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: alt merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:13th-century Russian women ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Alt proposal: merging Category:13th-century Russian women to Category:13th-century women
• Propose deleting Category:13th-century Russian people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Alt proposal: merging Category:13th-century Russian people to Category:13th-century European people

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 30#Category:9th-century churches in Russia. WP:ARBITRARYCAT / WP:OR: there was no "Russia" yet in the 13th century. Eupraxia of Ryazan was from the Principality of Ryazan (categorised as such), Xenia of Tarusa was from the Principality of Tver and from Vladimir-Suzdal (categorised as such), and Xenia of Yaroslavl was from Yaroslavl, an appanage of Vladimir-Suzdal (categorised as such). Finally, Onfim was from the Novgorod Republic, and is already categorised as Category:People from medieval Novgorod. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After the fall of Kievan Rus, the principalities in modern-day Russia are usually referred to as Russian principalities in contrast to the western "Ruthenian" ones as they developed differently. Mellk (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is true for especially later times, or they are referred to as "northeastern Rus' principalities". But that is mostly an umbrella term for what were functionally independent states. "Vladimir-Suzdal" or "Suzdalia" may still be called a single state that gradually fell apart (just like Kievan Rus' before it), so Suzdalians, Rostovians, Vladimirians, Tverians, Muscovites, Nizhegorodians, Yaroslavlians etc. may all be categorised as "People from Vladimir-Suzdal" if there is no more specific category. People from the Principality of Ryazan, the Novgorod Republic, the Pskov Republic, the Principality of Smolensk etc. are not from Vladimir-Suzdal, so I wouldn't categorise them as such. Similarly, I prefer categorising people from Halych-Volyn as Category:People from Galicia–Volhynia rather than Category:Ruthenian people (let alone "Ukrainian people") if possible. "Ruthenians" is something for the 14th century onwards; the 13th century is probably too early for that term, and perhaps a bit anachronistic. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, though in this case this is probably defining for those people. Similarly we have "People from Kievan Rus'" for what were independent princedoms. Mellk (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, well it depends (no pun intended) what you mean by "independent". I think Vladimir-Suzdal was just as (in)dependent on/from Kievan Rus' around 1160 as Muscovy was (in)dependent on/from Vladimir-Suzdal around 1300; you can tell they are rising powers, but not yet powerful enough to challenge their suzerain's supremacy. The difference that I see is that Vladimir-Suzdal, Ryazan, Novgorod etc. were all under Kievan suzerainty in 1160, but Ryazan and Novgorod were not yet under Suzdalian, let alone Muscovite, suzerainty in 1300. This is important, because it is Muscovy that eventually becomes "Russia", arguably in the late 15th or early 16th century, but not yet in the 13th or 14th. Moreover, I think the literary evidence shows it's a bit too early to be calling them "Russian". The translatio imperii of the Rus' land from the Middle Dnieper to Suzdalia is a long-standing problem in historiography (and a very interesting one, so I wrote about it in the linked section), but there is consensus that the 13th century is too early. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, they were not independent at the beginning and this varied, for example Novgorod was independent by the early 12th century. But I do not see what the term "Rus land" has to do with it, since we just use "Russian" and "Ruthenian" to replace "Rus" to differentiate between the west and north/east. For example the split of the common language is often dated around the 13th century (sometimes 14th). But it is not so black and white so it leads to confusion. Mellk (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now as those "people from x" categories only refer to former countries. Mellk (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:13th-century women and Category:13th-century European people respectively, a clear Russian nationality did not exist yet in the 13th century. The people in these categories are described by in what principality they lived, not by the fact that they are Russian. Only in the 14th century we can start categorizing people as Moscovian (from the grand duchy of Moscow). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I'll add those as Alt options. I support this Alt merge as nom. NLeeuw (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully agree with both of you, especially with @Marcocapelle's points above, but we do differentiate nobility from people in this context, right? (Admittedly, I am not familiar with the medieval history of Russia.) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There aren't any "nobility by century" categories if that is what your question is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, thanks. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Split * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Missing person cases by country to Category:Missing person cases by country of disappearance and Category:Missing children by nationality

Nominator's rationale: The current tree mixes up the nationality of missing people (almost always children, but sometimes adults) and the country where they disappeared (were last seen alive). The general structure goes like this:

Therefore, I'm submitting this now here for everyone's consideration to reach agreement first. I presume everyone will understand my caution. Good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the likely huge overlap between the two trees, would it be an alternative idea to leave this ambiguous on purpose? We can leave an instruction in the header that e.g. a French person who went missing in Brazil may be put in both the French and Brazilian category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think so. WP:SUBCAT: If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. For example, Cities in France is a subcategory of Populated places in France, which in turn is a subcategory of Geography of France.

  It's not logical to say that when a French person went missing in Brazil, this is a Missing person case in France. It is a Missing person case in Brazil, and we are talking about a French missing person. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nom and oppose ambiguity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus to rename. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel to Category:Rabbis in Syria Palaestina

