< March 24
March 26 >

March 25

Category:Non-German units of the Waffen-SS

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: Procedural delete. Duplicate concurrent discussions. Restore status quo ex ante. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate existing categories Category:Foreign volunteer units of the Waffen-SS and Category:Foreign conscript units of the Waffen-SS; introducing incorrect nomenclature. All units of the Waffen-SS were German, only some were based on foreign volunteers or recruits. Using the term "non-German" suggests that units of other armies served in the Waffen-SS. Marcelus (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is objectively wrong. The nomenclature I am using is very accurate and comes directly from WP:RS.
David T. Zabecki, World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia (2015), 677:
The non-German units of the Waffen-SS, principally the larger formations, had a good, in some cases outstanding, war record. [1]
Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly doesn't explain anything, because it is one thing to use such an adjective in the context of a longer essay, another to use it in a category name. Besides, this doesn't explain the doubling and purging of categories that use the more precise adjective "foreign" Marcelus (talk) 23:04, 25 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.

Category:1919 crimes by month

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. One article. No merge is needed since the article is in the parent categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:39, 25 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.

Sports events by month

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge and delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More nominations
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. All month year categories contain just one article. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what happens with this sort of categories all the time. When going far enough back, decades suffice instead of years. When going even further back, centuries suffice instead of decades. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 28 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.

Fires in the United Kingdom by year

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 all, then delete Category:Fires in the United Kingdom by year. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, follow-up on this earlier nomination, most year categories contain only 1 or 2 articles and hardly anyone reaches 5 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302, Lenticel, Hugo999, Aidan721, and William Allen Simpson: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, in the beginning they are all also in disasters, but not consistently throughout the tree. I will add it as a third merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 26 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.

Category:2022 American Athletic Conference baseball season

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:2022 NCAA Division I baseball season and Category:American Athletic Conference baseball seasons. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, as it contains only one article. The article is on the final tournament rather than the season as a whole, so this does not quite fit the speedy criterion WP:C2F. – Fayenatic London 15:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:07, 25 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.

Category:Song dynasty politics

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:Song dynasty. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with currently one subcategory and one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:07, 25 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.

Category:Palestinian people

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 to Rename/Merge. Feel free to "start fresh" with a follow-up discussion (as noted below), as appropriate. - jc37 04:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Differentiate between this category and Category:Palestinians. Skovl (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Skovl changed the definitions before nomination, copy and pasting the definition from Palestinian people to Palestinians. That's why things became confused.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let me rephrase. If discussion is needed, we should start from scratch. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:37, 1 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.

Category:Thai-language singers of South Korea

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to have been manually emptied, then soft redirected to Category:Thai-language singers of South Korea, but the target category contains no such members, so this is a misleading redirect. Paul_012 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nominator notes, the target category (Category:Thai-language singers) contains no Korean singers. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:41, 25 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.

Category:List of AA Films distributed Hindi Dubbed films

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 8#Category:List of AA Films distributed Hindi Dubbed films

Category:Seleucid rulers

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:Seleucid monarchs. (non-admin closure) Nagsb (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B: The Seleucids used the title basileus, which is commonly translated as "king". Even though the article is called Seleucid Empire, nobody calls them "emperors". Aside from "rulers", "kings" appears to be slightly more common on Wikipedia (e.g. List_of_kings_of_Babylon#Dynasty_XIII_(Seleucid),_305–141_BC, Seleucid dynasty, List of Syrian monarchs#Seleucid dynasty etc.) and in literature, and it's more WP:PRECISE than "rulers". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As rightly pointed out by StarTrekker and Chiswick Chap, there have been at least 3 Seleucid queens regnant, so I've modified the proposal to "Seleucid monarchs" to make it gender-neutral. Pinging @Marcocapelle: who voted for "kings" already. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then "Monarch" would be the term of choice, given that 3 of them were queens. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal updated. Thanks for the correction! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:47, 25 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.

Category:Fictional Australian detectives

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 Fictional detectives and Category:Fictional Australian people. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, this category does not have any siblings in the tree of Category:Fictional detectives by nationality, this in contrast to its police detectives subcategory. Move the two articles to Category:Fictional Australian people and Category:Fictional detectives; move the subcategory to Category:Fictional Australian people by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:43, 25 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.

