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: I created this category years ago in 2019 before I fully understood the rules on categories. The "proto-vegan" is not
WP:DEFINING for such individuals. I believe it is best for the category to be removed. We already have a well-sourced category for veganism activists.
Psychologist Guy (
talk) 22:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete — with the understanding that the content has already been merged to the appropriate veganism activists equivalent. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 05:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy Despite the passage of time, this looks like
WP:C2E to me, author request with limited later contributions from others. - 11:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
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:Quaker meeting houses
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
Friends meeting house. A RM on the article name just ended in no consensus. Before that, a speedy rename of the category was opposed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy.
Namiba The overall category is
Category:Quakerism and then
Category:Quaker meetings, which are consistent with the current name. Also there are numerous subcategories that should also be changed if this one is.
TSventon (
talk) 23:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I am proposing a reverse rename for the article.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I think in most cases C2D trumps C2C. As WAS says below, the more specific the better.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not so. Article names follow no prescribed pattern whereas
WP:C2C prefers a pattern in category names. 'Friends Meeting house' is ambiguous with no other context.
WP:C2D anyway refers to eponymous topic categories and this is a set category. The topic category here is
Category:Quakerism and every single subcat and sub-subcat contains 'Quaker' in its title.
Oculi (
talk) 22:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The problem with the parent category is the main article, "
Monthly meeting", can't possibly be the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that phrase. But that problem is initially for an
WP:RM, not CFD. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support with redirect — match main article. There are many such categories where one or more parents are a common name, while sub-categories are more specific. Mormanism versus LDS. Protestantism. Catholicism. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 07:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support with a Redirect to match the main article and, while I did not participate in that RM discussion, in them I usually favor naming groups by how they self-identify. Leaving a category redirect would prevent any confusion among editors using
WP:HOTCAT. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:55, 20 February 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:Manuscripts written in undeciphered writing systems
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: Until recently this has been a 4 item category. Some issues have arisen following a discussion on FTN and later the Voynich Manuscript talk page that for at least two members of the category (Voynich and Rohonc) we can't actually state that they are writing systems. They may be old hoaxes from the middle ages, or ciphers, and shouldn't really take a position on it. Renaming the category to avoid the statement on whether or not its in a writing system would resolve those concerns while still keeping the category useful for navigation in that it would contain manuscripts readers expect within it. --
(loopback)ping/
whereis 07:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. If a manuscript contains or potentially contains an undeciphered writing system, the sole fact that it has such unique/rare content is more or equally defining as the mere fact that it's undeciphered, which may be for more mundane reasons, as you said. So this defining characteric should not be dilluted in the category name. —
Alalch E. 23:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The Khitan subcat is useless as the one MS is already in this category. However I wonder if we need to merge this and the inscriptions sibling into a single
Category:Texts in undeciphered writing. I know of at least one more item which might have appeared, which is a draft agreement written in 17th century shorthand, whose content I know only from it being labelled in longhand.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)reply
That would also be a perfectly acceptable outcome --
(loopback)ping/
whereis 14:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Seems like a good idea. —
Alalch E. 20:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:45, 19 February 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.
Nominator's rationale: Cluster of newly created
WP:SMALLCATs. Again, it does not aid user navigation to obsessively subcategorize everything down to highly granularized subcategories of just a small handful of articles each -- these would be fine if there were five or six articles per category, but are not needed for just one, two or three. The city-level categories for Rome and Florence are large enough to be kept, so should just be moved to the target category along with the articles, but the region-level categories aren't needed for anything below five or six articles per region.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support - entirely agree with the nom. Also, large numbers of English-speaking readers are at best vague about Lazio, Emilia-Romagna etc. Personally I'd re-upmerge even "if there were five or six articles per category" - only at about 80 would the Italian category get too big, imo. But Rome & Florence are ok.
Johnbod (
talk) 04:47, 20 February 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.
