Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 25#Category:European monarchs

: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/Merge. Feel free to "start fresh" with a follow-up discussion (as noted below), as appropriate. - jc37 04:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Palestinian people to :Category:People from Palestine

:Nominator's rationale: Differentiate between this category and :Category:Palestinians. Skovl (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support, the benefit of the rename as stated by nom is obvious, I can't think of an objection right away, but I might change my mind if anyone would raise a serious objection. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

:* User:William Allen Simpson raised a serious objection. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It's not unheard of that we have separate categories for people by ethnicity regardless of location (here, :Category:Palestinians) and people of a given geography regardless of ethnicity. See e.g. {{Cl|Serb people}}/{{Cl|Serbian people}}, {{Cl|Bosniak people}}/{{Cl|Bosnia and Herzegovina people}}, {{Cl|Bengali people}}/{{Cl|Bangladeshi people}}, {{Cl|Ethnic Kazakh people}}/{{Cl|Kazakhstani people}}. A hatnote explaining the difference is always useful. However the format of the geographic-based category always seems to be people. In this case this has the advantage of applying to people from the several understandings of the conflict-prone word Palestine, so I find it slightly better than the proposed target. Place Clichy (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, people from Palestine and Palestinian people aren't the same Marcelus (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

:* {{ping|Marcelus}} isn't what you call Palestinian people the same as in :Category:Palestinians? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

::*Because Skovl changed the definitions before nomination, copy and pasting the definition from Palestinian people to Palestinians. That's why things became confused.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak keep, Palestine is ambiguous per :Category:Palestine. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

:* The point of the nomination is that :Category:Palestinian people is even more ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

::* Best solution would be to rename to :Category:People from Palestine (region) if it is properly parented. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

:::* Agree, that is an even better solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

::::* Comment withdrawn per William Allen Simpson below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:People from Palestine (region) per ambiguity of the term Palestine. --Maedc (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support :Category:People from Palestine (region) as well. Then :Category:People from Palestine could be {{tl|category disambiguation}} between :Category:People from Palestine (region) and :Category:People from the State of Palestine. And :Category:Palestinian people can be {{tl|category disambiguation}} between :Category:People from Palestine (region) and :Category:Palestinians --Skovl (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose — Skovl made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3APalestinian_people&diff=prev&oldid=1146544617&diffmode=source major change] to :Category:Palestinian people before this nomination, and a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3APalestinians&diff=prev&oldid=1146544550&diffmode=source related change] to the definition of :Category:Palestinians (copy and paste from Palestinian people). Then opines a need to "differentiate" them. I've reverted both changes. Palestinian people is our nationality category. Palestinians is our ethnicity category. Palestine is the WP:COMMONNAME for the region, as it has been for millennia.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

:*See also Skovl's nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 22#Category:American people.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• {{ping|William Allen Simpson|Marcocapelle}}, but the term Palestinian people is ambiguious, it can refer to both nationality and ethnicity. Instead :Category:People from Palestine (region) is clear. Why not to rename? --Skovl (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

:* This requires a fresh discussion starting from the status quote ex ante. The discussion above is useless. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

:*It really doesn't require much discussion. Read the headnote. Look at the parent :Category:People by nationality. Note that its parents are :Category:Nationality and :Category:People. Basic rules of mathematical inheritance apply. Note that most subcategories are named "Fooian people". This follows the well documented Wikipedia:Category names and Wikipedia:Categorization of people. There are exceptions because of naming conflicts. This isn't one of them. Palestinian people means from the nation, not the ethnicity (:Category:Palestinians). Those guidelines do not usually categorize people by geographical region. :Category:People from Palestine (region) would include citizens of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria. WP:OVERLAPCAT & WP:OCLOCATION.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

::* OK, let me rephrase. If discussion is needed, we should start from scratch. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

----

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

: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:Seleucid monarchs. (non-admin closure) Nagsb (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Seleucid rulers to :Category:Seleucid kings :Category:Seleucid monarchs

:Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B: The Seleucids used the title basileus, which is commonly translated as "king". Even though the article is called Seleucid Empire, nobody calls them "emperors". Aside from "rulers", "kings" appears to be slightly more common on Wikipedia (e.g. List_of_kings_of_Babylon#Dynasty_XIII_(Seleucid),_305–141_BC, Seleucid dynasty, List of Syrian monarchs#Seleucid dynasty etc.) and in literature, and it's more WP:PRECISE than "rulers". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

:Update: As rightly pointed out by StarTrekker and Chiswick Chap, there have been at least 3 Seleucid queens regnant, so I've modified the proposal to "Seleucid monarchs" to make it gender-neutral. Pinging {{ping|Marcocapelle}} who voted for "kings" already. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support amended nomination per nom. Similar to kings of the Achaemenid Empire who are not called emperors either. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• :Yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There seems to have been three queens regnant (Berenice Syra, Cleopatra Thea and Cleopatra Selene of Syria). Also another point to note, couldn't "ruler" also refer to regents and such? Not everyone who rules a place is technically a king or monarch, I'm not sure this recent trend of moving all the ruler categories is the best idea in all cases.★Trekker (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per StarTrekker. "rulers" works fine (IIABDFI); or you could use "monarchs" but that doesn't cover regents either. Best stay as you are really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• :{{ping|StarTrekker}}{{ping|Chiswick Chap}} As you are new to the rulers noms (welcome!), I'd like to point you to the Rulers CfD that has been going on for some time. There is broad consensus that a lot of things are broken and need fixing, and what we are doing is working out the details. Although there is no definitive consensus on that top category yet, Marcocapelle, William Allen Simpson and I, as well as others, have been reaching agreements over the last couple of weeks about dozens of underlying categories, and in general that it is best to change "ruler" into something more specific to avoid confusion. Points about which there seems to be broad (but not universal) consensus so far include:
• :* "monarch" or "king" is usually more specific and applicable than "ruler".
• :* "king" is preferable when the literature is consistent, "monarch" is preferable when the literature is inconsistent, or if there is a significant number of queens regnant, in which case "monarch" becomes the preferred gender-neutral alternative. This last scenario may be the case here, and I'm willing to change the proposal to :Category:Seleucid monarchs to resolve it; I don't think it's a good reason to just keep things as they are.
• :* "governors" and "regents" are not "rulers", because they are not sovereign or hereditary, even if they are de facto or de jure acting as heads of state (although "head of government" is probably more correct). Whenever the "ruler" in question was actually a governor or regent, they should be recategorised as such. So the points you two (StarTrekker and Chiswick Chap) are making are valid, and taken into account in every nom. Indeed, they are often the reason why we make a nom, because the current categorisation is often incorrectly putting governors and regents in cat trees of hereditary monarchs where they do not belong. Leaving governors and regents in the wrong cats as they are is probably not a good option; we should put them where they belong and that sometimes requires reorganising the categories to make it possible.
• :* the term "ruler" is also frequently and confusingly applied to non-hereditary heads of state/govt (in republics, and monarchies with prime ministers and such), which often leads to disputes about who is really the "ruler" of a country (see the Fascist rulers CfD, where the prime minister was considered the "ruler" but not the king, even though technically the king had a higher rank, and both appointed, dismissed and arrested the "ruler" by virtue of that higher authority). This has also led to errors in categorisation, wherein presidents and prime ministers ended up in cat trees of hereditary monarchs. These are all evident problems that can often only be resolved by abandoning the far too ambiguous term "ruler" in favour of more specific terms. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

:::* Well then "Monarch" would be the term of choice, given that 3 of them were queens. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

:::: Proposal updated. Thanks for the correction! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Rename :Category:Seleucid rulers to :Category:Seleucid monarchs as modified.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Seleucid monarchs. Better WP:PRECISION. - jc37 04:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

----

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

: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 to Fictional detectives and :Category:Fictional Australian people. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Fictional Australian detectives to :Category:Fictional Australian people

