentioned above, some rulers like Pantaung were simply transferred in and out of office. I know it's not satisfying but calling all of them monarchs (on the basis that they might have had hereditary rights) is a bridge too far for me. Best, Hybernator (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hybernator Thanks for your response (and sorry that I hadn't read it until now), I appreciate the compliment. Also thanks for explaining these interesting Burmese naming practices, it is helpful for understanding how people are written about and remembered.

  I agree with you that early Toungoo was pretty much in flux, and their rulers' status was too, but only in the sense of whether the person on Toungoo's throne was independent or a vassal to an overlord. I've done more reading, and on the recommendation of M. A. Aung-Thwin (2006), p. 401, I've examined Lieberman, Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800–1830 (2003). In this scholarly work, there is no question that all pre-1510 Toungoo rulers had hereditary rights. Lieberman describes 4 patterns of administration in Southeast Asia, and says that Patterns A and B applied to Toungoo in the pre-1510 period.

  Lieberman 2003 p. 32–33:

  Pattern A, “charter administration,” characterized Pagan and Angkor throughout their existence. Signature features were also found in Ava to c. 1500 (...). Each realm was a “solar polity” (...) in which provincial “planets” revolved around a sun whose “gravitational pull” diminished with distance. (...) The farthest planets were ruled by hereditary tributaries; less distant realms, by powerful local families or relatives of the High King. All such leaders were tied to the overlord by webs of family, marriage, and patronage whose instability ensured constant fluctuations in the center's territorial influence." (emphasis by me) So yes, Lieberman agrees with you that 'early Toungoo was pretty much in flux', because there was instability causing 'constant fluctuations'; yet, the pattern remains that all realms of the kingdom were 'ruled by hereditary tributaries, powerful local families or relatives of the High King'.

  Lieberman 2003 p. 33–34:

  Pattern B, “decentralized Indic administration,” too was a form of “solar polity”. As in Pattern A, the ambiguity of [the] status [of viceroy-ruled provinces] (...) joined with their independent control of manpower to encourage viceroys to assault the capital during periods of central weakness. Farther afield, in less accessible lowland areas and in the rugged uplands, tributaries, who were generally of a different ethnicity than the king, enjoyed yet greater autonomy and unqualified hereditary succession. (emphasis by me)

  On p. 127, Lieberman explains how both patterns applied to Toungoo in the pre-1510 period:

  (...) Prome [and] Toungoo [at] first were dependencies of Ava. As was typical of administrative Patterns A and B, the autonomy of outlying governors ensured that any augmentation of provincial manpower aided the system as a whole less than the governors themselves. In 15th-century inscriptions, Upper Burma governors honored the Avan overlord (min-gyior eka-yaza-min-gyi), to whom tribute and levies were due and to whom disputes might be referred. Simultaneously, however, and with no sense of contradiction, provincial rulers presented themselves as sovereigns (min or min-gyi), entitled to hereditary succession, who had queens and palaces of their own and who engaged in acts of religious patronage suitable to royalty. By the mid-15th century not only had Prome and Toungoo become fully independent (...) (emphasis by me)

  On pages 161 and 162, Lieberman explains that it was not until the 17th century when early Restored Toungoo rulers abolished the right of hereditary succession for the new governors of the former bayin centers of Prome, Toungoo, Pegu, and Martaban, which is what moved Burma from administrative Pattern B to Pattern C.

  Therefore, anyone "ruling/reigning/administering/governing" etc. Toungoo before 1510, regardless of their titles, had the right to hereditary succession. Thus they were all monarchs who all held office for life and could allow their relatives to hereditarily succeed them, unless when at times of vassalage to Ava or Pegu, the High King was powerful enough to remove them at their pleasure in favour of someone else they liked better, or appoint a new person if the throne had become vacant. All appointees had hereditary rights, even if they were unrelated to the previous person. This confirms the patterns I had seen, but now with evidence from a respected and reliable scholarly source.

