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. No consensus after 4 months; suggest the nominator re-nominate the "depictions/portrayals" separately from the "in film/on film". (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Depictions of people on film to Category:Depictions of people in film
• Propose renaming Category:Portrayals of Jesus in film to Category:Depictions of Jesus in film
• Propose renaming Category:Portrayals of Moses in film to Category:Depictions of Moses in film
• Propose renaming Category:Depictions of Julius Caesar on film to Category:Depictions of Julius Casear in film

Nominator's rationale: "In film" is predominantly used in other media rather than "on film", as shown in this Ngram. Granted, it also shows that "portrayals" is even more common than "depictions"; but "depictions" is used much more widely in Wikipedia categories for other media, and was just endorsed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 13#People depicted in music. I have tagged a few sub-cats to increase participation; the remainder can follow via speedy processing. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: The alternative "Films about" is a narrower concept, and "Cultural depictions" categories were just kept rather than merged to "Works about" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 11#Cultural depictions. However, there is no need to rename the few direct sub-cats that are named "Films about…", as they may (i) already have that more specific scope and (ii) be part of another "films about" hierarchy. Note that Caesar has a sub-cat "Films about". Fayenatic London 11:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'm neutral as to in/on, as both are used. But the first category should really be renamed, as most films depict people (yes, I know I created the category, but it was a long time ago and Wikipedia has moved on!). The parent category is Category:Works based on real people, although that is clearly poor English (how can you base a work or a film on a person? You can base it on a book, but not a person.). Note that this category is a bit of a mess as it also includes mythological figures (e.g. Category:The Devil in film‎) and general articles (e.g. Native Americans in film). I'd also support moving all these categories to "Portrayals", which is probably preferable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• We should probably add "by subject" to the name of the first category, similar to Category:Biographical works by subject. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• In film is more idiomatic unless we're discussing still photos, or the actual process of capturing someone (or their facsimile) on film. Since we're not using those specific senses, in film seems like the more natural choice. I think that portrayals is a better word choice than depictions, but both are acceptable. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• Support in → on – more modern language and works better in this context. Not sure about depictions vs portrayals. Jesus is depicted in countless films in pictures and on crucifixes. MClay1 ( talk) 13:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think "depicted" is more of an artistic term. If someone is played by someone on film then they are "portrayed". Although both terms are used in both media, obviously. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
• withdrawn in hopes of consensus:

Rename parent Category:Films about people by subject.

• Rename children Category:Films about ...
• Purge

Matching many existing children, and many entries in parent Category:Historical films. These should remain "historical". Wikipedia:Categorization: Do not categorize tags of every detail in the film. There's no reason to categorize a picture of Jesus on the wall, or any merely supporting character. A voice in a burning bush is a "depiction", but the film is not about Yahweh. As noted above, these categories are a bit of a mess.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 00:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Marcocapelle has changed the parent from Category:Works based on real people to its parent the broader Category:Cultural depictions during this discussion. IMnsHO, this is a mistake.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 00:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Most subcategories are about depictions or portrayals. While I would agree on renaming and purging them to "works about" categories I note that there is currently no consensus for that, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 11#Cultural depictions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I would oppose that. While obviously tiny details don't need categorising, there are plenty of notable portrayals of historical people in film and television that are not in films and shows that are about those people specifically. MClay1 ( talk) 05:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 10:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom Much clearer scope than "portrayal". Dimadick ( talk) 05:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • That's not really the main point of the debate. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Portrayals of Moses in film was untagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Alternate proposal: The category needs to be completely renamed because, simply put, the current name is utterly meaningless. With few exceptions, the vast majority of films are, of course, "depictions of people". (Duh.) After perusing the subcats, it seems to me that what we are talking about here is "depictions of (notable) historical figures". (Which may or may not include Mr. Stan Lee...) So I would suggest something along the lines of Category:Depictions of historical figures in film. Feel free to improve on this if you like. :) Anomalous+0 ( talk) 08:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Btw, I removed Category:The Devil in film as a subcat because, to the best of my knowledge, the Devil is not, in fact, a "person". ;) Anomalous+0 ( talk) 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Fayenatic london, Necrothesp, Marcocapelle, MClay1, William Allen Simpson, and P Aculeius: Anomalous+0 ( talk) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• While I agree that the current name is meaningless, I do not think that "historical" improves it as it suggests living people are excluded. The category is nearly a container category by subject and should be named as such: Category:Depictions of people in film by subject. Similar to Category:Biographical works by subject. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• I agree with Marcocapelle. Historical implies not contemporary, which doesn't fit the contents. Category:Depictions of people in film by subject sounds like a good suggestion. MClay1 ( talk) 03:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Agreed that the parent category be by subject, as I'd proposed that above. Still disagree about "depictions"; ambiguous, refers to a picture on a wall. Prefer "portrayals". Still hope to purge unless the film is about a person.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 11:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comments -