Nominator's rationale: This category should be named according to the contemporaneous geographical terminology (not religious terminology), as per the other sub-categories of Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel (suitability of the parent category aside), e.g. Category:Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine‎, Category:Rabbis in Mandatory Palestine‎, etc. By my estimation, about 95% of these entries pertain to 3rd and 4th century Syria Palaestina, while a handful of entries pertain to the subsequent split geographies of the 5th and 6th century Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda, but these appear to be the extreme minority, and I'm not sure if it would be worth splitting the category any further - I suspect very few readers would be familiar with the fine detail on this and appreciate the further subdivision of the category into the subsequent split components of the post-Syria Palaestina period (although a split is theoretically and technically mangeable if that is the determination here). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I now support Category:Talmud Rabbis in Syria Palaestina. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Support per nom. 95% is fine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is a long 12-year-old discussion about an alternative rename on Category talk:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel with many editors preferring to keep "Land of Israel". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That discussion appeared to be a proposal to switch the relevant geography to the equally vague southern Levant, which I agree would not help. The proposal here is to actually specify it. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Roman administrative terminology considered superior to religious terminology when categorizing religious figures? Srnec (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It descriptively specifies both geography and time period where, in the absence of this, geography is only vaguely indicated and time period is ignored. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Time period is not ignored, Category:Talmud rabbis is for the period 200-500 (see also Amoraim). Also I wonder about the vagueness of geography: suppose Syria Palaestina does not fully coincide with Land of Israel (which I do not know) then the latter would be more accurate for the purpose of this particular category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is also consistent with the sibling categories mentioned. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If renamed it should at least keep "Talmud" in the name, else it would break the tree of Category:Rabbis by rabbinical period. As implied before, I am also a bit sceptical if renaming is sensible at all, in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it perhaps should keep "Talmud" in the name - I didn't see other categories paralleling this formulation until after I opened this thread, but it seems to be related to the fact that these Rabbis are solely attested in the Talmud. This would also align consistently with the page Talmudic Academies in Syria Palaestina. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. (Except for the Ancient Egyptian one.) (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Latin texts to Category:Texts in Latin
• Propose renaming Category:Ancient Egyptian texts to Category:Texts in Ancient Egyptian
• Propose renaming Category:Aramaic texts to Category:Texts in Aramaic
• Propose renaming Category:Irish-language texts to Category:Texts in Irish

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C, most siblings of the nominees in Category:Texts by language are already named Texts in Fooian. Some children/nephews of the nominees such as Category:Jewish texts in Aramaic also follow this naming convention already. Follow-up to recent renaming of child/nephew Category:Songs in Latin, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Category:Latin-language songs Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec, Jc37, and Marcocapelle: pinging participants from previous discussion for follow-up, for your consideration. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: About Category:Ugaritic texts (main article Ugaritic texts) and Category:Hittite texts (Hittite texts redirects to main article Hittite inscriptions) I'm not so sure. WP:C2D favours those names remaining unchanged. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Category:Irish texts had only been renamed to Category:Irish-language texts on 5 July 2023, but with minimal participation. The only participant was jc37, who also recently favoured renaming Category:Latin-language songs to Category:Songs in Latin. So that's not a particularly strong consensus, and should be open to reconsideration now. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely rename Latin, because as noted in the previous discussion "Latin" as an adjective is ambiguous. I do not know if the others are ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's make it a quiz! (Just because it's fun). If an Aramaic speaker wrote a text in Greek back in Ancient Egypt, and we discover that text somewhere in modern Egypt (e.g. in the Nag Hammadi library), is it

  1. an "Aramaic text",
  2. a "Greek text", or
  3. an "Ancient Egyptian text"?

  Bonus points if you can explain why the other two answers are wrong. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, you can argue that all three answers are correct because they are all ambiguously phrased, just like our current category names. But suppose we gave our readers and fellow editors the following choices instead:

  1. a "text in Aramaic",
  2. a "text in Greek", or
  3. a "text in Ancient Egyptian"?

  Then, there is absolutely no doubt that answer no. #2 is correct. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice example! Rename all per nom's further explanation. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If an Aramaic speaker wrote a text in Greek back in Ancient Egypt, it is not an Aramaic text in any sense. It is first and foremost a Greek text. Although it is also an ancient Egyptian text, I would frown on describing it that way without it being clear that the language of the text is Greek. Why? Because it makes sense to say that the exact same text could have been written in place A or B, but it does not make sense to say that the exact same text could have been written in language A or B. (The same thing could be said/written in different languages, of course, but the string of sounds/symbols would be different and thus a different text.) The language of a text is one of its essential properties, its provenance accidental. With words that are unambiguously linguistic (or which carry that meaning primarily), like Latin or Aramaic, there is no problem. A Latin (Aramaic) text is a text in Latin (Aramaic). I'm just here for the fun. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Completely agree! :D Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, advanced quiz question!

Winner gets to create 5 categories with ridiculous names that nobody is allowed to nominate for discussion for a week!^[Joke] Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Category:Ancient Egyptian texts" rename --- "Ancient Egyptian" is about Ancient Egypt, and not Egyptian language, which can be written differently, such as Egyptian hieroglyphics or Demotic (Egyptian) -- Ancient Egyptian redirects to Ancient Egypt and the language article is at Egyptian language -- Since the language article is "Egyptian language", the category would then be Category:Texts in Egyptian --- or for clarity, all the categories could be Category:Texts in the xxxian language -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a good point, the word "Ancient" should be striken in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And actually, that's just another example of ambiguity and why these need renaming... - jc37 17:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck the "Ancient Egyptian" nominee as nom. I'm glad that 67.70.25.80 correctly pointed out (to which other participants concurred) that the words "Ancient Egyptian" in Category:Ancient Egyptian texts don't always refer to texts written in the (Ancient) Egyptian language. The Amarna letters (in child Category:Egyptian inscriptions, grandchild Category:Amarna letters) are [mostly written] in a variety of Akkadian sometimes characterised as a mixed language, Canaanite-Akkadian. Child Category:Egyptian papyri contains a large mix of languages such as Aramaic and Greek. On the other hand, parent Category:Ancient Egyptian literature is a child of Category:Ancient Egyptian language, so all non-Egyptian-language texts shouldn't be in this tree if we followed that logic. In other words, this is an WP:OCMISC/WP:SHAREDNAME/WP:ARBITRARYCAT cat. But I would recommend trying to manually sort this one out instead of renamings, mergers, deletions, or splits. I may take the initiative in doing that once this CfR is over and the dust settles. It requires proper inquiry, reading and thinking, and writing an adequate restructuring proposal (part of which may be BOLDly implemented, and part of which will have to be voted on in a future nom). As far as I can see, the rest of this nom can still go ahead. My thanks again to 67.70.25.80! Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Military personnel of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Military personnel of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:Admirals of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Medieval admirals
• Propose upmerging Category:Generals of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Medieval military leaders
• Propose upmerging Category:Military units and formations of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Military units and formations of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:Navies of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Naval warfare of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:Naval battles involving the medieval Islamic world to Category:Naval battles of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:Sieges involving the medieval Islamic world to Category:Sieges of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:Battles involving the medieval Islamic world to Category:Battles of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:Rebellions in the medieval Islamic world to Category:Medieval rebellions
• Propose upmerging Category:Rebels of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Medieval rebels
• Propose upmerging Category:Wars involving the medieval Islamic world to Category:Wars of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:Warfare in the medieval Islamic world to Category:Warfare of the Middle Ages
• Propose upmerging Category:Military history of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Military history of former countries