Category:Qus Markaz villages

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted per G5. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category of unclear utility. It's not at all clear what a "Markaz village" is in the first place, as none of the articles explain that term and even the disambiguation page at Markaz lists nothing related to Egypt at all, and when I first found the category it was also polluted with a number of illogical entries, including people, companies and redirects back to Qus itself that didn't represent "villages" within the city, but merely alternately-spelled forms of the city itself.
All four of the articles here are already filed in Category:Qus alongside this as it is, so no context will be lost, but they don't need a separate subcategory on this criterion if it isn't clear what the criterion even represents in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:39, 25 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.

Category:30th-century BC women rulers

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: triple merge to Category:Ancient women rulers, Xth-century BC rulers, and Xth-century BC women. bibliomaniac15 02:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose upmerging Category:30th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:31st-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:25th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:22nd-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:19th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:18th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:15th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:14th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:12th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:10th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:7th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:6th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
  • Category:5th-century BC women rulers to Category:Ancient women rulers
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. All these cats have only 1 or 2 items. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, we should find them in a rulers by century category too. I have amended my earlier comment above. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The whole point of the nomination is that there were hardly any e.g. 6th-century women rulers so it is a too narrow search topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 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.

Category:Families of national leaders

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 to delete; split all between heads of state and heads of government. Renaming was suggested only as an interim step, but that step might as well be skipped. – Fayenatic London
  • Propose renaming Category:Families of national leaders to Category:Families of heads of state and government
  • Propose renaming Category:Parents of world leaders to Category:Parents of heads of state and government
  • Propose renaming Category:Children of national leaders to Category:Children of heads of state and government
  • Propose renaming Category:Sons of national leaders to Category:Sons of heads of state and government
  • Propose renaming Category:Daughters of national leaders to Category:Daughters of heads of state and government
  • Propose renaming Category:Official social partners of national leaders to Category:Official social partners of heads of state and government
  • Propose renaming Category:Spouses of national leaders to Category:Spouses of heads of state and government
  • Propose renaming Category:Husbands of national leaders to Category:Husbands of heads of state and government
  • Propose renaming Category:Wives of national leaders to Category:Wives of heads of state and government
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: It is currently both in Category:Heads of government and Category:Heads of state; the category name should make clear that this category seeks to combine the families of people in those two positions. (Category:Parents of world leaders makes clear that "world leaders" means "presidents" and "prime ministers"). WP:C2B established practice. The term "national leader" or just "leader" is too vague (as previously summarised by several users (Fayenatic London, Rathfelder, Kbdank71, and myself) in the Rulers CfD under proposal #26). This is why "List of state leaders" was moved to List of current heads of state and government to make clear we are combining heads of state and heads of government, and nobody else. Similar examples: List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government, List of the first women heads of state and government in Muslim-majority countries, List of Muslim women heads of state and government, Heads of state and government of the Philippines, Category:Philippine Heads of State and Government, List of assassinated and executed heads of state and government, List of openly LGBT heads of state and government, List of heads of state and government Nobel laureates, etc. (Incidentally, there are also cases where they are separated, such as Category:Fictional children of heads of government (even though that includes presidents), List of spouses of heads of government and List of spouses of heads of state.) There are more subcategories, but I'd like to just nominate these first, then we'll do the rest later. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't that much manual work and it should be done anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that lots of subcategories would need to be split too, that would make it too complicated within this nomination. So I change my vote to support as an intermediate improvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I agree with what you say, and would support future noms to that effect. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming and then support Split as well. --Skovl (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, Caesar was Dictator, so its pretty irrelevant if Consuls outrank Censors or vise versa.★Trekker (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is still a bad idea. It just makes work, with no benefit. Work from the branches inward, not the trunk outward. Nobody cares that dual inheritance is not reflected by the name. They do not need to be temporarily renamed. They will eventually be deleted entirely as the next levels are split.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case we are not disagreeing on the direction to which this is going. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia

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:Populated places in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language. bibliomaniac15 20:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia to Category:Municipalities of Croatia where Hungarian language is co-official
Nominator's rationale: The suggested title more accurately conveys the contents of the category. Skovl (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance is not excuse and territorial unit is just a direct translation of teritorijalna jedinica (the term which can be applied all the way from the first-level subdivisions to cadastral municipality--- meaning Istria County is an territorial unit with co-official Italian and it is not a populated place. At the same time you can hava a village outside of the county with co-official Italian and both territorial units, county and the village, would fit in the same category). As for officialdom, it can occasionally provide quotable references, particularly when more relaxed approach is challenged, deleted and our interest in encyclopaedic dealing with certain communities questioned. As for your agreement to delete, my understanding was that Joy in fact proposed renaming the clumsy formulation where he is completely right.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mirko is right. It's reasonable to go for "territorial unit" as the overarching term to avoid needless WP:SMALLCATs if we were gonna put them in exactly the correct subcategories. The 2013 Croatian govt list p. 34 states the following: Područja (općine I gradovi) "regions (municipalities and cities)"; naselje = settlement. mjesto = village/town. Those who have the Hungarian language (mađarski jezik) as a recognised minority language (manjinski jezik) are the following:
  • Općina Bilje
  • Općina Kneževi Vinogradi
  • Općina Ernestinovo (naselje Laslovo)
  • Općina Petlovac (mjesto Novi Bezdan)
  • Općina Tompojevci (naselje Čakovci)
  • Općina Tordinci (naselje Korođ)
So what we've got is 2 full municipalities, 3 municipalities where it only applies to 1 settlement each, and 1 municipality where it only applies to 1 village/town. Total: 6. It's reasonable to group these all together as "territorial units". E.g. if we went for only "municipalities", it would be a SMALLCAT with just 2 items, because the rest is only partially applicable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Croatia has this quite rigid minority languages law obliging only municipalities with one third of minority population to introduce minority language into fully equal official use with some notable resistance even to this practice. The situation is somewhat (but not significantly) improved by the explicit permission for municipalities/counties to do it on their own if there is less than 1/3 of minority population. That is why there is this almost unique situation that in some cases minority languages may even loose their co-official status (you will find concern over it in mentioned CoE reports with practice being criticized even by the president of Croatian Constitutional Court) and that is why Council of Europe does not follow Croatian official requirements in its own reports but instead follow the situation of minority languages wherever there is more than 20% of some minority (claiming that Croatia is obliged to protect minority languages even in places where they are not official). Darda may be one of these cases where the language lost it co-official status and I would certainly not feel comfortable to remove it myself even in that case, but if you feel the need to do it that is arguably understandable (it is possible that Hungarians there were never 1/3 of population, but one local government introduced such a statute and the other changed it). Now, all of this is related ONLY TO full and equal co-official status of minority languages on the entire territory of some unit as defined by the Constitutional Act (introduced as a precondition for international recognition and changed for the beginning of the EU accession process). The case with education in minority languages is completely separate and regulated by the The Law on Education in language and script of national minorities and Law on Use of Languages and Scripts of National Minorities and that is why you have minority language classes and schools in many municipalities and towns where minority languages are NOT official. Also, minority institutions and media are free to use minority languages in their publications, signs etc. anywhere in the country so you will find for example Czech or Serbian Cyrillic inscriptions in Zagreb, but only on minority institutions and public institutions there are almost never obliged to communicate in minority language (exception being that you can get documents such as Croatian identity card with minority language anywhere, you can register organization with minority name and I think you may get translation in court procedures if requested). I know it is extensive but hope it helps in clarifying the situation so you can do what you think you should do (probably removing it since it may be that the language is not in fact co-official anymore, but it does not mean it is not used for public/educational purposes).--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I should probably be quiet since this entire section is not directly related to Category rename request and inclusion of Darda is not part of it. I apologize to everyone, I just like the topic :D .--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That reads very much like the situation in Slovakia, where minority language communities can lose their co-official minority language status based on census data per municipality. (Although this allows for dynamic demographic developments in any direction, in practice it usually has the effect of the slow assimilation of minority languages to the majority language. In Belgium, there is ongoing conflict about whether assimilation was the goal of local co-official language use, or whether permanent bilingualism was the goal, see Peeters directive.) As you say, it seems unique to Croatia that local govts have the option of requesting co-official language status, as well as minority language education, even if they do not meet the demographic threshold. I must also say that 33% is the highest minority-language threshold I have heard of in Europe (Croatia 33%, Belgium 30%, Slovakia 1990s 20%, Slovakia now 15%, North Macedonia 10%).
Haha don't worry, I find it interesting as well! :D Wikipedia probably wouldn't even exist if nobody ever wanted to find out how things really are. But perhaps we should move this discussion to Category talk:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia? It's quite separate from the CfR, I suppose. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. The part with freedom (but not the obligation) is not unique at all, many if not all countries permit this option of more inclusive approach (for example, some minority languages are co-official in Vojvodina even in Municipalities with 2% of citizens belonging to some community, situation with Italian in Istria is similar). It is quite unusual in fact that minority languages may loose their official status and that part is criticized both by CoE and the president of the court as this is against the best practice of the respect of acquired rights. That is also the reason why census change does not lead to any automatic change in the language status and if they really want to, municipalities may take this populist decision to recall the official status explicitly which may lead to further effective or ineffective challenge for intrusion of the acquired rights (in this sense, if Hungarian in Darda is quotable, we may need the decision on the subsequent status change, it may be that the state given report follows only municipalities obliged to introduce minority language). Assimilation is certainly not some explicit official goal for traditional linguistic communities, although de facto, negative social environment (where the mainstream society is much less approving than the formal legal framework) and official restrictiveness caused by some ontological dilemmas, may very well lead to it. But some people argue that assimilation is at play even in bilingual situation where the dominant language is always first - that's why you even have situations like in Canada where English-French bilingualism is official everywhere except in Quebec where only French is official. I don't think there are cases like this in Europe except in Finland with Aland Islands.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that "territorial units" in the current name is somewhat unusual in our established category trees and naming practices, it is justifiable as an ad hoc grouping that has a legal basis, because it can be almost directly based on the relevant legal document provided by the Government in Croatia in 2013 (mentioned above): the term područja on Wiktionary en:wikt:područje means areas, regions, territories, and the term (teritorijalna) jedinica (mentioned by MirkoS18 above) also shows up in that legal context. There's no point in splitting this up into municipalities/cities/towns/villages/settlements for a total number of 6 items which have 3 different administrative-level statuses (it would just create SMALLCATs). There is even less of a point to introducing U.S. administrative terminology such as "populated places".
Therefore, I think we just shouldn't change this part of the current catname. "territorial units" is fine as it is. I suggest we only change the rest, which we already agree on. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:European monarchs