  Ok, first - in vs. on - "on film" means quite literally that it's part of that specific film production; part of a "product". "in film" means part of the film industry. Completely different. Let's please avoid confusing/conflating "in film", with "in a film".

  Second - Cultural depictions is a Wikipedia-created neologism. We need to not do that. The only usage I have seen outside of Wikimedia sourcing is "Outdated cultural depictions".. The usage of which is quite different than what is being discussed here.

  "Portrayal of: - work done by an actor or artist. This differs from "presentation of"/"producton of" - which is a work presented by a "producer" of a work..There can be some overlap. but the two are not completely equivalent.

  When "real people" appear in a non-documentary film, they are a character in a production and are no longer "real people". They are characters based on real people.

  So this all comes down to 2 concepts:

  1.) The depiction of a particular individual on film

  2.) a work that may be based upon a particular individual.

  I don't think that the first is something we should be categorising. (Every time the image of Jesus appears on film? which includes appearances of artwork, statuary, etc? no.)

  The second is questionable, but we seem to have lots of these "based on" cats.

  As a result of the above, Rename to "Works based on X" and prune.

  If there is no consensus for that, I weakly support: Split to "Works based on X" and "Works depicting X".And punting whether we want to delete the depiction cats to a later discussion. - jc37 06:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• With apologies - pinging everyone above, to see if we can find consensus and get this closed: User:Fayenatic london, User:Necrothesp, User:Marcocapelle, User:P Aculeius, User talk:Mclay1, User:William Allen Simpson, User:Qwerfjkl, User:Dimadick, User:Anomalous+0. - jc37 09:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  No need to ping me. —  Qwerfjkl talk 14:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• Nothing new from my end: the first category should be "by subject" (or otherwise "by individual"); "works about" is better than "depictions of" as it more clearly excludes incidental non-defining depictions; and I have no opinion on "in" versus "on". Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
• Nothing has changed for me. I prefer the term "depictions" to include all depictions of the historical figure in film. I would oppose all used of "about", as it would render the categories subjective and useless. Dimadick ( talk) 09:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
• I will continue to maintain that "works based on" is very poor English when referring to people and will therefore oppose that. I also don't think we need to broaden the categories from film to wider works. I therefore continue to support "Portrayals of XXXX on film" (on reflection, I agree that "on" is preferable to "in"), although I will happily go with "depictions" if that is the consensus. The wider category still needs to be renamed, as almost all films depict people. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
• Depictions rather than portrayals, as it is a broader description, focusing less on individual actors and more on character; in film rather than on film, since the latter suggests that the physical medium—cellulose nitrate, Kodachrome negatives—is the purpose of the categories, rather than the fact that persons are depicted on television or in motion pictures. While "works about X" could be parent categories in some cases, many depictions of persons occur in works about someone or something else, so renaming any of these categories would narrow their scope considerably with relation to film, and leave various works in which persons are depicted or portrayed with nowhere to go, so better not to turn these categories into "works about X". P Aculeius ( talk) 13:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
• - There's a distinct difference between a.) a film based on George Washington, b.) a film which depects George Washington, and c.) a film in which George Washington was potrayed. So which one of these three do you each think that the inclusion criteria should be, and why? - jc37 13:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  There's no difference whatsoever between b) and c), and a) is just bad English. You can have a film based on a biography of George Washington or a character based on George Washington, but not a film based on George Washington. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  The inclusion criteria should be only films which are substantially about the individual, not just films in which the individual briefly appears. Both are portrayals or depictions. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  So, for "a", why do you say that "based on" is "bad english? What's your evidence? I'm looking at Special:PrefixIndex/List of films based on and this Google search, among other things.