Nominator's rationale: Cluster of newly created one-entry or two-entry
WP:SMALLCATs, crosscategorizing the same set of Danish parishes as the below batch on a different criterion -- but it still isn't aiding navigation to obsessively subcategorize everything down into granularized categories of just one or two articles each. To be fair, one category here (Aarhus) actually does hit five articles, and could potentially be kept on that basis -- but I've still included it here for discussion anyway, because there's also a potential argument that Aarhus still doesn't need its own subcategory if it's the only one of the set that can be justified. And even if it is kept, the "Parishes by diocese" wouldn't be needed as an intermediate step between it and the parent category, which could just directly contain the Aarhus subcategory itself without needing to make editors two-step their way through a superfluous level of categorization to get to it. So Aarhus is legitimate on size grounds but still only of debatable necessity, and can just be directly moved to the target category if it's kept -- but none of the other nine have enough articles to be justified at all, and the "by diocese" layer isn't needed.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose: I am currently working on translating hundreds of articles from the Danish Wikipedia about the parishes, and these categories will be needed or else there will be hundreds of articles crammed into
Category:Parishes of Denmark.
greyzxqtalk 18:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
When we do have hundreds of articles to be subcategorized like this, then you're free to create the needed categories. But no, you do not get to create hundreds of empty or underpopulated categories first and then populate them later — you create the articles first and then the subcategories may follow only once they can be populated with five or six or ten or twenty articles right off the bat. It's "the articles come first and the categories wait until the content already exists to be filed in them", not "the categories come first and the articles to populate them with happen later". That is, you get these hundreds of articles in place first, and then you can sweep back through them to recategorize them by diocese or municipality after the articles are all already in place.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I understand deleting the municipality ones because they'll likely stay with only a couple articles in for some time, but i still strongly oppose deleting the diocese ones as they have a larger scope and will be filled up in no time. I understand everything you're saying, and I should've realised that before I made them all, but all deleting them will do is make another job for me to do later that's already been done.
greyzxqtalk 19:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge, merge per nom: categories follow articles, not the other way around. On top of that: this seems to be unrelated to dioceses, the header of
Category:Parishes of Denmark says: This category is for civil or geographic parishes in Denmark. and the articles provide secular data e.g. about number of people living there.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge — these should not be in a secular parish category. Do not recreate. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 07:33, 20 February 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:Parishes in Denmark by municipality
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. Reparent instead any with more than 5 articles.
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 18:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Cluster of newly created one-entry or two-entry
WP:SMALLCATs. As always, everything does not always need to be subcategorized all the way down to the most granular level possible right off the bat -- these would be fine if there were five or six articles to file in each category, but it does not aid navigation at all to obsessively diffuse everything down into categories of just one or two articles. It also warrants mention that in addition to these, the creator also created well over 80 other categories for other Danish municipalities that had no articles filed in them at all, and have had to be speedy deleted as empty categories — but even if these were justified, the rule still wouldn't be "create the entire set right off the bat even if some of the categories remain empty" anyway, and a category cannot exist at all until it has actual content.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: As I said above, I am currently working on translating hundreds of articles from the Danish Wikipedia about the parishes, and these categories will be helpful, however if these are deleted I will understand. However, I am against deleting the ones which sort them into diocese.
greyzxqtalk 18:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
When we do have hundreds of articles to be subcategorized like this, then you're free to create the needed categories. But no, you do not get to create hundreds of empty or underpopulated categories first and then populate them later — you create the articles first and then the subcategories may follow only once they can be populated with five or six or ten or twenty articles right off the bat. It's "the articles come first and the categories wait until the content already exists to be filed in them", not "the categories come first and the articles to populate them with happen later". That is, you get these hundreds of articles in place first, and then you can sweep back through them to recategorize them by diocese or municipality after the articles are all already in place.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
We're willing to reassess after that happens of course. But categories are for navigation for readers to find existing articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 12:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete most subcats: I would support deleting most of the subcategories, but oppose the deletion of the main category and the Aabenraa and Horsens subcategories, because those subcats have more than one article in them, and I'll focus on adding to those two first. I oppose the deletion of the main category because it's good for sorting, and in future will definitely be added to.
greyzxqtalk 21:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge with 1 Exception The Aabenraa one should be retained as it has 5+ articles and reparented. The rest serve no navigational purpose at this time. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 12:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - since this category was nominated, I have created articles for all the parishes in Aabenraa Municipality (20) and Ærø Municipality (6). I will continue work on filling the others ASAP.
greyzxqtalk 21:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge each to the equivalent towns and settlements in Foo (or populated places, or similar). Formal status as a parish (as opposed to a place) may not be significant.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Greyzxq: you'd better create 1 good English-language article instead of 20 poor articles. Quality is more important than quantity.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)reply
If you look on the Danish Wiki you'll see that I don't have much to work with.
