From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 8
March 10 >

March 9

< March 8 March 10 >


Category:Terrorist incidents on underground rapid transit systems

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#Category:Terrorist incidents on underground rapid transit systems

Category:Underground railways

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#Category:Underground railways

Category:Palestinian terrorism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 20#Category:Palestinian terrorism

Queer categories

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. The cruces of this discussion are whether we should treat queer as a synonym of LGBT and whether there are enough people identifying as queer to maintain these categories. There was no agreement on the first question; if we take queer to be a synonym of LGBT, and thus the queer categories as catchalls for members of the LGBT community who do not however fit in the L, G, B, or T categories, people will be labelled as queer who do not identify as such; on the other hand, if the queer categories are to contain only people who identify as queer, that leaves the question of what is to be done about people who do not fit into any of the LGBTQ subcategories. Some argued that the very existence of these contrasting definitions makes the term unworkably vague. There is a consensus that it is not acceptable to categorize people who do not specifically identify as queer as such. These categories certainly include many people who do not.

That leads us to the second question of whether the queer categories, when properly applied, include enough articles to be useful. If not, they should be merged. There was no consensus for a single answer for all the nominated categories. It was also pointed out that many of the proposed merge targets are containerized, meaning they cannot be merged to. Each category's members will have to be checked (as some participants already have started to) to make sure they are categorized properly, and the categories then evaluated individually.