  As for "b" and "c", there is a difference. "Depiction" can include any image at all of a character, including photos and artwork. "Portrayal" merely means that someone portrayed the character in the film, regardless of how long the character appeared, and regardless of their seeming importance to the film (or lack thereof). - jc37 16:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  As I see it, "portrayals" focuses on the actor playing the role, and how he plays the character; "depictions" can apply equally well to the actions, circumstances, and consequences of the character's actions on history (or other contexts), or to the fact that an actor represented the character, whether or not the film was about that character. For instance, Caesar is portrayed in a film about Caesar, and you can meaningfully discuss how he's portrayed; Decimus Brutus might appear in the film, but it's not about him and the way the actor wishes to portray him might not be that important, although he and many lesser figures might be depicted in the film without significant character development. That said, I can see an argument to interpret it almost the opposite way, but depictions still seems more flexible. I also think that in film is a better choice to indicate the medium of motion pictures or television, whereas on film suggests that the physical medium—film reels, negatives, prints—is the subject. P Aculeius ( talk) 18:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• Split Category:Depictions of people on film to Category:Films portraying people by subject and Category:Films based on people by subject. The concepts have been inappropriately merged. Finesse "in" versus "on"; portrayals over "depictions"; based on is better English.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 07:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Threading the needle of proposals by Jc37 and Marcocapelle. If we don't use "about" as previously proposed, then "based on" is better than "based upon biography of" — it's not about the biography, it's about the subject person.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 07:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  So those for the parent cats, and then "Films portraying X", and "Films based on X" as the individual subcats, respectively? I can accept that compromise. Using "portraying" is better than "depicting", at least. You could even do "Film portrayals of people by subject", with "Film portrayals of X", as subcats, if that makes people happier. - jc37 13:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose "in film" but support "depictions of". "On film" should be used instead of "in film" in my opinion because its the general way to describe depictions from that medium, same way "on screen" and "on television" is. "Depictions of" is in my opinion the best choice because it's broader than "portrayal" (which often means how something is depicted and mainly pertins to actors performances in my experience). I don't agree that "cultural depictions" or "depictions of" is something like a neologism, its just a description of what the categories or article sections cover. I also don't agree that "Works about" or "Works based on" is better, not all depictions of something or someone is a work (intellectual work/creative work etc). ★Trekker ( talk) 17:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Please provide an example of a "depiction" that is not a "creative work". - jc37 17:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  You have already asked me this once before and I have already provided examples. [1] You failed to get support for the idea that fictional characters are "works" back in February. And besides that, articles like Depictions of Muhammad and Buddha in art are often not about individual works or series of works but about trends, styles, types and reasons and reactions to depictions of persons. Artist impersonators like Michael Jackson impersonators are also not "works". ★Trekker ( talk) 20:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC) And before you link the creative work article again; no I don't find that article to be convincting since it's literally a stub about a legal concept with no more than 2 citations. ★Trekker ( talk) 20:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Failed to get support from you? : )

  That discussion you linked to had concerns withe "about", because - as we're noting here - just because something is depicted in a work, doesn't mean that that work is entirely about whatever is being depicted. Indeed, above it's been noted that a picture of Jesus might appear in a film, yet that film may not be "about" Jesus, just because an image was depicted. Using "depictions" is a really bad idea in categorization.

  Anyway, to respond to your examples, Performance art is still a work of art. Anything that falls under the fine arts are a work of art, for that matter.

  And you say the articles you note aren't even depictions, but rather "...but about trends, styles, types and reasons and reactions to depictions..." - if true, then those are not depictions but rather, are about "stuff" which are about depictions - why would they be categorised here? : )

  I get that you don't like the article. (Not sure what you don't like about a referenced legal definition, though.) And I get that you don't like dictionary definitions. The problem with that is that makes your position original research. I'm backing my assertion up with verifiable references. (Here's another: [ [2].) What do you have besides your personal opinion? - jc37 21:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comments - wikt:depiction and wikt:portrayal. It's interesting how imprecise both terms can be. The fun part is that "in film", we could be talking about the film as the piece of art, or the appearance of a piece of art in the film. The difference between talking about The Thomas Crown Affair - a film - and about The Son of Man - a piece of art which appears in the film. And per the definitions I just linked to, both "depiction in film" and "potrayal in film" apply to The Son of Man's appearance in that film. The painting is about a person. What, you don't like that it's an artist's interpretation of a person? But that's what all art of people is. An artist's interpretation. Oh wait you want the art to be about specific people? Ok. How about House of Wax? Are we saying that we are going to categorize that film based upon all of the historical people depicted in that film? To be honest, after re-reading this discussion, and in light of the actual definitions for these terms, I'm starting to lean towards Delete all. If no consensus for deletion, I'll Support William Allen Simpson's compromise above. - jc37 06:08, 3 July 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: as follows.

