The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Eponymous category for a person without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant an eponymous category. As always, everybody who has a Wikipedia article does not automatically get their own dedicated category as a matter of course -- it's useful if there are a lot of related articles that need categorization for their relationship to the eponym, but not if there are only a couple. But there are only two articles here, the eponym and one organization he's associated with, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Overcategorization for a non-defining characteristic. We categorize noteworthy contestants on Got Talent shows if they have articles to categorize, and we obviously categorize the winners, but we have no established history of categorizing people for whether they got the golden buzzer or not — and since all the golden buzzer actually does is guarantee a spot in the next round of the competition, but comes with no prize and doesn't guarantee victory or permanent notability in and of itself, it hardly constitutes a defining characteristic of its recipients' careers. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Eponymous category for a person without a sufficient volume of spinoff content to warrant an eponymous category. As always, every person who exists does not automatically get one of these just to contain her WP:BLP itself -- there have to be several other related articles that would need categorization for their relationship to Vanessa Merrell, but there's no evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Procedural oppose This is not your nomination, William. I think it's up to nom (me in this case) to add this as an Alt or addition or something, or that you should nominate this separately in your own CfR. (I would still oppose it on grammatical and WP:COMMONNAME grounds, but that's the next step). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: Per WP:C2B the formulation should be Fooian-era people, People of the Fooian era, People of the Fooian period, or Barian people by period. There is no Fooian period people or Fooian-period people.) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-period or -era is more accurate for sure. However, the wonder I have is more about whether we should categorize monarchs by this kind of periodization at all. We wouldn't want to have an analogous Category:Modern monarchs, would we? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
CommentMarcocapelle, how many orphaned categories did this editor add to their sandbox? Because I'm tagging dozens of categories that they created solely for their sandbox. This category is empty so there is nothing to Merge. LizRead!Talk!04:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, I actually did a search for "Category" on the page and found that they had added 54 categories to this user sandbox. There is also a COI issue involved that they haven't addressed yet. LizRead!Talk!03:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom and precedent. Even recognizing that fictional characters are more often defined by ethnic stereotypes that real-life people are, language families are not an appropriate way to do that. Place Clichy (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep The problem with WP:PERFCAT is when actors have a lot of roles that would create category clutter but half these people are known for little else and this association pretty consistently is in the intro the articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the A-F articles where I think we wouldn't have an article if not for the show: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. That's not to say the articles don't cover what schools attended, careers, and families just that the show is defining, as reflected in the intros.
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:The Amazing Race (American TV series) contestants
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.
Keep Click through the articles and this pretty consistently is in the intro. While traditional actors get many roles which would lead to category clutter, most of these people wouldn't have articles if they hadn't been on this show. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
See also Celts#Modern: For at least 1,000 years the name Celt was not used at all, and nobody called themselves Celts or 'Celtic, until from about 1700
Is there a Celtic woman who is not an ancient Celtic woman? In other words, from what does "ancient" need to be disambiuated? Is there a "modern Celtic women" category? If not, then this nomination seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel has a point, which I also made when suggesting that "historical" in "historical Germanic peoples" is redundant, as Germanic peoples are defined in the opening sentence as "historical" already. On the other hand, Marcocapelle is correct that "Ancient Celtic" (or "Historical Germanic") is used to prevent some editors from thinking that it is appropriate to categorise modern people as such. There is a reason why the article Celts (modern) has "(modern)" in its title. The modern concept and its applicability to modern people(s) are contested. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purge insofar as Celt is a suitable categorization, only the ancient Celts qualify, and the rename would prevent misapplication of the category to others. (t · c) buidhe01:08, 7 June 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'm the one who created this category. The point is not that this was a defining characteristic of the individuals, but that this was a foretaste of the Civil War. It was the last event before the Civil War broke out; in fact, the Governor was afraid it was starting right then (1859). I discussed this at Virginia v. John Brown#Spectators. deisenbe (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Where do you put the "French linguists" and the "Belgian linguists" who happen to live and work in Germany? Are they not Linguists from Germany? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not check the article, but it is not unheard of that people have several nationalities. Especially scholars that teach in a country where they were not born. And imho a scholar native from Bar who works at the National University of Foo deserves to be categorized as both a scholar from Bar and a scholar from Foo, regardless of whether they hold a Fooian passport or not. Place Clichy (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. As explained above, for linguists and grammarians it is useful to avoid the ambiguity between their country and their language of studies. There are American and British scholars of the French language, not just Belgian and Swiss. Place Clichy (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. I don't see anything in WP:PERFCAT that justifies the deletion of this category. This duo is not just 2 actors, but an established act that was developed over a large career and series of films. If this was Hollywood it would probably be called a franchise, and WP:PERFCAT certainly does not forbid categories about film franchises. There are plenty of such valid categories e.g. in Category:Buddy films, such as Category:Laurel and Hardy (film series) which is similar in many ways. Place Clichy (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Nations at the Special Olympics World Summer Games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:ARBITRARYCAT (see the Rulers CfM for background). Because Florence was long known as the Republic of Florence (1115–1569), even though it also had a de facto de' Medici dynasty in the 1434–1569 period (known as "Lord of Florence" 1434–1494 and 1498–1532, and as "Duke of Florence" 1532–1569) functioning as a hereditary head of state, interrupted by a fiercely strictly non-hereditary republican period the absence of the de Medici' in 1494–1498 (when the Gonfaloniere of Justice served as both head of government (the Signoria of Florence) and head of state), the head of state of Florence during this entire period of time should simply be called that: "head of state of Florence". "rulers" implies sovereign hereditary monarchs, which Girolamo Savonarola and Piero Soderini were not. (Alternatively, we could create a separate Category:Gonfalonieri of Justice which we would populate with them and other gonfalonieri of justice of Florence).
I propose to remove parents Category:Italian monarchs and Category:European rulers, because Savonarola and Soderini were not sovereign hereditary monarchs, but republican non-hereditary heads of government also functioning as heads of state.
(On a sidenote, I suggest a separate discussion should be had on what to do with List of rulers of Tuscany. I think it's too complicated to be handled here, but I'm leaning towards a split, because there is a disconnect between the Margravate of Tuscany and the Republic of Florence of several centuries, and they are essentially two different states. From Republic of Florence to Grand Duchy of Tuscany, even though different states, there was at least arguably dynastic continuity). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Rulers is an appropriately vague term to cover various titles. We should stop trying to minutely categorise people by status when dealing with relatively high level categories that will generally be containers. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents of the past several months have shown the community is thinking otherwise. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it has been decided to move away from "rulers" to something clearer and more defining on a case-by-case basis. I also don't see you objecting to anything related to this specific CfR. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Summary 3 people plus myself as nom are in favour. 1 opposed. 1 suggested a secondary option that nobody else favoured. (1 suggested creating a new separate category, which will not influence this nomination).
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: The concert films were moved into a created category named K-pop concert films, which I don't deem necessary just because it's in a different language. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️04:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 article Federal prince claims The [German Empire] was a federal state, with its constituent states remaining sovereign states. I find that somewhat doubtful; the whole idea of a federal state is that one gives up at least part of one's sovereignty to a supranational polity, which has control over matters such as defence and foreign policy. This is the case for the US (thus a federation), but not the EU (thus a confederation, although leaning towards federalism with ongoing integration). The Holy Roman Empire, especially after the Middle Ages, is best characterised as a confederation, while the German Empire is best considered a federation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good observations. However, the Hessian state was broken into a multitude of minor states. It was only an undivided Hesse for a short period. So the scope should be limited to that time period and ought not to cover its offspring statelets. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken my oppose. But yes, "Landgraves of Hesse" is really the same as saying "Landgraves in Hesse" as there were only a few landgraves of the united entity. It would be like having a category "18th monarchs of Italy"; yes there were many monarchs in Italy but none of all Italy. A discussion for another day. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Monarch" tends to refer to a king or emperor. They were princes of the Holy Roman Empire, which had constitutional institutions, but were largely self governing. With the variety of titles used, I would suggest that "rulers" has an appropriate vagueness. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:SOVEREIGN "rulers" below the rank of king are still "monarchs": #5 European monarchs whose rank is below that of king (e.g., grand dukes, electors, dukes, princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. In several past and ongoing Rulers CfRs (including this one), the argument is made that e.g. "dukes" should not be categorised as "monarchs" because they are not "kings", but this guideline shows that they are "monarchs" nonetheless. I've also frequently invoked the fact that the List of German monarchs in 1918 identifies Emperors, Kings, Grand Dukes and Dukes as "monarchs", even though Grand Dukes and Dukes are below the royal level. This is not a valid argument to keep "rulers" in catnames. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:48, 5 May 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.