Nominator's rationale: As the precedents have established, "the medieval Islamic world" was not a "country", so these are WP:ARBITRARYCATs that can be upmerged. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 27#Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic world, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Foreign relations of the medieval Islamic world, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 29#Category:Governors of the medieval Islamic world. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for categories that aren't fully diffused by dynasty such as Category:Generals of the medieval Islamic world. Some medieval Muslim dynasties were too short-living or too insignificant to have their own subcategory. By the proposed merge we lose the connections. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would keeping that generals category help with the issue you're describing? Suppose a state in the medieval Iberian Peninsula was too short-lived to have 5 generals for its own subcategory, should we then say they should be categorised as having served "the medieval Iberian Peninsula"? That was not a state. Neither was "the medieval Islamic world" a state. No general signed a contract with it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • We do not organize the medieval Islamic world by state anyway, we organize it by dynasty. At most we derive "country" names from the dynasty, e.g. Ayyubid Caliphate. One dynasty could succeed another without change of territory, while within one dynasty the territory could change a lot. It was blurry. The overarching characteristic was that Islam was the rulers' religion, not that it was any sort of country as we currently know it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The overarching characteristic was that Islam was the rulers' religion. Well, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 4#Category:Muslim princely states of India you agreed with me that the ruler's religion is WP:NONDEFINING for the state as a whole. So unless there is another defining overarching characteristic, there is no reason to keep these categories, but upmerge them as nominated. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • For India I agree. But the Islamic world of the Middle East and North Africa to Spain was a cultural region (a civilization if you wish) as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      That may be (or may not) be, but we do not categorise "rulers by cultural region" or "civilisation", do we? Category:Generals of the Bronze Age civilisations? Category:Naval battles involving the Indus Valley civilisation? We don't create Category:Military units and formations of Christendom either, do we? The difference is that the princely states of India were, well, states. They had armies, generals, navies, admirals, everything, because they signed contracts and paid for them (at least in theory, otherwise you get mutinies or desertion). The Hyderabad State Forces, for example. And though lots of crusaders, popes, patriarchs and (tel)evangelists may have claimed to represent Christendom (nl: christenheid, as opposed to Christianity, nl: christendom), there were (and are) no "Armed Forces of Christendom", just like there were no "Armed Forces of the medieval Islamic world". This comes back to the core problem that "the medieval Islamic world" was not a state actor or non-state actor. That's why we upmerged Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic world, because treaties can only be signed by state or non-state actors. But the same goes for contracts of generals, admirals, footsoldiers, sailors, you get the idea. No state or non-state actor? Then no army, no navy, no Category:Sieges involving cultural region X. Cultural regions don't enlist soldiers and pay their salaries. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • I would support categories for the medieval Christian world if it wouldn't overlap so strongly with medieval Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Okay, so you're not advocating for Category:Military personnel of the medieval Christian world etc. because what you would think of "the medieval Christian world" already conveniently strongly overlaps with "medieval Europe"? But there is no Category:Medieval European military personnel / Category:Military personnel in medieval Europe / Category:Military personnel of the Middle Ages in Europe etc. either. There isn't even a Category:Medieval Europe, even though (ironically) there is a Category:Medieval Asia, a Category:Medieval Africa, and a Category:Medieval history of the Middle East.

        Why should we have to frame medieval military history of the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, and the Iberian Peninsula purely in terms of the Islamic religion as if those areas were all entirely "Islamic" from the year 500 to the year 1500 (they weren't)? Why should we, for the purposes of military history, assume "medieval Europe" to have been entirely "Christian" (it wasn't)? I don't think we should. Such reductionist generalisations in naming category don't help accurately describe, organise and navigate medieval military history. They merely frame the past from a modern pan-Islamic and Pan-Christianity / Christian nationalist WP:POV, respectively. That's why I'm calling them WP:ARBITRARYCATs. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • I did not realize they were missing. When I have time I will create them. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

          Before you do, maybe it's a good idea to reconsider whether such categories will have actual encyclopedic and navigational value, or be prone to be deleted per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Category:Medieval Europe might not be a bad idea. But Category:Military personnel of the medieval Christian world? Please don't... :/. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

          • I mean European. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

            Ok. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Greek Orthodoxy by country. (non-admin closure) Kpratter (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Greek Orthodoxy by continent to Category:Greek Orthodoxy by country
  • Alt proposal 1: propose renaming Category:Greek Orthodoxy by continent to Category:Greek Orthodox Church by country

Nominator's rationale: Simply a better way of organising the same information for easier navigation. Right now there is a lot of duplication and sub-sub-categorisation going on:

As you can see, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Turkey are all mentioned twice. But at the core, these are country-based categories and there is no need for continental or regional layers in between. Those are redundant. Instead, I propose:

I'd like to establish consensus on this first before going on a tagfest throughout all the subcategories and sub-sub-categories. That's only gonna make people confused. We can do that once we agree that we should simplify this tree by making it country-based. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just another problem, "Greek Orthodoxy" is very ambiguous. Assuming all of this does not refer to the Church of Greece, these categories should rather be merged/renamed to Eastern Orthodoxy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well-spotted. Church of Greece states that The Church of Greece [is] part of the wider Greek Orthodox Church, one of the autocephalous churches which make up the communion of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. So they are not the same, but you've got a point that (per WP:C2D) we should probably rename all categories named "Greek Orthodoxy" to "Greek Orthodox Church" because Greek Orthodoxy redirects to Greek Orthodox Church. I'll make that an Alt rename proposal.