• No consensus Category:Monarchs by religion
• Rename Category:Zoroastrian rulers to Category:Zoroastrian monarchs
• Merge Category:Christian Khagans to Category:Christian monarchs
• Merge Category:Kievan Khagans to Category:Christian monarchs

There was no resolution oto whether WP:OCEGRS was applicable, but it was noted that the Zoroastrian category was not in line with the category naming convention, and that the Khagan ones are WP:SMALLCAT (non-admin closure) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose manually deleting Category:Monarchs by religion ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose manually deleting Category:Zoroastrian rulers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Christian Khagans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Kievan Khagans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS. This is a trivial intersection with religion. Category:Rulers by religion, Category:Muslim rulers and Category:Buddhist rulers were recently manually deleted for the same reason. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

PS Adding Category:Christian Khagans (also per WP:OR and WP:SMALLCAT: 1 child, 1 item) and Category:Kievan Khagans (which has Category:Christian Khagans as its only parent; also per WP:OR). Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose deleting the Kyivan khagans category based on this discussion. It has nothing to do with religion. The given rationale doesn’t apply to it. — Michael  Z. 07:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply

It does, because it is completely unconnected to other category tree, except through Category:Christian Khagans. The degree to which the early Kyivan monarchs were "k(h)agans" and Christian or pagan is subject to ongoing scholarly discussion. It is a fascinating topic, and I've written a lot about it recently at Grand Prince of Kiev. But it is also a complicated discussion that requires nuanced, evidence-based answers. It cannot be simply decided by some guy categorising them according to his own WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 23:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Consensus may change after an earlier keep in 2016: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_12#Monarchs by religion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose deleting Category:Monarchs by religion and Category:Zoroastrian rulers. The religion of a ruler is not trivial or incidental; anyone who thinks that only has to look at history to be proven wrong. Constantine ✍ 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• Category:Zoroastrian rulers may better be converted to Category:Ancient Iranian monarchs which is much more defining. Zoroastrism was the main religion in ancient Persia, the fact that rulers were also Zoroastrians is trivial in that context. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  I oppose renaming to Category:Ancient Iranian monarchs, because it is already in Category:Monarchs of Persia, Category:Monarchy in Persia and Iran and Category:Iranian dynasties. This is highly duplicative and has petty added value. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 20:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• (updated)Keep Category:Monarchs by religion as useful container for the various existing subcategories; where a monarch is titular head of a national church (and conducts war against other religions), it can be defining; Rename Category:Zoroastrian rulers to Category:Ancient Iranian monarchs per Marcocapelle; Delete Khagans as nominated.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 08:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  I oppose renaming to Category:Ancient Iranian monarchs, because it is already in Category:Monarchs of Persia, Category:Monarchy in Persia and Iran and Category:Iranian dynasties. This is highly duplicative and has petty added value.

  The concept of making monarchs the "head" of a "national" church is early modern, and I'm not sure if it really exists elsewhere but in England. Head of the Church doesn't mention any other church but the Church of England ( Supreme Governor of the Church of England, for which there is no category, presumably because it would just duplicate Category:British monarchs).

  If we look at how the categories are currently actually populated, it's much more a random free-for-all in Category:Christian monarchs, where we've got Category:6th-century Frankish kings‎ (and more random Frankish-king-by-century cats), Category:9th-century English monarchs‎ (and more random English-monarch-by-century cats), Boleslaus I, Duke of Bohemia (who appears a lot more pagan, actually), Category:Christian Khagans (already CfD'd here), and so on. Especially monarchs from the early medieval conversion generation are questionably Christian/pagan (e.g. Constantine I still using Sol Invictus in his symbolism decades after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge when he supposedly converted to Catholicism).