greyzxqtalk 07:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)reply
If even the people who are by far the most likely to be able to write anything of substance about Danish parishes still can't be arsed to write anything more than "this is a thing that exists, the end", then the question you should really be asking yourself is whether the English translations are warranted at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 12:42, 27 February 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:Pakistani power station stubs
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: Underpopulated stub categories with no evidence of approval by WikiProject Stub Sorting. As always, the bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, not just one, but these both have less than half of that -- and for that very reason, stub categories require approval from WikiProject Stub sorting before they can be created, and are not free for just any user to create on a personal whim. So these should both just be upmerged to the parent categories, and are not justified until another 30 to 40 articles can be found to populate them above the required minimum size.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:47, 19 February 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:Israeli power station stubs
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:WP:SMALLCAT, newly created to
overcategorize just one article with no evidence of approval by WikiProject Stub Sorting. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to arbitrarily create for just one or two articles in an area of personal interest -- the bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, not just one, and accordingly the creation of a stub category has to be approved before it can be implemented. But even a search through both
Category:Israel stubs and
Category:Power station stubs failed to find even one other article that could be resorted here, let alone the 59 other articles it would take to legitimize retention -- so the page should just be upmerged to the parent categories rather than having its own dedicated category of one.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:42, 19 February 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.
I object, because "Mahan confederacy" is not a demonym. Therefore, naming guidelines append the regime, as in "Roman Empire" and "Confederate States of America". William Allen Simpson (
talk) 10:01, 25 February 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.
Oppose The
Former Liang article itself states that the Former Liang was a
dynastic state, not a
principality. Plus, wang is usually translated as king, while gong 公 is usually translated as prince, and the first ruler of the state proclaimed himself wang. The proposed name won't help, it will only confuse people. Why use "prince" or "king" when you can just use "ruler"? The category on Chinese Wikipedia, uses 君主, which is translated as "ruler".
Mucube (
talk •
contribs) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
"Ruler" is still the best word in my opinion because they never declared themselves emperor, but "monarch" could also be okay. At the very least, it shouldn't be a subcategory of
Category:Chinese princes because it includes both sons of emperors and princes that ruled their own country but just happened to use the "prince" title.
Mucube (
talk •
contribs) 18:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Alternative proposal: Rename
Category:Former Liang rulers to
Category:Former Liang royalty as proposed in
my CfD on Category:Rulers. As I said over there:I think it's worth noting that English (and other Western) literature tends to be inconsistent in translating Chinese noble titles. For the Sixteen Kingdoms, a lot of "rulers" carried or claimed the title 王 ("wang", see
en:wikt:王#Definitions), which is variously primarily translated as [1] "king, monarch", or [2] "duke, prince". This is inconsistency is reflected in the subcats of
Category:Sixteen Kingdoms rulers: "Former Liang rulers, Northern Liang princes, Sixteen Kingdoms emperors, Sixteen Kingdoms regents, Southern Liang (Sixteen Kingdoms) princes, Western Liang (Sixteen Kingdoms) dukes, Western Qin princes, Western Yan rulers". I haven't checked, but apart from "emperors" and "regents", I suspect that each of these catnames was based on the Mandarin Chinese term 王 "wang". Renaming all of them to "royalty", just like the grandparent category, seems like a good pragmatic solution to avoid having to choose an exact translation of 王 "wang" and checking each item in each (sub)category if it applies in each specific case. So I disagree with Mucube's suggestions; neither "king" nor "prince" nor "ruler" is a good idea, because each of them will just create all the problems we can already see in my CfD. "monarch" isn't my favourite alternative, because it usually means a reigning sovereign, so lots of princes and princesses who never reigned could be mislabelled. Hence my proposal for "royalty", just like the grandparent
Category:Sixteen Kingdoms royalty, which solves all these issues. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw: however this category does not contain any princes and princesses who never reigned, does it?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Interesting, you gave me stuff to think about. I've done some more reading and comparing, and I'd like to share some observations.
If the goal is to limit ourselves to reigning royalty, then "royalty" might not be a good option. As you are both saying, the term "royalty" may be ambiguous: the disambiguation page
Royalty indicates the term can mean either/both [1] Any individual monarch, such as a king, queen, emperor, empress, etc., or/and [2] Royal family, the immediate family of a king or queen regnant, and sometimes his or her extended family.