These problems, like many others, seem to stem from a deeper problem with the classification of LGBT+ people and topics on Wikipedia. This CfD cannot solve that. There is a need, sooner or later, to have a wide discussion on how we treat subjects which are LGBT(Q+) but not L, G, B, or T. (non-admin closure) ■ ∃  Madeline ⇔ ∃  Part of me ; 12:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale There is no discernible, coherent distinction in usage between "queer" and "LGBT". "Queer" and "LGBT" are almost synonymous as umbrella terms for anyone or anything that is not hetero and/or cis in sexuality or gender. A queer magazine and an LGBT magazine being two different things is a distinction without a difference. I have not nominated specific categories, such as that for Queer theory or Queercore music because those terms have specific meanings that are relevant. Otherwise, zap them all. Long overdue, but I hadn't nominated these categories yet due to the daunting number of categories. Apologies in advance for potential typos. Pinging: @ User:Bearcat, @ User:Another Believer, @ User:TheTranarchist, @ User:Mathglot, @ User:Pyxis Solitary, @ User:Marcocapelle, @ User:Fayenatic london, @ User:StarTrekker, @ User:Place Clichy, @ User:Anomalous+0, @ User:Knoterification, @ User:JDBauby, @ User:discospinster Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 06:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Support. "Queer" is a malleable term. Fashionable absolutism has developed about it, but this change makes encyclopedic sense. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Firstly, there is a discernible and coherent distinction in usage between "queer" and "LGBT", because "queer" is some people's actual self-identification.
    And even more importantly, right across the board the "LGBT" parent categories have become too large to be maintainable as single catchall categories, and many of them need to be comprehensively subcategorized for size management purposes — for instance, an undiffused and uncontainerized Category:LGBT writers would have over 5,500 articles in it, which is far, far too large, so that category has to be kept strictly empty of individual writers: every single writer in that tree must be filed only in subcategories, and the only article that may ever be left sitting directly in Category:LGBT writers at all is List of LGBT writers itself.
    So when an LGBT category reaches the point of needing to be chunked out for size in the first place, it needs to always have categories for all of the relevant labels — L and G and B and T and Q and NB — precisely because there are a non-trivial number of people who identify solely as "queer" and could therefore not be otherwise diffused into the L, G, B, T or NB subcategories at all, which simply can't happen in any category that needs to be totally containerized for size management. So it can't be that the Ls and Gs and Bs and Ts and NBs get a category but the Qs don't — I'll grant that in some of these LGBT categories it wouldn't be the end of the world, because there are still some people sitting directly in them, but many of the proposed targets have been intentionally containerized so that they're not supposed to contain any individual people at all anymore, and that has to be upheld and maintained without violation. Bearcat ( talk) 07:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment: It seems to me that people using "queer" as an identifier are typically using it as a non-specific way of saying that they are part of the LGBT community. No? Why not diffuse mainly according to gender? An already existing example would be Category:LGBT male actors and Category:LGBT actresses. LGBT writers are not divided in this way. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 07:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    It matters not one whit. If you've got an LGBT category that has to be strictly containerized, and a "queer" subcategory is the only place that some people can be containerized to because they haven't been any more specific about their identity than that, then it just don't matter whether they're being specific or non-specific — because the "strictly containerized" is the absolute #1 "must follow with absolutely no exceptions for any reasons under any circumstances" rule that everything else is subordinate to. Bearcat ( talk) 07:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    And why can't writers who self-identify as "queer" be subcategorized as Category:LGBT male writers and Category:LGBT women writers? Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 07:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • LGBT writers is already diffused by poets, novelists etc so it will never directly contain many articles anyway. No need to divide by gender. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Except that poets, novelists etc also have to be containerized, meaning they have to be emptied of individual articles by having everybody subbed out into subcategories too. Bearcat ( talk) 07:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
An Australian queer novelist would already be categorized under Category:Australian LGBT novelists. I'm not sure why "queer" is necessary, when divisions of nationality (and gender) take care of this. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 07:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Because not every country has enough LGBT writers from it to get its own "[Country] LGBT [specific-type-of-writer]" categories at all. Some do, many do not — I cannot, for instance, justify the creation of Category:Chinese LGBT novelists or Category:Bolivian LGBT poets, because the "Chinese/Bolivian LGBT writers" categories just don't have enough articles in them to support that. So for those countries, I'm still stuck having to apply "Country LGBT writers" and "Not-differentiated-by-nationality LGBT specific-tyoe-of-writer" as separate non-intersected categories — so if one of those trees has to be stricty containerized, but some of its people can't be subcategorized by nationality because their country just doesn't have the numbers to support a "Country LGBT specific-type-of-writer" subcategory at all, then "queer" becomes the only other possible option to subcategorize some of those people. Bearcat ( talk) 08:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Take the category Category:Queer screenwriters. 7 people, all American or Canadian. Those people could be sorted into Category:American LGBT screenwriters and Category:Canadian LGBT screenwriters. There's no need for this category. Most of these categories have few people. The largest category is Category:Queer actors, with 109 articles, almost all American or Canadian. Categories for Category:LGBT male actors and Category:LGBT actresses, in combination with nationality categories such as Category:Canadian LGBT actors, makes these categories unnecessary. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 08:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Nobody cares about what's true of most articles — the operative here is every, not "most". Every single affected article must be subcategorized appropriately with absolutely, unequivocally zero articles being left in undifferentiated "LGBT" parents at all — it's 100 per cent or nothing, and that's not up for any discussion or debate or negotiation. There's simply no "most" about it: it's all, all, all, and not one page less than all. Bearcat ( talk) 08:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Why would this be a must? There are lots of categories in other fields that contain a mix of both subcategories and direct articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Some categories are explicitly "containerized", meaning that because they would have to contain thousands and thousands of articles if they had no subcategories and instead were directly populated with all of their potential entries, they are required to be exclusively subcategories-only and may not contain any sort of "subcategories and articles" mixture. Not all categories have that rule, but some do — and if a category has been containerized, then that means it can't have subcategories merged back into it. Bearcat ( talk) 10:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • That is the status quo, obviously. The question is more, what would be against de-containerization, for a handful of articles that do not fit L, G, B or T? Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • There's no such thing as partial decontainerization. If a total decontainerization would render the category far, far too large to be browsable or maintainable — as LGBT writers would be if all of its subcategories were blown out and all of their entries upmerged back to a single undifferentiated parent — then there's no such thing as partial decontainerization of subcategories that already exist. There are to be absolutely zero people stuck directly in Category:LGBT writers at all, and that is not up for any funking debate or discussion or negotiation or wheedling for exceptions. Bearcat ( talk) 03:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I'd like to mention that these categories are currently a mess because many people are being categorized as "Queer" regardless of how they identify, even if the article never even mentions the word queer, because many editors are using "queer" in the LGBT umbrella sense. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 07:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Perhaps, then, if this category merge happened, then this tendency could be curbed? Historyday01 ( talk) 13:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
If there are people being categorized as queer without their article explicitly documenting and sourcing that they identify as queer, then the solution to that is to remove them from the inappropriate category, not to simply delete the category entirely so that it can't even be used by the people who do belong in it. Bearcat ( talk) 10:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural comment: if the nomination goes ahead, Category:Queer people should be deleted instead of merged, because the articles are already much lower in the LGBT tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • These categories probably contain a mix of poor categorization cases (e.g. Red Jordan Arobateau identified as lesbian and transgender respectively but is also in Category:Queer poets) and articles about people who specifically identified as queer as Bearcat mentions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    These categories will *always* be prone to misuse because of the multiple meanings that "queer" has, both as a synonym for LGBT and as a letter within LGBTQ+. I have already seen a bunch of articles where people are listed as queer simply for being LGBT in some capacity, because the editors are using queer as an umbrella. There's no way around this problem. These categories will always be a mess. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 10:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support based on a headcount of Category:Queer poets: only one article Tommye Blount specifically and only mentions queer, but this mention is unsourced. It seems that people specifically identifying as queer is a very small minority in these categories. The articles should be manually diffused to L, G, B and T. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Marcocapelle I've purged Category:Queer poets and found 5 of 12 with references for self-identity as queer. Specifically, Tommye Blount has a reference as both black and queer. There are 4 others. Please check again.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 05:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support I think that this would be a good idea, but articles would still need to be diffused to their appropriate L,G,B,T, and beyond, categories, as necessary. Historyday01 ( talk) 13:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
That will often not be possible, as queer-identifying people often implicitly or explicitly reject alternative labels like L, G, B, T, non-binary, pansexual, etc. A lot will just end up in the LGBT parent cat and not be able to be sorted further, the appropriate queer subcat having been deleted. (Though it is a valid question on what basis we could purport to keep them in LGBT categories at all, if we disallow queer as a valid identity under the LGBTQQIA2... umbrella.)-- Trystan ( talk) 00:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Hmm, that's a fair point. At minimum, I would hope this discussion helps to improve the categorization on here. Historyday01 ( talk) 01:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Support – per nominator. ... discospinster talk 15:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - The proposed wholesale deletions would only serve to prevent readers from finding articles on queer-identified people by upmerging them into the parent LGBT categories. Personal critiques of the merits of queer as an identity label (e.g., that is arguably too similar to LGBT) are irrelevant; it is verifiably the specific identity some people adopt and use. If the categories have in some cases been applied too broadly, that is a matter for cleanup, not a reason to delete.-- Trystan ( talk) 19:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Support: if we take queer as synonymous with LGBT(Q+) then this categorisation system makes no semantic sense. All bisexual poets would be queer. If we don't take queer as synonymous with LGBT(Q+)—perhaps we only use it if a person describes themselves as "queer"—then "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual", "transgender" and "queer" are no longer exhaustive subcategories to diffuse to.
    And in either case the diffusing categories are not exclusive: many (e.g.) bisexual people will identify as "queer", so either they need to be in both categories or the category system is wrongly named. Perhaps it is not an issue to have someone in both "bisexual" and "transgender" categories, but if we're going by all words that a person identifies with then a person could feasibly end up in at least four of the categories—"lesbian", "gay", "transgender" and "queer" (for a transgender woman attracted to other women).
    In the current system, it seems that (e.g.) "Queer poets" means "LGBT poets who are not lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender". This is not desirable. Merge upwards and then further reorganisation can be discussed. — Bilorv ( talk) 19:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Bearcat and Trystan — practically and as a political problem.
    1. Many proposed merges would violate {{ Container category}}. Never merge directly into containerized categories.
    2. Some folk explicitly identify as "queer". Some of those identify as "queer" in opposition to the perceived politics of the LGBT community. Merging them to LGBT would be wrong.
    3. We've spent so many years working on guidelines: categorize by self-identity. We should never claim that self-identity is something invalid.