  Again, thank you very much for all the information you have gathered in the articles on these topics, and have provided here for relevant context. I've learnt a lot more about Burmese etc. history in the past few weeks than in the rest of my life combined. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: I notice that when you first created the List of rulers of Toungoo in 2012, you already referred explicitly to Lieberman 2003 p. 161–162 in order to write: After 1612, the office of viceroy at Taungoo became a mere appointed governorship as the Restored Taungoo kings abolished then existing hereditary viceroyships throughout the entire Irrawaddy valley. That is exactly right; before that, it was hereditary. I'm not sure if you had/have also read the other pages in Lieberman 2003 that I quote and analyse above, but you would probably have come to the same conclusion. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Nederlandse Leeuw, I've read (Lieberman 2003) numerous times as well as his much more detailed book on the Toungoo period (Lieberman 1984/2014: Burmese administrative cycles). I've also read the Toungoo Yazawin chronicle, edited by Prof. Sein Lwin Lay (Sein Lwin Lay 1968/2006) in Burmese -- which provides a much more detailed picture of the early Toungoo period (i.e. pre-1510) -- which both Lieberman books only provided brief overviews of. Lieberman's analysis was primarily between the 16th and post-16th century Toungoo rulers. His language bayin centers (search for it) says it all. But as (Sein Lwin Lay 1968/2006) shows, not all the early Toungoo rulers were bayin. In fact, some were just journeyman rulers -- min myosa. Of course, the status of post-16th century rulers was reduced to mere myo-wuns (town/city administrators/governors). Anyway, I don't see that we can make sweeping claims that all myosas were monarchs or all pre-1510 rulers were monarchs -- especially when Lieberman really gave an overview of the pre-16th century period. Best, Hybernator (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Hybernator, I don't see how that changes the conclusion. Anyone "ruling/reigning/administering/governing" etc. Toungoo before 1510, regardless of their titles, had the right to hereditary succession. Lieberman is the one making those 'sweeping' claims about Toungoo following Patterns A and B until the 17th century, not me. So unless Sein Lwin Lay somehow explicitly says which pre-1510 min myosa were intentionally non-hereditary appointees, there is no reason to assume any of them were intentionally non-hereditary appointees. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: Why do you end the List of rulers of Toungoo in 1610 with Natshinnaung? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a complete list. This is based on the list in (Sein Lwin Lay 2006), which ends with Natshinnaung. I'll update the article (with those from the chronicles) as I get back to writing Restored Toungoo/Nyaungyan period articles. Hybernator (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, why did Sein Lwin Lay 2006 end it in 1610? Is it because before 1610 all "rulers" of Toungoo had hereditary rights, and after 1610 they didn't? Because then he would perfectly agree with Lieberman 2003. I think the list ending in 1610 is fine as it is. The way you set it up, based on both SLL and Lieberman, confirms the list is about monarchs of Toungoo. If you'd like to write about later "rulers", I would recommend creating a new, separate list of governors of Toungoo Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Nederlandse Leeuw, I don't know what else to say. I think the onus is on you to prove that min myosa automatically conferred hereditary rights, and that having hereditary rights equated to being considered a monarch in a South-East Asian context.

  (Sein Lwin Lay 1968/2006) does not explicitly say about hereditary rights of Toungoo's mins one way or the other. But his summary table of the rulers of Toungoo (Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 10–13) terms all of them min, not bayin; explicitly mentions seven non-hereditary appointments (although there were at least six more non-hereditary appoints by my count) -- out of a total of 36 rulers (1279–1612); two appointees transferred elsewhere; plus a series of usurpers (who may or may not have been related to the sitting min.)

  Secondly, you seem to be basing your argument that hereditary rights equates to being a monarch. Assuming that particularly Euro-centric definition is applicable here, I'm not aware that all myosaships or minships were hereditary. While many of the ranks may have been filled by the ruler's descendants or relatives, most served at the discretion of the king. A number of mins / myosas routinely got transferred to other posts -- at least in the Irrawaddy valley. AFAIK, only in the (farther) Shan states, was the role of the ruler sticky, and the king had much fewer rights to remove, appoint, transfer the sawbwas. Per (Htin Aung 1967: 117–118), the king could remove a sawbwa but had to select the next sawbwa from the ruling family. Most people won't equate a min/myosa with a sawbwa. It's tough to make sweeping statements in Burmese history to fit certain definitions.

  I'm not sure that I'll ever convince you. That's ok. I've take time to answer because you've made the effort to dig into an obscure subject few find worth their time. Cheers, Hybernator (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Hybernator. Well, whenever I don't know what else to say, I'm usually seriously considering whether that is because my interlocutor just doesn't "get it" and refuses to learn anything new, or whether I myself have actually run out of arguments to support my standpoint. Sometimes I then have to conclude that my view was insufficiently supported, and the other person's view is better supported (including arguments/evidence that were new to me), and that I should adopt their view (at least for the time being).