  No doubt lots of hagiographers have sought to paint them as the great examples to be followed, but history tends to be a lot more complicated than black and white, pagan and Christian etc. In hundreds of cases, these are WP:SUBJECTIVECATs (how "Christian" one is, and to what degree "Christian" is or should be a synonym for "ethical"), or WP:ARBITRARYCATs (when there is evidence that the person in question adhered to multiple religious traditions, worshipped multiple deities of different traditions, mixed religious practices, supported different religious institutions through construction of places of worship, minting of coins with mixed symbolism etc.). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 20:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Fair point about Ancient Iranian monarchs, then Category:Zoroastrian rulers should just be deleted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply

•  Comment: Category:Muslim politicians was recently deleted per WP:OCEGRS as well. It follows the 2019 systematic deletion of all Category:Politicians by religion categories. Technically, this should be decisive for monarchs by religion, because Category:Politicians is the great-great-grandparent of Category:Monarchs. Given that Category:Rulers by religion, Category:Muslim rulers and Category:Buddhist rulers were also recently deleted, I see no reason to make an exception for monarchs. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 00:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I confess I am surprised to hear the opinion that religion for monarchs is 'trivial' seriously uttered. That would be a surprise to many of them, especially those who were crowned in a church, are called Defender of the Faith, converted to a religion thus bringing their entire people with them, supported the principle of cuius regio, eius religio, based their sole legitimacy on religion (e.g. caliphs) or assumed such names like ' Sword of the Faith', etc etc. It would be nice if religion were irrelevant, but the last few thousand years of recorded history show that this is very much not the case... WP:OCEGRS is about 'trivial intersections' and gives musicians and sportspeople as example, it does not sate that *all* intersections with religion are trivial! Quite the contrary: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". I would argue that the religion of a monarch has historically been very relevant. I am even more surprised we are doing blanket deletions based on discussions where four to five editors participate, and then use that as a precedent for 'technical' deletions further down the line. This is matter for a wider WP:RFC, not for a couple of editors who happen to stumble upon these discussions to decide. Constantine ✍ 11:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • @ Cplakidas, In general, categorisation matters are decided at CfD, not through an RfC. —  Qwerfjkl talk 17:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC) reply

      There are no doubt some monarchs in whose career their personal religion mattered a lot, but it should not be assumed to be relevant by default, as the inclusion of broad categories such as Category:6th-century Frankish kings does. Religion often appears to have been used by various monarchs as a tool to attain certain political goals on Earth that have little to do with the supernatural. Cuius regio, eius religio is a typical example of that: a German prince could decide what religion his subjects must believe in, and thus adopting Lutheranism instead of Catholicism allowed him to be more independent of the Pope and the Emperor. Meanwhile, the 'Catholic' French kings were quite happy to ally themselves with the 'heretical' Lutheran German princes for political and territorial gain during the Wars of the Reformation. Religion is often quite simply WP:NONDEFINING for who a monarch was or what they did, so unless WP:RS say otherwise, WP:OCEGRS applies. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 23:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply

      PS: 'Defender of the Faith' and similar titles have also been used by various monarchs to assure that religious minorities in their countries will be protected from any harm that may come to them. Various Ottoman sultans have sworn to protect the Christians within their empire. Charles III recently made various statements to the same effect. Such an attitude, or even policy, is more one of oecumenism than adherence to a particular faith, thus again defying categorisation. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 23:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC) reply

      Charles III's ecumenical notions are very much a modern phenomenon for an anointed sovereign, and notable precisely because they reinterpret in a 21st-century inclusive way a medieval title with very clear connotations of non-toleration. Claiming that historically this has been the case is wrong, plain and simple. The title was granted by the Pope for the defence of Roman Church doctrine, and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 has clarified which faith is to be defended: 'a significant alteration was the explicit inclusion of an oath to maintain "the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law"'. Constantine ✍ 09:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC) reply

• withdraw Category:Monarchs by religion until the subcategories have been handled bottom up; Delete the rest as nominated.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 01:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose deletion of Christian Khagans, but upmerge that one to Christian monarchs as SMALLCAT. No objection to deletion of Kievan khagans; the three member pages are already within Christian or Orthodox monarchs, and within Category:Grand Princes of Kiev, so it does not seem an important category. Oppose Category:Monarchs by religion as an appropriate parent. If there is no consensus to delete the Zoroastrian category, shouldn't it be renamed to Category:Zoroastrian monarchs? – Fayenatic London 13:53, 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.