    4. I've been down that road in the past. In 1977, my housemate was purged from our university Gay and Lesbian Council because he was "bi". We've come a long way. Resist going backward.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 07:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
"Some folk explicitly identify as "queer"." Assuming there is a biographical article: if an individual identifies as queer and there are reliable sources to support the self-identification, then a "Category:Queer identifying" (or something similar) may be appropriate in such case. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
All religion, sexuality, and gender identity categories are based on public self-identification, but we don't categorize people as "Catholic identifying" or "Lesbian identifying." Adopting a different phrasing from other identity categories would have the effect of conveying that Wikipedia views queer identities as less valid. However, this option is still far superior to outright deletion.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • A proposal for outright deletion is not on the table anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Allow me to rephrase. An outcome where we keep some categories that are effective finding aids for readers looking for queer topics and biographies is preferable to an outcome where all such categories are eliminated, whether through deletion or upmerging.-- Trystan ( talk) 19:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – I don't have an opinion on the rest, but I oppose merging Category:Queer specifically, as it serves as the category for the topic of queer itself, rather than being largely a synonym for LGBT. DecafPotato ( talk) 02:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Only the eponymous article is about the topic Queer itself, the other articles in Category:Queer would fit equally well in Category:LGBT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • As it stands, Category:Queer serves as a useful finding aid for a reader interested in specifically queer identities by collecting Queer, Queering, Category:Queer theory, Category:Queer people, Category:Queer culture, etc. However, if we adopt the point of view that "there is no discernible, coherent distinction in usage between 'queer' and 'LGBT'", and consequently merge almost all of the categories on queer topics to the LGBT parent categories, there would be very little left to justify retaining Category:Queer. We can't meaningfully provide articles relevant to a reader interested in queer identities if we have deemed queer a simple synonym for LGBT in categorizing all the articles that reader might be interested in.-- Trystan ( talk) 18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "...while all queer people fall under the LGBT+ umbrella, not all LGBT+ people are queer" -> probably nobody would disagree with that, but it is not an argument to oppose. It would have been an argument to oppose merging Category:LGBT to Category:Queer but the nomination is otherwise.
"...there are people who describe themselves exclusively as queer" -> but apparently very few, while there are many more people who are categorized as queer by Wikipedia editors but unjustified. That makes the queer categories useless. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Whether any of these categories would be too small to retain after a proper cleanup is a good question, but it will take some time to determine. There is no reasonable prospect that the larger ones, like Category:Queer actors, would be reduced beyond usefulness.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It is rare that I'm opposing both Marcocapelle and Laurel Lodged, who are otherwise well versed in categorization. But this doesn't hold well under scrutiny. Look at the top nomination: Category:Queer screenwriters. It is well populated, so merging makes no sense. It is parallel to Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Non-binary, and Transgender. Since Queer is none of those, and long accepted as self-identification (LBGTQ is a common expansion of LGBT), merging would risk constant re-creation. Category:LGBT writers is containerized, and would require Queer be jammed into existing Bisexual, Gay, Intersex, Lesbian, Non-binary, or Transgender categories. That's nearly 200 articles to reassign to something that the subject does not self-identify. How would you do it as a practical matter?
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 17:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Of the first three, there is no confirmation by sources, which means that "queer" in the article text may just as well mean "LGBTQ" i.e. the writer of the article just was not sure about the specifics. That is the whole point of the nomination, "queer" too often being used as a synonym of "LGBTQ". Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I've checked again. My two criteria are (a) self-identification and (b) making LGBTQ-intersecting works:
    1. Marusya Bociurkiw is a lesbian who self-identifies as "queer". (a) Her memoir is entitled Food Was Her Country: The Memoir of a Queer Daughter; (b) her films include This is Gay Propaganda: LGBT Rights and the War in Ukraine.
    2. Steven Canals (a) interview has the self-description, "as a queer brown person"; (b) notable work is Pose, and the same interview says, "Exhausted by the erasure of my experience, POSE was conceived as way to fill a gap that has long existed. A love letter to New York City and the miraculous queer and trans, black and brown souls who managed to create community in the face of a plague, violence, and familial rejection."
    3. Catherine Hernandez (a) on her own webpage and every book jacket, "She is a proud queer woman who is of Filipino, Spanish, Chinese and Indian descent" and there are multiple WP:RS in the article; (b) works include Scarborough and other books and plays with LGBTQ themes; plus her article was mostly written by User:Bearcat, who has vast experience in this area and unlikely to use queer because he was not sure about the specifics.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 10:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, the term appears more often than I initially thought. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for your perseverence. So there is definitely room for an overall queer-identifying category, but diffusion by occupation remains questionable. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. I also support Pyxis' proposal for a Category:Queer identifying for lgbt people who specifically identify as queer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdmurlock ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The latter may be a reasonable compromise, without a need to split by occupation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    No. Category:Queer identifying is pretty unacceptable for the same guideline and policy reasons for why we don't have Category:Lesbian identifying, Category:Gay identifying, Category:Bisexual identifying, or Category:Transgender identifying. The terminology choice is non-neutral, non-respectful to people who are one or more of those identities, and as far as I know we have no other categories that are in the form Identity identifying. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • @ Sideswipe9th: the difference is that the word queer can have two meanings, it can be used as a synonym of LGBTQ or it can refer to the Q alone. I'd be very happy with any other form of disambiguation but I can't think of an alternative right now. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. I guess people should primarily acknowledge how limited a tool categories are when applied to people. People are diverse, have a near-infinite variety of nuances and identities and personal histories and categories just are not made to reflect that. They will never be able to do so. The text of articles, in return, can reflect the detailed nuances of one's history of self-identification and perception by society. As an imperfect tool, gathering LGBT-related topics under this moniker, explicitly accepted as imperfect, is better than all other available options. Expecially, it is better than inviting good-faith editors to retroactively apply, based on their own personal preference, a multitude of largely overlapping labels to about every biographical article, which would inevitably happen if we create opinion-based fork hierarchies like this. With all respect to these various identity nuances, topics articles and biographies are the place to elaborate on them, not categories. Place Clichy ( talk) 13:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge per nom, Place Clichy and others. -- Skovl ( talk) 16:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Bearcat and Trystan - it is not uncommon for people to identify solely as queer without labeling their sexuality or gender further. Merging these categories would either force the incorrect categorization of people or putting people in the general LGBT category, which is unnecessary since they do have an identification - queer. There's a reason LGBTQ as a term exists (and the LGBT categories should quite possibly be renamed to LGBTQ). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:07, 3 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:Princes of the United 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Essentially, the same thing. Celia Homeford ( talk) 17:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: The former is much more specific. "Princes of the United Kingdom" are persons (no matter their place of birth or residence or nationality) who hold the title of Prince because of their relation to the King/Queen of the United Kingdom, whereas "British princes" are persons who are princes (no matter how they hold that title) who were born in/lived in/nationals of the U.K. and/or her predecessor states in these isles (which would be why it has subs including "Scottish princes" and "Welsh princes"). This could usefully be clarified on the category pages. DBD 17:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I suppose Category:British princes should be a container category for Category:Princes of the United Kingdom, Category:English princes, Category:Welsh princes and Category:Scottish princes. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. C2D applies per British prince and List of current British princes and princesses. There is no ambiguity whatsoever that the expression refers to princely titles held in relations to the British royal honours system, and not to the accidental simultaneous holding of British citizenship and an unrelated foreign princely or royal title. In the latter case, a British princes category should probably not be applied anyway because that would be a trivial intersection (see WP:OVERCAT). My perception is that the UK does not recognize foreign titles, so a situation somewhat equivalent to the status of prince étranger at Versailles court would not exist; however if there are indeed foreign princes primarily notable for their position at the British court, that specific status should be given its own category such as Foreign princes in the United Kingdom. E.g. the Aga Khan, although a British citizen and a prince, is not in British princes and probably should not be. Also, another advantage of British/Scottish/etc. princes is to unambiguously apply to all royal princes in the UK and its predecessor realms even with different actual titles, instead of trying to strictly apply Windsor-era rules and customs in a retroactive fashion. Anyway, there is probably some clean-up to do among Princes in the British Isles/ British princes, Princes of Scotland/ Scottish princes etc. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom and Place Clichy. Category:Princes in the British Isles is clearly something else, and DBD should check out the cat tree. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 23:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge William Allen Simpson ( talk) 04:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I would support a merge, after checking Category:Princesses of the United Kingdom and Category:Princesses of Great Britain. I also realized we have another redundant category: Category:Princes of Great Britain. I think that too can be covered under Category:British princes. After all, we have all of them listed under one unified template: Template:British princes. Keivan.f Talk 16:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure if Category:Princes of Great Britain is as redundant as you say. It seems to be limited to the period of the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800). The category should just make that clear at the top, and remove List of current British princes and princesses and Category:Princes of Wales, because these are not bound to the 1707–1800 period. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 13:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    It is obviously redundant. The honours system for the royal family has not changed since George I, who formalised the use of the titles prince and princess for members of the British royal family. It's also like saying we should have different categories for British royal family, divided into Royal family of Great Britain and Royal family of the United Kingdom despite the fact that it has been the same family before and after the Acts of Union 1800 with the same titles. Best. Keivan.f Talk 14:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as nom -- I am not sure how appropriate it is to have monarchs in these categories, just because they were princes before succeeding, but that is an issue of purging. Welsh princes refers to independent rulers before conquest by England. Scottish princes covers the royalty of Scotland before the unification of the crown in 1603 (or at least it should). We commonly have distinctions between UK/GB according to whether Ireland comes into the category, but in this case there were no separate Irish princes. Nor do we have any foreign princes who happen to be of British residence or nationality. The category does include some Germans, but that is because they were part of the British royal family. Even more than in other cases, there should be no scope for having splits at the dates of Parliamentary union in 1707 and 1801, but a split at 1603 is utterly appropriate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:58, 19 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:1861 fires in the United 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, there's only 1 notable fire in the UK in 1861, so the category is not needed. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Hugo999 you've created most of this series, and most of them contain only 1 article, which isn't an acceptable categorisation as per WP:SMALLCAT. This is not a valid reason to keep. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:49, 13 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:Lithuanian classical oboists