On the other hand, there are two people in the current category,
Zhang Gui and
Zhang Shi (Former Liang), who were not "reigning" either; they governed as "Inspector of Liang Province". As the bio of
Zhang Mao says, he was the commonly accepted first ruler of the Chinese Former Liang state. So either his predecessors shouldn't be in this category (Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi should be excluded), or we should make it broader to include such non-reigning royal family members.
I see now that 3 out of 5 people in
Category:Northern Liang princes are called a "king" in their bio's opening sentence (
Duan Ye,
Juqu Mengxun and
Juqu Mujian), even though they are in a category of "princes"; 1 more is called a "ruler" and the last one is actually the only one identified as a "prince". This confirms to me that "prince" is still a bad alternative; with centuries of English/Western literature inconsistently translating 王 "wang" as "king", "duke", and "prince", I don't think we have much hope of trying to solve it here by opting for "prince".
The term that Mucube says the Chinese Wikipedia category uses,
en:wikt:君主 (jūnzhǔ), is translated as monarch; sovereign; king; ruler. "Monarch" is the first choice, "ruler" only the fourth. So "monarchs" is a better option than both "rulers" and "princes" (which isn't even mentioned, except, weirdly enough, as the Chinese trans-title for Macchiavelli's book The Prince).
Almost all people in the
Category:Sixteen Kingdoms rulers also have a
Template:S-roy|ch at the bottom, which identifies them as "Chinese royalty", which itself is a link to
List of Chinese monarchs. So according to this widespread template system, "Chinese royalty" are "Chinese monarchs". So as far as the bottom template system is concerned, there isn't actually much difference between "monarchs" and "royalty".
Oops, I messed my Chinese up. 统治者 is ruler, not 君主, which is monarch.
As for Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi, I think that they should still be counted as rulers of Former Liang.
Zhang Mao was "the commonly accepted first ruler of the Former Liang state" but he also shared the Duke of Xiping title with all of the rest of the Former Liang rulers and Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi. And the Former Liang article itself says that the Former Liang itself was mostly a titular Eastern Jin vassal state, so there really isn't much of a difference with Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi and the rest of the rulers since they all were titularly subservient to the Eastern Jin by holding the Duke of Xiping title anyway. Plus, the Zhang Mao article only says he was the "commonly accepted" first Former Liang ruler.
Zhang Zuo was the only one to formally break away from the Eastern Jin.
"Ruler" is still the best option in my opinion as "monarch", strictly speaking, would only include Zhang Zuo, the only person to formally declare himself emperor (or wang, depending on the source)
Mucube (
talk •
contribs) 04:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah, thanks for that correction.
en:wikt:統治者 (traditional) and
en:wikt:统治者 (simplified) both transcribe as
en:wikt:tǒngzhìzhě (pinyin), meaning ruler (a person exercising government or dominion). It comes from the verb
en:wikt:統治/
en:wikt:统治/
en:wikt:tǒngzhì: to govern; to rule; to preside over; to control; to dominate. As I argued extensively at the (recently relisted)
Rulers CfD (points A, B, and C), these nouns and verbs are way too vague and ambiguous to use as categorisation, because they make no clear distinction
between head of state and head of government (does a prime minister "rule"? See the example of Mussolini vs. Victor Emmanuel III of Italy);
whether the position is totally sovereign or still (significantly) limited (e.g. absolute monarch or military dictator vs constitutional monarch/president);
whether one "owns/reigns" or "serves/governs" a country (a monarch "owns/reigns", a president "serves/governs");
whether the position is seized illegitimately (by force or coup, e.g. a warlord or military dictator), is inherited dynastically (e.g. a king), is appointed through some mechanism (e.g. through rotation in Switzerland), or elected through some voting system (e.g. parliamentary vote in Germany, popular vote in France or the United States, cardinal conclave in Vatican City), and whether the term is lifelong (most monarchies) or legally/constitutionally limited for a set period of time (a few years in most modern republics).
So no, I think "ruler" (統治者/统治者/tǒngzhìzhě) is a very bad option. And as you said yourself, the linked Chinese Wikipedia category is
zh:Category:前凉君主, which is literally "Former Liang monarch" (君主 jūnzhǔ).