  I had never heard of min myosa until you mentioned it, and I have never mentioned it except to challenge you to show why that is a relevant counter-argument to what Lieberman wrote. It seems to me the onus is on you in this case.

  When Sein Lwin Lay 2006: 10–13 (...) explicitly mentions seven non-hereditary appointments, how does he do it? Does he say something like: "this man was appointed governor of Toungoo without hereditary rights" or something? Or is it more like "this man was appointed to rule Toungoo without being related to the previous ruler"?

  Well, hereditary succession is the rule for monarchs, but you're right that not all monarchs are necessarily hereditary: elective monarchy (a small elite group of people choosing the next monarch) is a thing. But I'm not seeing evidence of elective monarchs in Toungoo: it's always 1 high king or overlord appointing someone to rule Toungoo. That's vassalage, or feudalism, not elective monarchy. It's Lieberman saying that all rulers of Toungoo were hereditary until 1610 (not just me).

  It's always possible to convince me with good arguments and evidence. Remember that my very first reaction here to your input was saying Hybernator makes some good points. Then I dug a little deeper, then a lot deeper, and then I gradually changed my mind while reading the available literature. I wouldn't have done that unless I took your points seriously, and Burmese history seriously. It definitely was worth my time, and I enjoyed our conversations here more than I had expected from a CfM, even if we may not agree on what to call this category and list in the end. Whatever the outcome, if you'd ever like to cooperate with me on writing about Burmese history, you could always contact me. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good. Cheers, Hybernator (talk) 04:51, 30 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:1790s disestablishments in the Batavian Republic. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:1795 disestablishments in the Batavian Republic (1 C) to Category:1790s disestablishments in the Batavian Republic
  • Propose upmerging Category:1795 disestablishments in the Dutch Empire‎ (1 C)
    • Propose upmerging Category:1795 disestablishments in Dutch India‎ (1 P)
• Propose upmerging Category:1796 disestablishments in the Batavian Republic‎ (2 P)
• Propose upmerging Category:1799 disestablishments in the Batavian Republic‎ (1 C, 1 P)
  • Propose upmerging Category:1799 disestablishments in the Dutch Empire‎ (1 P)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. The total number of actual pages in this category jungle is... 4. Let's just make it a decade cat, because this splitting doesn't aid navigation at all. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support that as part of a larger nomination, such as for Easter Island above. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — As an exemplar. I am opposed to mass nominations without precedent.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, disestablishments should not be considered on their own but should generally match the establishments categories. In this case Category:Establishments in the Batavian Republic by year appears to hold 18 articles. Category:Establishments in Dutch India by year is thinner with only 5, so a group nomination for Dutch India may be worthwhile. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and I would favor a lot more noms along this line to address other cases where the years are not well established tree because the article count for the whole tree is so low. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:47, 2 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, deleting Category:Former subdivisions of Yugoslavia. – Fayenatic London 18:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Capitals of country subdivisions in Europe to Category:Capitals of administrative divisions in Europe
  • Propose renaming Category:Former subdivisions of the United Kingdom to Category:Former administrative divisions of the United Kingdom
    • Propose renaming Category:Former subdivisions of the United Kingdom by type to Category:Former administrative divisions of the United Kingdom by type
• Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of Poland to Category:Administrative divisions of Poland; WP:C2D matching main article Administrative divisions of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Propose renaming Category:Former subdivisions of Poland to Category:Former administrative divisions of Poland
• Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of Portugal to Category:Administrative divisions of Portugal; WP:C2D matching main article Administrative divisions of Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Propose renaming Category:Former subdivisions of Portugal to Category:Former administrative divisions of Portugal
• Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of Serbia to Category:Administrative divisions of Serbia; WP:C2D matching main article Administrative divisions of Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Propose renaming Category:Former subdivisions of Serbia to Category:Former administrative divisions of Serbia
• Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of Sweden to Category:Administrative divisions of Sweden; WP:C2D matching main article Administrative divisions of Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Propose renaming Category:Former subdivisions of Sweden to Category:Former administrative divisions of Sweden
• Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of Turkey to Category:Administrative divisions of Turkey; WP:C2D matching main article Administrative divisions of Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Propose renaming Category:Former subdivisions of Turkey to Category:Former administrative divisions of Turkey
• Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of Ukraine to Category:Administrative divisions of Ukraine; WP:C2D matching main article Administrative divisions of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Propose renaming Category:Former subdivisions of Ukraine to Category:Former administrative divisions of Ukraine
• Propose renaming Category:Subdivisions of Yugoslavia to Category:Administrative divisions of Yugoslavia; WP:C2D matching main article Administrative divisions of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Propose deleting Category:Former subdivisions of Yugoslavia modified in discussion