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:57, 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:Lithuanian cheeses

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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:45, 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:Estonian calligraphers

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:37, 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:Lithuanian business theorists

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom, but do not merge to Business in country categories, those are topic categories that should not contain biographies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Marcocapelle.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 06:04, 17 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:1930s Latvian bomber aircraft

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:29, 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:Latvian black metal musical groups

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 13:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. I've looked at WP:SMALLCAT, and there's nothing there that suggests there's anything wrong with these categories. They are not "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". If someone interested in black metal in those countries came along, I'm sure they could populate them somewhat. Even if these categories were small by definition, they would be "categories [that] are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which are explicitly allowed even if small by definition. Yes, there are few articles in the categories at present. But that, alone, isn't an argument for merging them with the parent category. Josh Milburn ( talk) 14:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. This just hampers easy navigation between related articles. No objection to recreation of the category when there are a handful more categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 06:05, 17 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.

Deaf culture categories only containing Deaflympics

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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. One entry. Seems useless if they only contain a specific sport event. Similar categories were recently deleted, see: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 28#Category:Deaf culture in Lithuania. -- Pelmeen10 ( talk) 10:28, 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:Lithuanian Unitarians

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 10:23, 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:Lithuanian air racers

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 10:20, 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:Lithuanian Theosophists

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 10:16, 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:Latvian Romani 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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 10:13, 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:Lithuanian alternate history novels

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 09:29, 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:Lithuanian badminton coaches

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 09:27, 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:1980s Lithuanian agricultural aircraft

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 09:12, 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:Lithuanian actor-politicians

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 09:07, 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:Lithuanian accountants

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 08:54, 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:Medieval Israel

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is a fairly clear WP:POVFORK of Category:Medieval Palestine, as made fairly obvious by the overlap of the contents in the article and deference to the latter as a parent category. The region was known as Palestine from the mid- to late-Roman period Syria Palestina/ Palestina Prima through to the late medieval period, when it was split across largely the Jund Filastin and partly across the Jund al-Urdunn. The category we have here is just an anachronistic imposition of non-contemporaneous terminology. Ngrams and Google Scholar ( 329 vs 25 hits) both know exactly what I'm talking about. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, Israel is Palestine minus the West Bank and minus the Gaza strip, but in medieval context it does not make sense to create a category that excludes West Bank and Gaza strip. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 00:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Israel did not exist, the Greeks and Romans named the region Palestina, after the predominant population.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 06:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Palestine is the name of the historic region, Israel had no historical existence past the 8th century BCE. Dimadick ( talk) 06:07, 18 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:Lithuanian Lethwei practitioners

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 07:53, 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:Lithuanian Latter Day Saints

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 ( talk) 07:47, 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:Golf clubs and courses in Port Harcourt

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. One article. Upmerge. – Aidan721 ( talk) 05:28, 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:Ecocide

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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is intended for topics related to ecocide as a notion in international criminal law. None of the pages in the category belonged here, except for the main article. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:33, 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:Military bases of the United Arab Emirates in Pakistan

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) Qwerfjkl talk 17:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Useless category only one Bhandari Airstrip article listed Government of Pakistan leased Bhandari Airstrip to UAE royal families in 1992 for game hunting. and UAE nevers has any type of military base or military presence in Pakistan. 103.141.159.243 ( talk) 05:15, 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:Basketball teams in Uruguay by city

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 17:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. One entry. – Aidan721 ( talk) 00:09, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_9&oldid=1157912013"