I also see no reason for categorising people such as Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi as "monarchs" (or "rulers") if they are not commonly accepted as such; it would mean the Wikipedia categorisation defies historical consensus, which is tantamount to
WP:OR. If we want to group people who held the title of 西平郡公 (Xīpíng jùngōng, "Duke of Xiping"), then the right course of action is creating a
Category:Dukes of Xiping. The fact that Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi were posthumously proclaimed to be 王 (wang) doesn't count either; these are symbolic titles that don't change historical facts. Compare e.g.
Category:Cao Wei emperors; it doesn't include
Cao Cao, even though his son and successor
Cao Pi declared himself "Emperor Wen of Wei" (魏文帝) a few months after Cao Cao's death and posthumously declared his father "Emperor Wu of Wei" (魏武帝). Wikipedia categorises people according to how their occupation during their lifetime (which in Cao Cao's case includes "3rd-century heads of government, Han dynasty politicians/prime ministers/warlords, Politicians from Bozhou, Political office-holders in Hebei/Shandong, Regents of China", but not "Cao Wei emperors"). So it would also be an option to include Gui and Shi in
Category:Jin dynasty (266–420) politicians and
Category:Political office-holders in Gansu instead, for example, just like Cao Cao.
Incidentally, I note that both
Category:Former Liang rulers and
Category:Former Liang princesses are already subcats of
Category:Jin dynasty (266–420) people, and they are almost the only subcategories there which currently do not contain the phrase Jin dynasty (266–420) in their names, so in that sense they already appear the odd ones out. These people appear to be much more Eastern Jin than the subcategories seem to suggest. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Update: I now support William Allen Simpson's proposal to RenameCategory:Monarchs of Former Liang and re-parent to
Category:Chinese monarchs. But I still think Zhang Gui and Zhang Shi should be excluded, and that they are better placed in other categories such as those I have proposed in my previous comment. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment – re-reading the above,
Sixteen Kingdoms is wrongly named?
Dynasties in Chinese history were not "monarchical", because the "kings" were sometime translated "dukes", "princes", and one "emperor"?sarcasm
Regarding your comment on the name "
Sixteen Kingdoms", indeed it may well be a misnomer in Western historiography of China.
en:wikt:國/
en:wikt:国 "guó" means country; nation; nation-state; kingdom. "Kingdom" is the least favoured translation and for good reason, not least because the Mandarin Chinese name for China is 中国/中國 (Zhōngguó, literally "middle country", "the country of the centre"). (Although the simplified character 国 appears to derive from
en:wikt:囯, a compound of 囗 ("to surround, enclosure, city wall") + 王 (wang “king/prince/duke”), the traditional character 國 is a compound of 囗 ("to surround, enclosure, city wall") +
en:wikt:或, from 戈 ("dagger-axe (used to defend the territory)"); so while the former seems to signify the territory of a wang, which seems like
L'État, c'est moi, the latter signifies a city/territory that defends itself against threats from outside, which seems more like a res publica). And both the People's Republic of China and Republic of China are, well, republics, not monarchies/kingdoms. (And so unsurprisingly, the traditional character 國 is found in the most common words for "republic", namely
en:wikt:民國mínguó and
en:共和國gònghéguó) The alternative term mentioned in the lead of
Sixteen Kingdoms, "Sixteen States", is far more accurate, but per
WP:COMMONNAME I'm afraid we're stuck with "Sixteen Kingdoms" for now (just like
Three Kingdoms, which I suspect may never change because of how deeply entrenched that term is in English literature). Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Strongly support this proposal. I arrived at the same conclusion in the exchange above, and I will retract my own "royalty" proposal. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:29, 25 February 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.
Category:Geoparks in Iceland
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. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories.
Estopedist1 (
talk) 10:39, 19 February 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:Jurchen history in film
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:Funerals in Iceland
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. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories.
Estopedist1 (
talk) 10:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per Marcocapelle, not delete. "Delete" means removing the contents from the category and its parent hierarchies. –
FayenaticLondon 08:01, 20 February 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:Folk high schools in Iceland
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. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories.
Estopedist1 (
talk) 10:37, 19 February 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.
