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.
Nominator's rationale: All future Fantastic Four films will be set in the MCU, and it is unlikely any characters from the previous films will receive their own articles. As we already have
Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe drafts, this category is no longer needed.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 22:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There is no need for the category at this point.
-- Zoo (
talk) 22:45, 4 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:Rulers of Lesbos
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 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 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:Rulers of the Habsburg monarchy
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename per actual category content, all subcategories are named "Archdukes of Austria". (Alternatively we may rename this category including its subcategories to "Monarchs of the Habsburg monarchy".)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. "Monarchs of the Habsburg monarchy" seems a bit tautological, but I suppose that if we only named it "Habsburg monarchs", some people will want to include Spanish kings and such in the cat, which isn't the intention. So the alternative is okay if the merge does not proceed.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 01:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Archduke of Austria was merely one of their titles: they were also Kings of Hungary and Bohemia, often also with the title Holy Roman Emperor.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong support — no matter what titles in other modern countries, that was the title in Austria. This should not be a Holy Roman Empire category, discard those parental intersections. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Support The proposal has no impact on other titles that the Archdukes may also have held from time to time.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 18:19, 8 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:Rulers of the Carolingian Empire
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 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:Rulers of the Bosporan Kingdom
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, the articles in the category consistently mention "king" as the title of these rulers.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:47, 4 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.
Rulers by millennium
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.
Support -- Even in Egypt, it will not be possible to populate more than about 50 century categories. As I have often said, millennium categories serve no useful purpose.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as a first step. Millennium categories serve no useful purpose. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 19:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
RenameDelete per nom. Judges with unknown centuries can comfortably sit in
Category:Judges of ancient Israel by themselves with a note saying to diffuse to century where known.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 18:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename to what? The nom is for deletion.
Dimadick (
talk) 20:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: I think you mean to say "support" instead of "rename". I agree with the comment.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:22, 9 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:Works about sovereignty
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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge currently this doesn't aid navigation and I don't think we're likely to get notable non-books (films, blogs, etc.) on sovereignty. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:41, 4 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:2000 FINA World Open Water Swimming Championships
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. Category contains on 1 entry.
User:Namiba 19:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't it be merged to some parent categories? Shouldn't the 2008 sibling be nominated too?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I have added the 2008 edition. Both are already in the appropriate subcategories so merging isn't necessary.--
User:Namiba 23:23, 4 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:Baseball players of Italian descent
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.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. Either people in this category are Italian themselves, in which case they belong in
Category:Italian baseball players (which is not exclusive of people having held several citizenships during their lifetime, simultaneously or not), or the place where their ancestors lived probably has little thing to do with the fact that they played baseball of all sports. There is no other category by descent for baseball players, or any other sport.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:28, 4 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:Countries by language family
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 following cats are children of
Category:Countries and territories by language (a legitimate container cat), in which they are pretending to be a "language", but are in fact a language family:
Delete all. Some editors seem to confuse, in good faith, language family and ethnicity. In which place would an American, an Austrian, a Dutch and a Norwegian gather and say "hey, we all speak Germanic-family languages, we're all Germanic"? (Germanic may be replaced by Turkic, Iranic, Italic etc.) This notion also confuses Ancient cultures, which are often defined by ethnic or linguistic traces which can be all that's available in archaeological data, with modern nations that are, very often, pluriethnic.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Hah, well if I were on holiday 15 years ago and that situation happened, I might have made such a statement; and then that American, Austrian and Norwegian would look at me funny. xD Seriously though, I agree with what you say; all these things are pretty
WP:NONDEFINING. But I don't think we need to redo this discussion, because it has already been had; we have just missed several categories during previous CfDs. I also still keep finding several cats that have so far escaped our attention, and am adding them to this list. It's pretty difficult to track all these down. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep but purge content -- Categorising countries by language group seems legitimate to me. However English is not purely a Germanic language, but a diglot between a Germanic language (Old English) and Romance languages (French/Latin). America (ie USA) should similarly be eliminated. Germanic kingdoms and empires need merging; also all the Turkic ones and (separately) Iranic. The fact that this refers to a language group can be explained in headnotes.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:07, 5 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.
Delete While this award is hard to get in real life, it's easy for authors to use it as a throw-away line when they introduce a character so you know they're a badass, and then never mention it again in the plot. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose No rationale given of why this is an unworthy category. Since when was "worth" a criterion?
Dimadick (
talk) 05:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Worth is not a criterion indeed, but definingness is.
WP:OR is also a criterion: "Listed below are the medals and service awards displayed on Miyagi's Staff Sergeant's uniform in the first film."
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Surely Listify and delete as we normally do for
award categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete without listifying — these are fictional, there's no need to compile a list of them by many authors across a multitude of fictional parallel universes. Somebody has been reading too many comic books. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 01:27, 12 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 Bronze Star Medal recipients
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.
Nominator's rationale: Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross, sure maybe, but the Bronze Star is too far down the line to merit a category.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 12:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete While this award is hard to get in real life, it's easy for authors to use it as a throw-away line when they introduce a character so you know they're a badass, and then never mention it again in the plot. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose No rationale given of why this is an unworthy category. Since when was "worth" a criterion?