  But do you agree on the proposed new structure? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, it shouldn't become Greek Orthodox Church either, because that is highly ambiguous. It should become Church of Greece or Eastern Orthodox. As the Eastern Orthodox tree is far better populated, it is probably too early to say that the continent layer is redundant. But I have no objection to a merger of Middle East right now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I speedy renamed Category:Greek Orthodoxy to Category:Greek Orthodox Church per WP:C2D Greek Orthodox Church already. The Requested move 20 January 2023 closed as not moved. I see you even participated in that discussion and didn't have a viable alternative to propose either. So I'm afraid we will have to accept that this term is ambiguous for the time being.

    But that's not the gravamen of my nomination, namely: the elimination of redundant and duplicate category layers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Category:Greek Orthodoxy was previously kept rather than renamed to Greek Orthodox Church, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_29#Category:Greek_Orthodoxy. – Fayenatic London 13:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. Whether we call it "Greek Orthodoxy" or "Greek Orthodox Church" is not my primary concern anyway; we can keep that as it is. I just want to eliminate the continental/regional layers of this tree because the underlying structure is country-based. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update A closely-related nomination has been submitted by Marcocapelle at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Greek Orthodoxy. I think our ideas are theoretically compatible, but may interfere with each other in practice. For procedural reasons, I think it might be a good idea if we defer a decision on this one for now, and wait for Marcocapelle's nomination to be decided on first. Alternately, I'm also okay with withdrawing this nom to ensure the nominations do not practically interfere with each other. @Fayenatic Any advice? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds a good idea waiting to close this discussion until the other one is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The other discussion was relisted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to Category:Greek Orthodoxy by country. As argued in the parallel discussion, these should not be merged or renamed to either Greek Orthodox C/church or Eastern Orthodoxy as Greek Orthodoxy is a topic in its own right. However categorization by continent just does not make sense (or at least does not bring value) in the case of Greek Orthodoxy. Place Clichy (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There are alt proposals all over the place. Starting a new nomination with a clear focus would be better. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Viziers of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Viziers
• Propose merging Category:Officials of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Government officials by nationality
  • Alt proposal: renaming Category:Officials of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Medieval government officials; Re-parent to Category:Government officials and Populate

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to several recent precedents:

• Follow-up to Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic world being Upmerged to Category:Medieval treaties (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_27#Category:Treaties_of_the_medieval_Islamic_world)
• Follow-up to Category:Foreign relations of the medieval Islamic world being Upmerged to Category:Medieval international relations
• Follow-up to Category:Ambassadors to the medieval Islamic world being Upmerged to Category:Medieval diplomats (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_29#Foreign_relations_of_the_medieval_Islamic_world)
• Follow-up to Category:Governors of the medieval Islamic world being Renamed to Category:Medieval governors, Re-parented, and Populated (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 29#Category:Governors of the medieval Islamic world)

As the precedents have established, "the medieval Islamic world" was not a "country", so this is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that can be upmerged. Unlike the precedents, I think "medieval" is also WP:NONDEFINING in this case and having a "medieval" subcat doesn't improve navigation, so it's better to just upmerge to parent Category:Viziers. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see above. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Objection does not seem relevant. No vizier signed a contract with something which was not a state. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge as this would lose the medieval period. As long as the parent Officials of the medieval Islamic world exists, the current name seems valid, although "in" might be better than "of", rather like the precedent for Monarchs in Europe. If in future the Officials parent is deleted or renamed to something that would no longer parent this one, perhaps "Medieval viziers" would then be in order. For now, rename to Category:Viziers in the medieval Islamic world. – Fayenatic London 12:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "in", as "of" wrongly suggest they were viziers of the entire medieval Islamic world. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I doubt "medieval" has much navigational value for viziers. The only other period-based category in the Category:Viziers tree is Category:Ancient Egyptian viziers, and it wouldn't make sense to create an "Ancient viziers" parent just to be able to horizonally navseasoncat our way to the medieval ones. Upmerging makes it much more navigable.