Oppose -- The Iceland category is well populated, as is London (though it is an unusual category). Falklands Islands is a redirect (so that it will not be inadvertently re-created and repopulated.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:23, 19 February 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 Lampang
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: This category should also include
Kawila, and has several other potential members listed at
List of rulers of Lan Na#Rulers of Lampang 1732-1925. I've reverted
William Allen Simpson's addition of
Thipchang to
Category:People from Lampang province as anachronistic, since the category concerns the modern entity. As for the SMALLCAT concerns, I think local rulers in Thai history form a potential tree that still needs to be systematically organized, though there are few articles at present. Here's an example of how some existing articles could be categorized:
If these are not enough to constitute an exemption under SMALLCAT, they should be covered under an umbrella
Category:Local rulers in the history of Thailand or some similar title. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 06:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply PS I just noticed the Rulers discussion. While I agree that Rulers is vague and wouldn't mind reparenting, I don't think there's a better option here, as the status of these local rulers was highly variable across both place and time. Some were officially regarded as royalty; others weren't, though some were practically hereditary royal clans but in name. Some are called governors in modern English-language sources, others princes and sometimes kings, and there's often no agreement between sources. Rulers, which is used by sources, is IMO a necessary compromise term. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 06:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Those who rule have a completely different status from those who are ruled. As titles may vary, with changes in status, the vague "rulers" has much to commend it, provided the people in question are not already categorised by another title.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep for now per my above comment. I'll create and populate the categories I suggested above once this is closed, and perhaps that'll help provide better perspective on how to deal with them as a whole. No prejudice against later re-nominating all of them as a group. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 07:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdraw nomination, in order to give
User:Paul_012 the opportunity to reorganize.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I see this situation has gotten quite complicated, so I'm not taking a stance. I would just add that at
my Rulers CfD, I had suggested it be merged into
Category:Lan Na royalty. That's one option Paul 012 might want to consider; I'd prefer that over something vague and verbose like "Local rulers in the history of Thailand" (before you know it, it includes the chief of a 10-people village); let's be more
WP:PRECISE. Otherwise I agree with Marcocapelle to give Paul 012 the time to reorganise (good luck!). Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 23:41, 23 February 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:Databases in Iceland
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. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories.
Estopedist1 (
talk) 10:22, 19 February 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:Darts in Iceland
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. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories.
Estopedist1 (
talk) 10:22, 19 February 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. One article to be upmerged to parent category/categories.
Estopedist1 (
talk) 10:19, 19 February 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 Kingdom of Marwar
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, "kings" is more specific than "ruler" (and besides the proposed name is quite a bit shorter); and re-parent to
Category:Asian kings instead of
Category:Rulers.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose as proposed. None of the members are actually titled as kings. The list at
Kingdom of Marwar#Rulers of Marwar only has rao, raja, sawai raja and maharaja. I wouldn't be opposed to using monarchs, as it does seem to describe those titles. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 06:07, 20 February 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:Conspiracy theories in Iceland
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.
yes, of course. I guess it is easily understandable
Estopedist1 (
talk) 18:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support — tagged the subcategories and updated the nomination. Multi-category nominations are not obvious. No need to add
Category:Icelandic activists, as this a former prime minister. Really not a conspiracy theorist, either; just a sore loser. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 19:00, 19 February 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.
Alternative: I'm not opposed to the proposal, I just think rename to
Category:Monarchs of Ladakh is better (
previously suggested as #14 of the Rulers CfD). A re-parenting seems unnecessary, as it is already in
Category:Indian monarchs (which is in the grandparent
Category:Asian monarchs, which is also the grandparent of
Category:Asian kings). Generally speaking, there aren't major differences between "monarch" and "king", except that "monarch" has a more refined theoretical, philosophical, political-scientific meaning, whereas "king" is laden with a lot more Western/European baggage (especially from the Germanic languages it stems from), and I would be hesitant to apply a strongly Eurocentric framework to Asian historical contexts. Just like with the Chinese (Former Liang) case of translating "wang" according to medieval European terminology (king? prince? duke?), we may end up creating more problems than we solve. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 00:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
(as nom) "monarchs" is a second best option - in English these monarchs are mostly described as "king".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Looks like you're right.