Nominator's rationale:

• WP:C2D;
• WP:C2C parent Category:Administrative divisions in Europe;
• WP:C2C parent Category:Former administrative divisions in Europe.

Followup to:

1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 19#Category:Country subdivisions result renamed
2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#Category:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom result renamed
3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 26#Category:Subdivisions of Denmark result renamed

William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Former subdivisions of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Yugoslavia is a former country, so all subdivisions are former from present-day's point-of-view. Additionally, it is populated by one category, Category:Former districts of Yugoslavia, which in turn is populated with one article (WP:SMALLCAT) that can be recategorized to Category:Districts of Yugoslavia or even Category:Subdivisions of Yugoslavia to delete all three SMALLCATs in the end. -Vipz (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@William Allen Simpson I have nominated this category for deletion instead, please see its CfD entry and remove it from this proposal if you agree with it. -Vipz (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved Kotor-Varoš (srez) to Category:Districts of Yugoslavia, leaving this category empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed up the nominations. Keep the discussion in one place.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Former subdivisions of Yugoslavia has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz: I'm wondering, why do we have to WP:SNOWBALL this category through renaming only to delete it right after? –Vipz (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vipz, I don't know. It's not the case in this nomination but it drives me crazy when editors propose a category be deleted at CFD and, before the discussion is closed, empty the category out of process. It makes the discussion irrelevant and is a waste of the discussion participants' time considering the nomination. But it happens every week. I guess they are impatient for the discussion to be closed but it is really improper. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 20 March 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 all. bibliomaniac15 01:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Underground railways to Category:Subterranean railways
  • Propose renaming Category:Underground funiculars to Category:Subterranean funiculars
  • Propose renaming Category:Underground railways in the United Kingdom to
    Category:Subterranean railways in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C Match parents Category:Subterranean buildings and structures, Category:Subterranea of the United Kingdom, and their parent Category:Subterranea (geography).

Parent of:

1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 18#Category:Underground rapid transit systems renamed Category:Subterranean rapid transit