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 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C Per parent Category:Heads of state in Europe, per children Category:Monarchs in the British Isles, Category:21st-century monarchs in Europe, Category:20th-century monarchs in Europe etc. The other noms follow the same logic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: As Laurel Lodged noted, they were not "Kings of Africa", they were kings in Africa etc. This is the purpose of the CfR. It's not a CfD, I'm proposing to rename these categories. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dimadick: to avoid misunderstandings, I opposed deletion, but I did not comment on the original rename nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Marcelus: to avoid misunderstandings, I opposed deletion, but I did not comment on the original rename nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcelus there is an important distinction between "Kings of Africa" and "kings in Africa" etc. as Laurel noted. 2 main reasons:
    1. An adjective like "European" may imply something about the identity or "ethnicity" of the monarch in question, even though "European" is purely geographical in this case (we are constantly running into categories where language, language family, ethnicity or nationality are categorised in generalising and misleading ways, such as "Turkic rulers" being "Asian" and "Germanic rulers" being "European");
    2. It could be misleading about the location of the monarch's territory, leading to problems with overseas territories outside Europe that may be much larger than the European territory (e.g. Greenland in North America being 98% of the territory of the Danish Realm, even though Margrete II of Denmark is arguably more a "monarch in Europe" because she resides in Copenhagen).
    Several related categories are already named Fooians in area Y, so per WP:C2C this renaming should happen. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid such misleading conclusions it's good to add the decription on the category page, about what the category is containing. Only for someone who is obsessed with ethnicity/nationality etc. phrase "European monarchs" can mean anything different than "Monarch of European countries". As I said, it's a change for the sake of change Marcelus (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of Wikipedia readers and users "obsessed with ethnicity/nationality etc." We have CfDs about this almost every day. The point is to make sure the contents abide by our policies and guidelines. If you don't care, you should vote Neutral rather than Oppose (or not say anything at all). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which policies and guidelines? Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:C2C, WP:NONDEFINING, WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OCEGRS etc. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the current naming goes against any policies you linked, you need to be more specific. Marcelus (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I refer you to my comment of 16:26, 2 April 2023 for explanation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Senators of the Kingdom of Rome

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, it does not contain any senator. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 25 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.

Category:Fireworks (punk band) EPs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Populated entirely by redirects mostly to the same target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:02, 25 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.

Category:Descendants of Buenaventura Báez

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/merge/delete. per William Allen Simpson's alt proposal. bibliomaniac15 23:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Descendants of Buenaventura Báez to Category:Báez family
  • Propose renaming Category:Descendants of Samuel Adams to Category:Wells family (U.S.)
  • Propose deleting Category:Descendants of Ulises Espaillat
Nominator's rationale: rename, re-parent and purge, we normally categorize by family rather than by descent. Purge articles that do not belong to the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alternative is perfectly fine with me as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support alternative. Remote descendants are not defined by their relationship with Samuel Adams. Place Clichy (talk) 21:13, 11 May 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.
More