Gyalpo as a title is pretty consistently translated as "king" in English texts as far as I can tell. The predicate "Lhachen" and the word "Namgyal" after a Ladakhi monarch's name appear to indicate their dynasty, not their title (although this does make
Lhachen Gyalpo a weird one: apparently "King" was his given name according to this logic). In that case, if "king" feels more natural to the English reader and is more in line with English literature, this rename seems fine to me. I see you have already removed the "Category:Rulers", but kept the "Category:Indian monarchs", so adding "Category:Asian kings" seems fine; the Ladakhi kings were both Asian kings and Indian monarchs. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:09, 24 February 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.
I planned to populate this category - Categories provide a discriminating identity, which facilitates peer association. All women are amazing not just those who are celebrated or notorious. But women who inspire through career (writing, acting, singing, dancing, science, politicking, feminism) are already associated by category. But there is a group of women, real and fictional, who inspire just because they took control of their lives despite traditional cultural norms, like aviators, engineers, scientists, artists and philosophers or because they made a difference. This category seeks to identity potential role models, good and bad, who might otherwise go unnoticed or those who are noticed (Queen Elizabeth I) but still change the way behaviours are set in a cultural context.
Geneus01 (
talk) 09:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The key for me is granularity (in definition) - categories are exclusive but in easily identifiable ways - this proposal may be unmanageable because it may be too inclusive. Social media may have co-opted the term "influencer" but we can substitute with "icon" "exemplar" but influencer speaks to the (modern) audience - who influenced you and that can be historical (Queen Elizabeth I). I bow to consensus (no agenda here) because each selection constitutes a judgment, which is inherently subjective.
Geneus01 (
talk) 10:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, there is only one article in the category and it is totally unclear why it is there.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Working on it through collaborative definition
Geneus01 (
talk) 09:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
You'd better write an article about the topic and make sure it is properly sourced before "working on a definition".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The more I think about this, the more I agree with you - this category would make an interesting article - I admit, I created it on a whim without knowing the process (if I were to relaunch it, perhaps I would call it Strong women (historic influencers)). Diana Caldwell reminded me that women are often remembered for notoriety simply because they used their natural attributes (beauty, skills or intelligence) to distort cultural norms that didn’t allow them to be acknowledged for those attributes beyond the affront they presented. These women were often overlooked, dismissed, vilified, even burned at the stake, for being better than their male peers because they didn’t conform to what was expected of women of their time. I am researching Lady Elizabeth Hatton, who falls squarely into this category. What I would like is for others to recognise the “genre” and attribute other contenders tarred with the same brush by history.
Geneus01 (
talk) 11:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I will stall population until the category itself is accepted as valid (Erin Brockovich, Golda Meir, Amelia Earhart, Marie Curie, Christine Keeler, Elizabeth I, Ray Costelloe....)
Geneus01 (
talk) 10:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
This list can be described as women
role models. In other words, women who have Wikipedia articles. We already have a category for that:
Category:Women.
Place Clichy (
talk) 15:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose Historical women whose actions changed social norms and became role-models, icons or exemplars of behaviours that changed how people saw women's roles in society, despite having no identifiable profession or skill associated with their notability (like Diana Caldwell) and are essentially orphaned by existing categories despite having something in common that merits grouping (IMHO). I do support the opinion of the majority (this being the only category I have ever proposed).
Geneus01 (
talk) 06:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Category size is currently 2.
Diana Caldwell is already in several categories, as a libertine, mistress, and socialite. There's no evidence that she "influenced" anybody, or had any skill other than promiscuity in England and Africa. AFAICT, she has nothing in common with
Erin Brockovich, an educated environmental activist with an identifiable profession or skill. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 08:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed - but the terms you use are all pejorative (historical legacy) - is she not someone who just decided to possess her life (we don't judge as authors)? I have thought a bit more about the category (see response above to Marcocapelle's observation) what do think? - are categories defined anywhere to qualify or if they need defining (as this probably does), does that make them problematical and hard to apply?
Geneus01 (
talk) 11:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Act - @
DrKay,
Marcocapelle,
William Allen Simpson, and
Place Clichy: Well guys - I blundered in to categories so I may as well blunder out. There are more categories in heaven than there are articles in Wikipedia but as uniqueness is the enemy of identity and we use categories to identify, one less will do no harm. I will propose deletion of the eponymous category if that is still the view of those who proposed to do so. Having viewed all the arguments, please vote with your Moniker and I will act on your decision.
Geneus01 (
talk) 07:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
You do not need to act. The discussion will be closed and consensus will be implemented by an editor who was not involved in this discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay - thanks for that...