William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidan721, Assimo23, Epicgenius, Joeyconnick, and Marcocapelle: prior participants.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Many big European cities have two systems that are partially or wholly underground. E.g. Paris has RER and Paris Metro, German cities and Vienna have S-bahn and U-bahn, in Barcelona, Madrid and Milan there is a similar distinction. One is for regional railways having a very long tunnel under the city center, the other is for transport within the city, stops at shorter distances and a much higher percentage in tunnels. I feel we should not lump those together. In other words, I wonder if we need subCategory:Subterranean rapid transit because rapid transit is mostly underground by default, and apart from that the whole tree of Category:Underground railways does not seem to make a lot of sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That is no different from many big cities anywhere. This is covered by Category:Passenger rail transport by type. After all, there are also quite famous "elevated" mass transit lines. So I'm not understanding how you'd build this differently. Whomever built these trees thought the underground part was especially notable. In the meantime, these categories exist and need to be renamed to match the parents to avoid confusion.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all for consistency. In response to Marcocapelle's comment above, systems like the Reseau Express Regional and S-Bahn would be considered commuter rail in the US, while systems like the Paris Métro and U-Bahn would be more akin to a higher-frequency rapid transit/metro/subway system. Both a commuter rail system and a metro system can be underground, but metro systems don't need to be underground - for instance, the majority of the London Underground is actually above ground - so I can see why Category:Subterranean rapid transit exists. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is going to become a case of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT: how many kilometers, or what percentage of kilometers, or percentage of travellers kilometers, should be underground in order to count as underground or subterranean? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename All I would not have iVoted for the rename of the parent category, but we should be consistent. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for UK category, because the main one in UK is known as London Underground, despite most of its suburban railways emerging on to the surface. I suspect that "rapid transit" is essentially an American term that should not be applied elsewhere unless that is local usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect. We just went though a months long process of undoing this ridiculous categorizing the entire world after London local practice. The main one in London, which happenstance has made the largest city in the UK, is currently named Transport for London. Some parts have been re-branded London Underground, while a larger geographic spread has been re-branded London Overground. Surely we aren't going to re-name everything by brand.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All While most of us editors here should have pretty excellent command of the English language, Wikipedia is for everyone. The word "subterranean" is generally part of larger vocabularies than "underground", so by switching we are disenfranchising readers who know and understand the current term but may not be familiar with the new one. Eliyahu S ^Talk 17:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the awesome mission of our sibling site, Simple English Wikipedia: "The Simple English Wikipedia is for everyone! That includes children and adults who are learning English." - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for UK category. A transit in the UK is a Ford van, rapid or otherwise, and I've never heard of anyone talking about subterranean railways. Oculi (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  AFAIK, in London vernacular they'd call it a "tube". We shouldn't rename everything in the world "tube railways". No "transit" is nominated here; inexplicable comment about the brand name "Ford Transit". Surely we aren't going to re-name everything by brand.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename Category:Underground funiculars. The proposed alternative doesn't seem to be known beyond "category renaming". Enhancing999 (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Underground" is a London brand name. None of these funiculars are part of the London Underground system, or even the Transport for London system. Whereas "subterranean" is repeatedly used elsewhere, such as oldest subterranean railway, in Istanbul and second-oldest subterranean urban rail line and the longest industrial funicular in France, furthermore entirely subterranean and the Haifa underground railway system, a subterranean funicular on rails.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There seem to be some uses of the word combination. Maybe I checked plural when not finding anything. Still I prefer the current category name.

  BTW I'm curious about the underground funiculars you think are in London. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Repeat: None of these funiculars are part of the London Underground system, or even the Transport for London system.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Repeat: This is not London Wikipedia Please contact WMF if you think some rights of your employer are violated. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match category scheme and avoid confusion with the London Underground, even if no articles are actually related to the London Underground. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:57, 2 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:Terrorist incidents on subterranean rapid transit. bibliomaniac15 01:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Terrorist incidents on underground rapid transit systems to Category:Terrorist incidents on subterranean rapid transit

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parent Category:Subterranean rapid transit.

Followup of:

1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 18#Category:Underground rapid transit systems renamed Category:Subterranean rapid transit