  Second, I agree that we need to look to parent Category:Officials of the medieval Islamic world as well. I've already looked into it and there is actually no "Officials by century/period" tree, but there is a Category:Civil servants by century tree which runs from the 16th to the 21st century. So I would be quite open to Rename Category:Officials of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Medieval civil servants, and Re-parent and Populate it, just like we did with the Category:Medieval governors. How about that? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Civil servants is a too modern concept, it makes sense that it does not start earlier than the 16th century (I think even that is too early). Officials is a more generic concept which seems just fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. We could re-parent it to Category:Government officials, but that currently has no "by century" or "by period" branches. What it does have is Category:Government officials by nationality. In fact, Category:Government officials of the Seljuk Empire is already there. Merge? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agree with re-parenting to Category:Government officials. But having Category:Government officials of the Seljuk Empire in Category:Government officials by nationality is suboptimal, by dynasty would be more accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination expanded: proposing to merge Category:Officials of the medieval Islamic world to Category:Government officials by nationality. See my 09:07, 15 August 2023 comment above. @Fayenatic london and Marcocapelle: For your information. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose officials too. We lose a relevant connection when merging. On top of that, the subcategories are mostly not based on nationality but derived from the ruling dynasty, as we usually do for categories in the medieval Islamic world, so the target is off. And the target is not specifically medieval either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle what if we Alt Renamed the officials to Category:Medieval government officials, and somehow connected them to the target categories you proposed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 18#Heads of government? E.g. Category:6th-century government officials would become a child of Category:Medieval government officials. This seems to solve both problems in 1 go. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Renaming to Category:Medieval government officials would resolve my earlier objection about merging viziers, but would leave a major gap in Category:People of the medieval Islamic world by occupation. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That category level is for a follow-up nomination. We need to work bottom-up. As it happens, I did already nominate two other children of Category:People of the medieval Islamic world by occupation for merging into medieval categories, namely the "rebels" and the "military personnel", see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 31#Category:Military personnel of the medieval Islamic world. The rest may be similarly nominated for merging/renaming to other medieval people by occupation categories next. NLeeuw (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Added the Alt rename to Category:Medieval government officials + Re-parent + Populate option for Officials. Curious whether participants @Marcocapelle and @Fayenatic would agree with this, because would solve at least some of their objections, and they have voiced partial support for this already. NLeeuw (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course I would not object to having Category:Medieval government officials as a parent category of Category:Officials of the medieval Islamic world. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm proposing Category:Medieval government officials as the target. The parent will be Category:Government officials. NLeeuw (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge/split/rename/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Religion in the Arab world to Category:Religion in the Middle East
• Propose merging Category:Irreligion in the Arab world to Category:Irreligion in the Middle East
  • Purge Morocco (already in Category:Irreligion in Africa)
• Propose merging Category:Religion in the Arab world by city to Category:Religion in the Middle East by city
  • Re-parent Category:Religion in Tunis to Category:Religion in Africa by city
• Propose splitting Category:Christianity in the Arab world to Category:Christianity in the Middle East and Category:Christianity in North Africa
• Propose renaming Category:Eastern Christianity in the Arab world to Category:Eastern Christianity in the Middle East
  • Purge Libya and Morocco (already in Category:Eastern Christianity in Africa)
• Propose splitting Category:Islam in the Arab world to Category:Islam in the Middle East and Category:Islam in North Africa
• Propose merging Category:Islamic organizations in the Arab world to Category:Islamic organizations in the Middle East
  • Purge Algeria (already in Category:Islamic organizations in Africa)
• Propose splitting Category:Jews and Judaism in the Arab world to Category:Jews and Judaism in the Middle East and Category:Jews and Judaism in North Africa
• Propose merging Category:Christianity in the Arab world by city to Category:Christianity in the Middle East by city
• Propose merging Category:Religion in the Arab world by country to Category:Religion in the Middle East by country;
  • Purge all countries which are already in Category:Religion in Africa by country (Algeria, Comoros, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, Western Sahara. Egypt can stay in both because it's part of Middle East)
• Propose deleting Category:Bahá'í Faith in the Arab world ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs); all contents are already in Category:Bahá'í Faith in Africa and Category:Bahá'í Faith in the Middle East
• Propose merging Category:Hinduism in the Arab world to Category:Hinduism in the Middle East

• Purge Somalia (already in Category:Hinduism in Africa)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT WP:REDUNDANTFORK WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Irreligion in the Arab world. @Marcocapelle and Fayenatic london: pinging previous participants who requested this new fresh nomination. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Greek Orthodoxy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, too much overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not particularly keen on this, as it's part of Category:Society of the Arab world which I consider to be of some value for navigation. I also consider the Arab world to be sufficiently well defined for regional categories to be valid. However, this nomination does at least deal consistently with the nominated hierarchy, so I am not opposing it if other editors think pruning this hierarchy would be an improvement. – Fayenatic London 19:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added two more sub-cats, but omitting Category:Islamism in the Arab world and Category:Jihadist groups in the Arab world since they also form a significant part of Category:Political movements in the Arab world and Category:Political organizations in the Arab world. – Fayenatic London 20:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those seem fine additions to me, although I would have appreciated it if you asked me to add them first. The nomination is already complicated, I would not like to see it fail. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I only added subcats that I thought would strengthen the nomination by avoiding loose ends. In case I ever do anything similar again – I think that as nominator you would have the prerogative to undo such additions if you think they weaken the proposal. – Fayenatic London 15:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london I appreciate it. :) It's quite frustrating when complicated bundles fail. The risk of failure is even greater with sensitive topics like religion and ethnicity, and this tree is an intersection of both. That's why I preferred to start with one simple test case before doing logical follow-ups. In the current situation, you and Marco objected to the test case, telling me I should do a bundle or it wouldn't be "fair". With great reluctance and hesitation, I decided to agree to go for a bundle on a complicated topic that is often sensitive, in this case double sensitive, on the condition that both of you would support it. That your initial response here was a lukewarm I am not particularly keen on this [but] I am not opposing it if other editors think [it] would be an improvement is not quite the support you promised / I may have expected from you after agreeing to make it a bundle with your and Marco's support. Then, bringing categories about politics, war and violence into mix isn't exactly making the nomination less sensitive, you know? Bringing them into the mix without my consent isn't very conducive either. I hope you understand that all this is not making my position as nominator particularly easy, and that it differs from how I would have liked and had expected to work together with you on this nomination. :/ I do appreciate you at least informed me of it, and acknowledged that I would be allowed to undo them as nominator if they weaken a proposal that is already complicated. I can also see your additions were intended as strengthening the proposal, which I also appreciate, but I just had to give you my perspective. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I opposed the previous narrow nomination, and promised not to oppose this wider nomination. Sorry if you interpreted that as a promise to fully support it. As for my additions, Islamic organizations and Eastern Christianity do not strike me as particularly sensitive, which is why I added them. I did not add Islamism or Jihadist groups for the reason stated; I merely pointed out that they will remain as sub-cats with "Arab world" scope. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. NLeeuw (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. There is much un-needed overlap in these categories, and we all know why. Although the scopes of the Arab World and the Middle East (and the sometimes mentioned notion of 'West Asia') are of course not identical, the purpose of categories is to help navigation and make content easy to find for readers. We do not need to split content along every possible grouping of countries and cultures, because the result of that is that content ends up, well, split. Place Clichy (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Eskimo Joe members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As per WP:SMALLCAT. There are 3 core notable members of this band in its 26 year history, this is unlikely to change. The first line of Eskimo Joe outlines these band members. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per small cat. Mason (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: disperse. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting dispersing Category:Naval aviation in fiction ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Just move Category:Films about naval aviation directly under Category:Naval aviation, move Category:Aircraft carriers in fiction to Aviation fiction and Military fiction, and leave a "see also" note on both category pages linking to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and reorganise tree per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection: the proposal as currently described would remove Category:Aircraft carriers in fiction from Aviation fiction, Military fiction and Oceans and seas in fiction. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• True, I have adapted the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 11:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• UpMerge to all parents except Category:Oceans and seas in fiction. - jc37 18:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A full merge would lead to quite some duplication, in the adapted nomination I am trying to avoid that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The contents consist of 2 subcats, what am I missing? - jc37 20:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For example, Category:Films about naval aviation is already in Category:Films about naval warfare so does not need to be added to Category:Military fiction much higher in the hierarchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh ok. Your use of the word "duplication" in that way, confused me. I presume you meant duplcation in different levels of the tree, then? - jc37 13:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Romance legendary creatures to Category:European legendary creatures

Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection with language family. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Category originally formed to make Category:European legendary creatures less confusing, particularly seeing as various language families also have subcategories of their own there. Tarchunes (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the goal, then just rename to Category:European legendary creatures by country, and then diffuse the rest of the country cats from the parent. (A few of them may need renaming.) - jc37 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That wouldn't work too well since the present categorization focusses on cultural/ethnical and geographical rather than political groupings, e.g. Category:Slavic legendary creatures containing various beings from Slavic folklore without differentiating their exact countries of origin. Tarchunes (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure it can, you just upmerge any that are regional/cultural, rather than per country. - jc37 04:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Language family is not a useful way to sort content organized in national categories. Place Clichy (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Split * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:10th-century women rulers to...

• Category:10th-century women regents
• Category:10th-century empresses consort
• Category:10th-century queens regnant
• Category:10th-century queens consort
• Category:10th-century duchesses consort
• Category:10th-century countesses regnant
• Category:10th-century countesses consort

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these medieval women. I'm suggesting a split into no fewer than 7 new categories. Follow-up to Category:5th-century women rulers (Split), 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well; the "7th-century women rulers" CfS, the "8th-century women rulers" CfS and the "9th-century women rulers" CfS are still ongoing.

Contrary to previous noms, I now also have two new trees for countesses regnant and countesses consort, and an explanation on some non-viable cats that cannot be created in the current circumstances. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split at least in three. Monarchs, regents and monarch's consorts are clearly different roles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reduced split as per Marcocapelle: 10th-century women monarchs regnant, 10th-century women monarchs consort, and 10th-century women regents, or similar less clunky names. Grutness...wha? 12:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "women monarchs regnant" and "women monarchs consort" are not used by anyone. The names I propose are; we already use them widely in our existing category trees, see Category:Queens regnant, Category:Queens consort etc. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, queen consort isn't a ruler Marcelus (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's a reason to support this nom, because it will take queens consort out of the "rulers" tree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They should be taken from it under the current name, because they aren't rulers. The name "rulers" is good because it doesn't determine actual titles they held, since they often never had one. Marcelus (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per decision about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:6th-century women rulers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Split * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:9th-century women rulers to...

• Category:9th-century queens regnant
• Category:9th-century empresses regnant
• Category:9th-century women regents
• Category:9th-century queens consort
• Category:9th-century empresses consort
• Category:9th-century duchesses consort

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these medieval women. I'm suggesting a split into no fewer than 6 new categories. Follow-up to Category:5th-century women rulers (Split), 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well; the "7th-century women rulers" CfS and the "8th-century women rulers" CfS are still ongoing.

I populated the category beforehand to enable the creation of these 6 new categories. In this category, empresses regnant and women regents will have to do with only 4 items for now, I really couldn't find more, although they probably existed. (Lagertha probably belongs in Category:Kings in Norse mythology and legends, as a queen consort and queen regnant, but one who is probably fictional; I have excluded her). Category:Dogaressas of Venice may be categorised as duchesses consort from now on. That's all for now. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split at least in three. Monarchs, regents and monarch's consorts are clearly different roles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per decision about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:6th-century women rulers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Split * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:8th-century women rulers to...

• Category:8th-century queens regnant
• Category:8th-century empresses regnant
• Category:8th-century women regents
• Category:8th-century queens consort
• Category:8th-century empresses consort
• Category:8th-century duchesses consort

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these medieval women. I'm suggesting a split into no fewer than 6 new categories. Follow-up to Category:5th-century women rulers (Split), 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well; the The "7th-century women rulers" CfS is still ongoing.

For the record, I looked through Category:8th-century women and its subcats to find at least 5 women for a new category. Wu Zetian was no longer an empress consort since 27 December 683, so she's not categorised as such for the 8th century. I recommend leaving Parsbit in Category:Khazar rulers for now, but otherwise recommend categorising her as a women regent. Otherwise nothing exceptional this time. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split at least in three. Monarchs, regents and monarch's consorts are clearly different roles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  From the 7th century onwards, the categories are generally so well-populated that we can usually split them in about 6 trees. I'm just having some difficulty with populating 9th-century empresses regnant. 4 articles and 1 subcat, is that enough?

  The largest categories are yet to come. In general it's a bit much and tedious work, but I also learn stuff about women I've never heard of. Either way, splitting this tree by more precise position/status if these women is required if we seek to phase out the whole rulers tree. I'll just try to do a few categories a day. Hopefully we're done by the end of this month. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per decision about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:6th-century women rulers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Split * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:7th-century women rulers to...

• Category:7th-century queens regnant
• Category:7th-century empresses regnant
• Category:7th-century women regents
• Category:7th-century queens consort
• Category:7th-century empresses consort
• Category:7th-century duchesses consort

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these medieval women. I'm suggesting a split into no fewer than 6 new categories. Follow-up to Category:5th-century women rulers (Split), 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). The "6th-century women rulers" CfS is still ongoing closed as "Split" as well.