Dimadick (
talk) 05:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Surely Listify and delete as we normally do for
award categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete without listifying — these are fictional, there's no need to compile a list of them by many authors across a multitude of fictional parallel universes. Somebody has been reading too many comic books. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 01:25, 12 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:Western Yan 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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, as discussed previously it is uncertain whether "wang" translates as king or prince, but in any case
Western Yan was a monarchy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Upmerge
Category:Western Yan emperors and rename. There is no real difference between the people that declared themselves emperor and the people that didn't. Chinese Wikipedia only has for Western Yan monarchs.
Mucube (
talk •
contribs) 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)reply
(as nom) I have no objection to the merger of the subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:05, 5 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:Tuyuhun 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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, the articles mention both king and khan, but in any case
Tuyuhun was a monarchy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:13, 4 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:Türgesh 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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, the articles in the category consistently refer to the title as "khagan".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:07, 4 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.
Comment: The kingdom terminology is a product of traditional historiography developed during the early 20th century, and has been questioned by later scholars; e.g., Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit described its political structure as a confederation of city-states and referred to its early rulers as chieftains. That said, the majority of sources do refer to the majority of its rulers as kings, so renaming wouldn't be inappropriate (though I'm not sure entirely necessary). --
Paul_012 (
talk) 07:01, 5 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:Sumerian 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 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:Rulers of Chaghaniyan
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.
Rename per inconsistent terminology, and etymology (discussed below), not per article title
Principality of Chaghaniyan. I think
Principality of Chaghaniyan is a
WP:REDUNDANTFORK of
Chaghaniyan, and should be merged back into the latter. If the "principality" was a monarchy that existed "5th-10th century CE", as the infobox claims, it spans the entire existence of
Chaghaniyan as a region, and only the section "Muhtajid rule and aftermath" was omitted from the fork for no apparent reason.
In any case, the term 'principality' seems strange, as the head of state isn't called "prince" anywhere; the article speaks of 'king', 'queen', and 'lord'. As we agreed previously, whenever there is difficulty in translating a title and no consistency in literature, "monarch" would be the best default option. There are also some etymological reasons for picking "monarch". Persian Wikipedia gives the title چغان خدا (Chaghan Khudah on English Wikipedia); the latter word
en:wikt:خدا (xodâ) can mean [1] God, god [2] lord [3] patron [4] chief [5] master [6] owner. In its archaic Middle Persian form
en:wikt:خدای (xwdây, Xvaday) it simply means "God"/"god". According to
en:wikt:god#English, there is no Proto-Indo-European connection between the English word "god", going back to a verb meaning "to invoke", and these Iranian/Persian words; the latter are reconstructed as
en:wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Iranian/hwatā́wā, from "self" + "power/strength", meaning [1] lord, sovereign, king [2] god. I suppose this is the Persian equivalent of "autocrat" (self-strength/power) and comes very close to the literal meaning of "monarch" (alone-reign).
I was also curious whether چغان (cheghan) might just be a Persianised form of the Turkic word
khagan, but no; that is
en:wikt:خاقان (xâqân), and it certainly wouldn't explain the longer Middle Persian form (چَگینیگان Čagīnīgān). The etymology of this word is not easy; it doesn't have to be derived from khagan, and it's probably just a toponym. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 16:53, 4 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:Rouran 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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, per article title
Rouran Khaganate, and this is the title that the articles in the category consistently mention.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:44, 4 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:Rulers of Osroene
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename, the articles in the category consistently mention "king" as the title.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:38, 4 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:Cham 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 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:Estonian catch wrestlers
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.
Single Merge for Now per Marcocapelle. No objection to recreation if/when 5+ articles ever get created. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:55, 4 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 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.
Nominator's rationale:rename and re-parent to
Category:Monarchs per actual content of the category. There aren't any notable legendary presidents or legendary prime ministers.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 00:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Perhaps all this requires a new, separate nomination? It doesn't really challenge the proposition of renaming from "rulers" to "monarchs", but it might be helpful to consider changing "legendary" to "legendary and mythological", or to reformulate it as "Monarchs in mythology/myths and legends" per
Category:Kings in Norse mythology and legends. Because all of its subcats seem to suffer the same problem of distinguishing between legendary and mythological. I do think it's helpful to have gendered categories for kings and queens, and items which don't qualify for the given dynastic title ("king, queen" etc.) can be moved around or removed, that may not require a name change. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It probably requires a different discussion. As far as I am aware of, the word "mythological" is more often associated with (extinct) religions, while "legendary" is used mostly in entirely non-religious context.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I think Dimadick is saying something else, namely: myths = stories involving non-human characters, legends = stories involving human characters. Your understanding is: myths = stories from (extinct) religions, legends = non-religious stories. My own understanding is: myths = stories that aren't true and almost nobody believes in (anymore), legends = stories that are dubious, containing a mix of fact and fiction, and are believed by some, but rejected by others. So our understanding of what these terms means is actually rather different. The common element between all of them, however, is that legends are generally a bit more credible, while myths are seen as having no legitimacy (anymore), or never had it in the first place. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 03:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree with Marcocapelle, this should be a later discussion after closing. Such impatience. Thank goodness we don't rely on personal understanding. There are professionals who develop these concepts. We have well referenced articles on
Myth and
Legend. Categories will follow. Mistakes will be rectified. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 10:52, 10 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.