William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius, Joeyconnick, and Marcocapelle: prior participants.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably the intention of the category is Category:Terrorist incidents on rapid transit rail systems. Most articles are about a "Metro" system. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm deliberately dropping "systems". None of these articles have "system" in their title. You are conflating knowledge of things outside this part of the tree, where transit is a system of bus, light rail, and trains, both above and below ground. Presumably, somebody thinks terrorist incidents below ground are espectially noteworthy.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the word "systems" may not be the best word. But it is used in the name of the parent category too. The intention undoubtedly is to indicate that it does not only concern transport itself but also the facilities (e.g. stations). I also agree that a distinction above/below surface is entirely trivial in this context. The fact that it concerns rail transport is important though, as it implies huge amounts of people crowded in small areas. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An, you mean the parent Category:Terrorist incidents on railway systems. I disagree about the underground location of attacks being trivial – the possibilities of escape are far more limited. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename I would not have iVoted for the parent category being renamed but, since it was, we should be consistent. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Terrorist incidents on metro railways. "rapid transit" is an American term, not used for European systems, but most of the events were in Europe. Two were on the London Underground, though perhaps not on the metropolitan line, but the Underground is very much the equivalent of the Parish Metro or German U-bahns, so that metro seems appropriate as a global term. The American "subway" is ambiguous since that is used in UK for a pedestrian underpass. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — according to Passenger rail terminology, "Rapid transit" has been used since the 1800s.
  1. "Metropolitan railway" is a only a subset of rapid transit; all "Metros" are rapid transit. "Metro" is a brand name, and we should not categorize by brand name.
  2. Nobody has actually nominated "subway", but "subway" is also a subset, not solely American, a common translation for Asia, and apparently Scotland's Glasgow Subway is not in the UK?^[sarcasm] (Most of Scotland wishes they were not in the UK.)
  3. Also, I'm increasingly irritated by WP:ARBITRARYCAT comments such as Two were on the London Underground, though perhaps not on the metropolitan line. We should not categorize such trivial regional vernacular distinctions as "Tube", "Underground", "Overground", "Metropolitan". This is not a London-specific category. Again, we should not categorize by brand name.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this should be closed in line with the one above.– Fayenatic London 16:05, 31 March 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/delete with no prejudice towards future recreation if the categories can be sufficiently populated. bibliomaniac15 00:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:2018 Paraguayan television series debuts to Category:2018 television series debuts
• Propose merging Category:2019 Paraguayan television series endings to Category:2019 television series endings
• Propose deleting Category:2018 in Paraguayan television
• Propose deleting Category:2019 in Paraguayan television
• Propose deleting Category:2010s in Paraguayan television
• Propose deleting Category:2010s Paraguayan television series debuts
• Propose deleting Category:2010s Paraguayan television series endings
• Propose deleting Category:Paraguayan television series debuts
• Propose deleting Category:Paraguayan television series debuts by decade
• Propose deleting Category:Paraguayan television series debuts by year
• Propose deleting Category:Paraguayan television series by century
• Propose deleting Category:21st century in Paraguayan television
• Propose deleting Category:21st-century Paraguayan television series
• Propose deleting Category:21st-century Paraguayan television series debuts
• Propose deleting Category:21st-century Paraguayan television series endings
• Propose deleting Category:Television in Paraguay by year
• Propose deleting Category:Television in Paraguay by decade
• Propose deleting Category:Television in Paraguay by century
• Propose deleting Category:Telefuturo original programming
• Propose deleting Category:Original programming by Paraguayan television network or channel
  • Propose merging Category:2013 Paraguayan television series debuts to Category:2013 television series debuts (added 13 March)
  • Propose merging Category:2013 Paraguayan television series endings to Category:2013 television series endings
  • Propose deleting Category:2013 in Paraguayan television

Giant nest of categories newly created entirely to overcategorize just one article. While categories like this are permitted in countries where we have dozens or hundreds or thousands of articles about television series that need to be grouped more narrowly for size control purposes, in this case the one article involved here genuinely appears to be the only article we actually have on en: about any Paraguayan television series at all.
Just like you don't cook an entire buffet just to feed yourself if you're at home alone, one television series doesn't need this big of a category tree to contain it -- these would be fine if there were a lot of Paraguayan television series with articles to populate the tree, but it just doesn't aid navigation at all to obsessively build out an entire tree of this depth just to hold one article, so the page can just remain in the parent categories until there are enough other articles about Paraguayan television series to justify building out a bigger tree.
Note that since the series is also already in a Category:Paraguayan reality television series category that I'm not including in the batch (it's still the only article there either, but that's not so unnecessarily overcategorizing since it doesn't take 15 layers of "by x" to get to it), the article does not need to be added directly to Category:Paraguayan television series alongside the named merge targets. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete, this is completely absurd. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete as nominated — if there are "debuts", shouldn't those be "denouments"? ("Beginnings" matches "endings".)
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're perfectly free to try nominating the long-established "television series endings" trees for renaming all you like, if you're really into tilting at windmills — but we follow real-world usage rather than grammatical pedantry, and real-world English usage does not invariably require "debut" to be paired with "dénouement" instead of "ending". Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as part of a structure, and to save starting it again when there is more to go in it. I have added another existing page into the hierarchy. There are notable shows with well-referenced articles in es:Categoría:Programas de televisión de Paraguay, and it would have taken less work to translate one of then than to make this nomination. – Fayenatic London 08:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Absent some evidence that Bearcat speaks Spanish, of which I see none, that isn't true. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Google Chrome translates Spanish, and Bearcat would be able to tidy up its English translation. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't anybody's responsibility to take on the job of personally translating articles that otherwise fall outside of that person's realm of knowledge or interest just because some other editor prematurely created categories that need to have more content than they do before they're allowed to exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as systematic category tree with room for expansion, per findings of Fayenatic london. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it seems unlikely that this discussion will actually inspire people to translate enough articles to warrant a tree of this size; recreating categories using parameterless templates in the event they become needed is not hard. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per above. --Nagsb (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:38, 30 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.