For the record, I looked through Category:7th-century Frankish women to find enough duchesses consort until I had at least 5 to start a new category. (There are probably more.) I wanted to start this with a solid base, because I expect this will turn into a new "Duchesses consort by century" tree going forward. Otherwise the usual observations apply: many queens consort became women regents upon the deaths of their husbands, but Japanese empresses consort became empresses regnant (Chinese empress Wu Zetian famously as well, a rare exception in Chinese history), and Maya queens consort generally became queens regnant rather than regents for their sons (although there are some doubtful cases). Theodelinda is described as "co-regent", which would be unique in Lombard/Longobard history, so I'm inclined to doubt it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split at least in three. Monarchs, regents and monarch's consorts are clearly different roles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per decision about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:6th-century women rulers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. In line with previous discussions. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus to Category:11th-century monarchs in Al-Andalus

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parents Category:Monarchs in al-Andalus and Category:11th-century monarchs in Europe. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 20#Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus (which reached consensus on the parent, but not the child, but now WP:C2C is a reason to rename the child). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I am now proposing "monarchs", as you suggested at the time. "Emirs" wasn't a good idea of mine, but I'm now willing to accept your idea. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, per C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Rulers" is a better broad term than "monarchs". Rename the parent. (I wonder why we have no categories for 12th- and 13th-century rulers?) Srnec (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that "rulers" would be better than "monarchs", on the contrary "rulers" is unnecessarily vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Archaeological cultures of Central Asia to Category:Archaeological cultures of Asia
• Propose upmerging Category:Archaeological sites in Central Asia to Category:Archaeological sites in Asia
• Propose upmerging Category:Archaeology of Central Asia to Category:Archaeology in Asia

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:SUBJECTIVECAT WP:OR. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 31#Category:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe, which led to the upmerging of all Categories:Archaeological cultures of Fooern Europe to parent Category:Archaeological cultures of Europe. There is no consensus on the definition of "Central Asia". Although the most common current one is just 5 countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan), the official Soviet definition excluded Kazakhstan, some definitions include Afghanistan, some include Mongolia and parts of China and Russia etc. and UNESCO does not really define the region in terms of political borders but more in terms of geological boundaries (see File:Central Asia borders4.png). This category itself includes Afghanistan, China, Mongolia and Scytho-Siberian world (which includes areas of Eastern Europe even UNESCO excludes), so this is clearly a subjective and arbitrary cat. We can't have everyone picking their own favourite definition of a contested term, or making up their own one, and running with it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Added Category:Archaeological sites in Central Asia and Category:Archaeology of Central Asia, same issues. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, the content has already been diffused by modern country and only few articles encompass multiple Central Asian modern countries (by exception, Andronovo culture does), so this category layer is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this is part of Category:History of Central Asia, and should not be dismantled unless all that hierarchy is removed. – Fayenatic London 06:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a good follow-up, but we can't do everything at once. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london and Nederlandse Leeuw: categorizing by region is meaningful if there is sufficient overlap between the countries in a region. For archaeology that is clearly not the case. I can well imagine we dismantle archaeology of Central Asia while we have a separate discussion (with perhaps a different outcome) about written history of Central Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced of that as a good rationale for deletion. Otherwise we would delete regional siblings e.g. Category:Archaeology of Southeast Asia and many other regional categories such as Category:Slavery in the medieval Islamic world.

  I think we would all acknowledge that country and continent categories are inherently meaningful. The implication of your comment is that regional categories are not, and need to be justified on a case by case basis by articles that bridge the subcats. If we took that approach consistently then all sorts of gaps would appear in otherwise comprehensive structures.

  As for the original rationale, there is no doubt that Central Asia is a much-discussed region, and hence a valid topic for a regional hierarchy. I would not delete selected regions' hierarchies solely because of inconsistencies in the way people have historically defined the scope of that region. – Fayenatic London 07:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic Let me visualise some precedents:

• Category:Archaeological cultures of Southwestern Europe was (indirectly) upmerged to Category:Archaeological cultures of Europe
• Category:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeological cultures of Europe
• Category:Archaeological cultures of Northern Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeological cultures of Europe
• Category:Archaeological cultures of Central Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeological cultures of Europe
• Category:Archaeological cultures of Southern Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeological cultures of Europe
• Category:Archaeological cultures of Southeastern Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeological cultures of Europe
• Category:Archaeological cultures of Eastern Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeological cultures of Europe

• Category:Archaeology of Western Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeology in Europe
• Category:Archaeology of Central Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeology in Europe
• Category:Archaeology of Southern Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeology in Europe
• Category:Archaeology of Southeastern Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeology in Europe
• Category:Archaeology of Eastern Europe was upmerged to Category:Archaeology in Europe

Otherwise we would delete regional siblings e.g. Category:Archaeology of Southeast Asia Yeah, guess what my follow-up is going to look like? I'm just using Central Asia as a test case for all regions of Asia, just like I used Southwestern Europe as a test case for all regions of Europe.

In that case I do not support your method or your goal. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would all acknowledge that country and continent categories are inherently meaningful. Yes. However, "Southwestern Europe", "Central Europe", "Central Asia" etc. are neither countries nor continents. They are arbitrarily defined subregions of continents. You seem to acknowledge that: Central Asia is a much-discussed region, not a country, nor a continent.

I meant that we keep e.g. continental categories without the need for bridging articles; it is only for regional categories that Marcocapelle was proposing this special requirement. I was testing this new rationale of his. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we took that approach consistently then all sorts of gaps would appear in otherwise comprehensive structures. Not really; as you can see, all of them are now safe and sound in Category:Archaeological cultures of Europe. There is no gap. Rather, we got rid of a bunch of arbitrarily defined regional subcategories and put them all in the parent category. Country-based subcategories still exist, e.g. Category:Archaeological cultures in Albania.