Geneus01 (
talk) 07:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Good point (lol) - but in fairness, I am looking at disruptors - the agents of change; individuals who presented us with a mirror and invited us to take a long hard look at ourselves.
Geneus01 (
talk) 06:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Which is a very interesting topic, and one you should definitely write about in one or more articles! Unfortunately, such a concept probably defies categorisation. Exactly because such individuals change the way we think about things, they disrupt established patterns of thinking, including categories. It may be that we can only properly categorise them once the dust settles down. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, it doesn't lead, let alone rush ahead. So again I would encourage you to write about these female agents of change, and perhaps the appropriate categories will eventually emerge out of what they publish and others publish about them. Good luck!
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 11:41, 26 February 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:Burials at Graceland Cemetery (Washington, D.C.)
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 biography articles in this category were buried at the short-lived
Graceland Cemetery (Washington, D.C.) in
1879,
1882,
1887, and
1892 but all the remains were relocated by the late 1890s. (A 5th person
may or may not have been buried there for about a year.) This seems non-defining since all of these articles are also in the cemetery category for wherever their remains ended up. The category contents are already listified
in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete — do not categorize every detail, a list is enough. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 08:50, 20 February 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:Commonwealth War Graves Commission Crosses of Sacrifice
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
Cross of Sacrifice is a type of monument placed in each cemetery of the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission so they're quite common. The problem is that, while the cemeteries are individually notable and have Wikipedia articles, the crosses aren't so there's only 1 article. (The
Gibraltar Cross of Sacrifice is individually notable because it was relocated from the cemetery to become a stand-alone monument.) No objection to recreating later if 5+ articles ever get created. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support -- The prsent category is too specific.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:26, 19 February 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:Treasure Planet characters
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: While all of these characters are present in the adaptation in some form, none of the entries are the characters from this adaptation, but the generic character pages. It is unneeded with
Category:Treasure Island characters existing.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 01:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Support None of these are the specific Disney characters.
★Trekker (
talk) 15:26, 19 February 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:Sports competitions in Aveiro, Portugal
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:Sports competitions in Weert
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:Sports competitions in Valkenswaard
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:American writers of Native American 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 There is already a category for
Category:Native American writers. There is no reason for a category of non-Native writers who claim to have Native ancestry. There is no other category by occupation for people of self-identified Native American ancestry.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 00:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose I can understand your rationale, but what I think it may be slightly different than non-Native people claiming to be Native. For example in the category "American writers of Jamaican descent" we have
Colin Powell who does not claim to be Jamaican as far as I know. There may be writers who have some more distant Native descent who do not claim it as an identity. Is it relevant to their being a writer? Perhaps, if it's mentioned in their article. But ... as I said I weakly oppose deleting it, if people really think it's a useless category I won't make fuss.
If Colin Powell's Jamaican ancestry has no relation whatsoever to his written work, then he should probably not be in Category:American writers of Jamaican descent in the first place. Placing articles in categories is only ever useful if they have some actual connection with the subject of the article (as summarized in
WP:CATDEF guideline). A trouble with these "intersection" categories is that their mere existence seems to be an invitation for some good-faith users to fill them regardless of that relevance. There is some argument that categories for the intersection of occupation and ancestry should probably in general not even be created, with some limited exceptions (see
WP:OCEGRS).
Place Clichy (
talk) 15:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Colin Powell is notably of Scottish descent, and has a coat of arms granted in 2004. Yet the occupation categories are "Jamaican descent". Jamaican is never mentioned in the article regarding "politician" nor "writer". Merely used as racist classification. Gone! William Allen Simpson (
talk) 17:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. Probably the right choice to get rid of it then.
Dan Carkner (
talk) 00:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, not a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Writers can probably be defined by who they are, not who their ancestors were.
Place Clichy (
talk) 15:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete — this is the evil one drop rule in reverse. 1/16?
WP:COP-HERITAGE: The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. [...] Categories that intersect heritage with occupation, residence, or other such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.... William Allen Simpson (
talk) 17:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I understand that having some Native American ancestry is not all that uncommon in the parts of US settled in the 19th century. We should however discourage the use of descent categories where the ancestry is far back and only a small fraction.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:31, 19 February 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:Sports competitions in Papendrecht
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.