Again, my point was about Marcocapelle's rationale, which I interpreted as a proposed requirement of bridging articles for regional categories. Regional hierarchies, even for clearly-defined regions, would have gaps if we deleted any category lacking a bridging article. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asia is a much-discussed region, and hence a valid topic for a regional hierarchy. That doesn't follow logically. We've been deleting lots of regional categories of Europe for the same subject already, including "Western Europe" in which all three of us arguably live depending on how we define "Western Europe"... which is the problem. Because I've seen our countries of residence variously grouped as "Northern Europe", "Northwestern Europe" and "Central Europe" as well. It's all WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Anyone can make things up as they go along. The only things we agree on are the names and borders of our countries and the fact that they are located in "Europe". The fact that "Western Europe" is a much-discussed region didn't stop us from upmerging Category:Archaeology of Western Europe as an WP:ARBITRARYCAT either. Hence the follow-up upmerging proposal for Central Asia right now. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Category:History of Western Europe, so that one was OK by me, although there is Category:Western Europe. But I had not realised that only the archaeology layer was being removed in some cases, e.g. Category:Archaeology of Central Europe was merged to Europe but Category:History of Central Europe remains. I oppose removal of a regional archaeology category where the parent regional history category remains, because archaeology is a useful sub-topic of history, so categories should facilitate navigation to the sub-cats, even if they are all reachable by other routes e.g. the national hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...because archaeology is a useful sub-topic of history,... What if I told you that Category:Archaeology and Category:History are siblings? Both are in Category:Humanities and Category:Social sciences. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a surprise to me, because I checked a few countries in History by country, and most countries' history categories include archaeology as a sub-cat. I suppose the inconsistency is OK, because they are different subjects e.g. for undergraduate degrees, but in practice – at a local level – archaeology is a sub-topic of history. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Category:Archaeology shows disagreements over parenting. Ragesoss, Editor2020 and Joe Roe have disagreed over Fields of history (2007–2018), and Arms Jones and Marcocapelle over the former Category:Auxiliary sciences of history. – Fayenatic London 14:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london Interesting. Thank you for examining this. It means it's more complicated than I thought.

Well, it thus seems that there is no consensus on whether (A) archaeology is a subdiscipline auxiliary science of history, or (B) a separate but equal discipline within the domains of the humanities and social sciences. (Although I lean more towards (B), that may be because at my university, history was part of the Faculty of Letters, and archaeology was somewhere else entirely (I don't even know where), but that's not the only way one can organise them as disciplines. I don't recall exactly, but part of the organisational difference at universities is explained by the influence of Processual archaeology versus Culture-historical archaeology. I don't even know where on that spectrum my uni was).

I think this calls for pragmatism. I would propose the following rule of thumb:

1. On the one hand, we shouldn't remove any archaeology categories as subcategories of history categories just because we believe B. That would be needlessly disruptive.
2. On the other, if an archaeology subcategory of a history category is nominated for upmerging to its archaeology parent, pointing out that it's a subcategory of a history category with the same name cannot be a sufficient objection against upmerging just because we believe A. That would be needlessly obstructive.

Both could result in endless discussions, even EW. I think neither you nor I are seeking that. Does this rule of thumb seem reasonable to you? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe needless to say, in my reply on August 21st 06:17 I assumed that archaeology is distant enough from written history that we can have different categorization criteria for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• On the relationship between archaeology and history: Long (hi)story short: it's complicated. As I reasoned earlier in discussions about archaeological cultures and language families, it's difficult to say anything about language if no written sources have been left behind. There may be lots of skeletons, clothes, tools, weapons, camp sites, even cave art for the archaeologist to study, but there's no text for the historian to read. Archaeology can venture forth into prehistoric times. History can't; it's pre-history. It's "before history" can say anything. In that respect, archaeology is sometimes superior to history. However, if we're talking about e.g. medieval times, and archaeologists dig up something like a destroyed castle, it might be that they have no good idea who attacked who and why, only that arrowheads and the injuries in skulls give an idea of what kinds of weapons were used, and the rest is soon in the realm of speculation. But if a historian can uncover and analyse a written account of what happened (even if the account is biased towards one side of the conflict), that one written source can say more than a thousand anonymous arrowheads. In that scenario, archaeology is an auxiliary science of history, and history is superior. It all depends on context. I think this question of the relationship between archaeology and history is something we Wikipedians can never quite answer definitively. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to ask @Austronesier's expertise on the matter. They have worked on language families and archaeology in Asia before. What do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thank you, @NLeeuw, for pointing me to this discusssion. IMHO it's a useful subcategorization and sufficiently well-defined. Outlier definitions for Central Asia as found in one book published by UNESCO and strangely enough attributed to the entire organization (reading "UNESCO definition" made me chuckle) can be safely ignored. As for the precedent of the merger of European subcategories, this is comparing apples with oranges: the indivdual subregions of Asia are quite on par with Europe as a whole, both with regards to size and anthropological/cultural/historical diversity. –Austronesier (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Prime ministerial elections * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Head of Government elections to Category:Prime minister elections

Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent to Category:Prime ministers, more precise name, as this is not meant for elections of president who are also the head of government. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of government aren't always named "Prime Minister" (the one Kiribati example was for a Chief Minister, for example) Glide08 (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not about the exact name but about the office as chair of the ministers without being the head of state. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If consensus is to rename, it should be to Prime-ministerial elections (possibly without the hyphen?) Grutness...wha? 12:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Or "Elections of prime ministers", those are all ok alternatives. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Prime-ministerial elections (probably grammatically correct per Grutness) or Category:Prime ministerial elections (probably the WP:COMMONNAME judging by Google Books), as well as siblings Category:Presidential elections and Category:Vice presidential elections. Third choice Category:Elections of prime ministers per nom and sibling Category:Elections of legislative speakers Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Prime ministerial elections (no dash), per above, and per format of other categories in Category:Elections by type. And "prime ministerial" would seem to be the adjective per several online dictionaries, including: merriam-webster and even wikt:prime ministerial. - jc37 15:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I agree with jc37's suggestion as it appears to be grammatically correct, and thus the no dash variant is the best name of the three alt options I brought up. I struck the other two. NLeeuw (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete I checked and all of the articles are already in Category:Cobra (G.I. Joe) agents or one of its subcats so no merge is needed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Action Force characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category seems effectively useless; according to the research I've undertaken on the toyline for the creation of Action Force (comic strip), Action Force characters are limited to: -

• A group of characters created for the European market which seem highly unlikely to generate GNG articles.
• All 1980s G.I. Joe characters, minus a couple omitted for the European market, with only very minor biographical changes.

Therefore a separate category seems unnecessary. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle per WP:OVERLAPCAT. However, insofar articles of this category aren't already in the tree of Category:G.I. Joe characters, they should be added to Category:G.I. Joe. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 31 August 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.