:** Propose deleting :Category:Fictional detectives by nationality

:Nominator's rationale: manually merge, this category does not have any siblings in the tree of :Category:Fictional detectives by nationality, this in contrast to its police detectives subcategory. Move the two articles to :Category:Fictional Australian people and :Category:Fictional detectives; move the subcategory to :Category:Fictional Australian people by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have added the parent to the nomination for clarity. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep :Category:Fictional Australian detectives as it contains 3 articles in addition to the police subcategory, but delete :Category:Fictional detectives by nationality as an unnecessary category layer. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• If we follow User:LaundryPizza03's line of thinking, :Category:Fictional detectives by nationality should be merged to :Category:Fictional detectives rather than deleted. This alternative would still be an improvement versus status quo. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Merge :Category:Fictional Australian detectives to :Category:Fictional detectives
  
• Delete emptied parent :Category:Fictional detectives by nationality
  Just spent a pile of time purging detectives, no need to keep around WP:SMALLCAT.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• :You mean removing non-detectives? How many pages did you remove from this category? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• ::This one? None that I recall. Marcopelle and I spent a month purging Fictional detectives after a previous couple of discussions.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Dual merge to :Category:Fictional Australian people and :Category:Fictional detectives, per User:Marcocapelle. (Note: The subcat - :Category:Fictional Australian police detectives - is already under :Category:Fictional Australian police officers, which is a subcat of :Category:Fictional Australian people by occupation.) - jc37 04:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

----

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

: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: triple merge to :Category:Ancient women rulers, Xth-century BC rulers, and Xth-century BC women. bibliomaniac15 02:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose upmerging :Category:30th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:31st-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:25th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:22nd-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:19th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:18th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:15th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:14th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:12th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:10th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:7th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:6th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:* :Category:5th-century BC women rulers to :Category:Ancient women rulers

:Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. All these cats have only 1 or 2 items. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle per nom but it should be a manual dual merge, to the rulers by century parents (if they aren't already in rulers by century and country subcat), and to :Category:Ancient women rulers (if they aren't already in :Category:Ancient queens regnant). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• :That seems a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose These are subcategories of :Category:Women by century and the deletion would remove these women from the category tree. In addition merging all these women into a single category would not aid navigation. It would just make the articles extremely difficult to locate. Dimadick (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

:* Correct, we should find them in a rulers by century category too. I have amended my earlier comment above. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Marcocapelle and agreement by Nederlandse Leeuw.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment So, the proposal now is to merge :Category:30th-century BC women rulers to :Category:30th-century BC rulers, :Category:30th-century BC women, and a subcategory of :Category:Ancient women rulers, etc.? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• :Sounds like it. And I'll add my Support to that plan. - jc37 04:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Totally oppose. It would render that category mostly useless. If I'm looking for a queen who ruled in the 6th century BC, how am I helped if she's mixed with other queens or rulers from very different eras, even from the 31st-century BC??? Wikipedia categories are not hodgepodges of vaguely related articles, but a tool to better discriminate what you're looking for. MaeseLeon (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

:* The whole point of the nomination is that there were hardly any e.g. 6th-century women rulers so it is a too narrow search topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Balance so far: 4 Support + dual merge (myself included), 2 oppose. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

----

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

: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 delete; split all between heads of state and heads of government. Renaming was suggested only as an interim step, but that step might as well be skipped. – Fayenatic London

:* Propose renaming :Category:Families of national leaders to :Category:Families of heads of state and government

::* Propose renaming :Category:Parents of world leaders to :Category:Parents of heads of state and government

::* Propose renaming :Category:Children of national leaders to :Category:Children of heads of state and government

:::* Propose renaming :Category:Sons of national leaders to :Category:Sons of heads of state and government

:::* Propose renaming :Category:Daughters of national leaders to :Category:Daughters of heads of state and government

:* Propose renaming :Category:Official social partners of national leaders to :Category:Official social partners of heads of state and government

::* Propose renaming :Category:Spouses of national leaders to :Category:Spouses of heads of state and government

:::* Propose renaming :Category:Husbands of national leaders to :Category:Husbands of heads of state and government

:::* Propose renaming :Category:Wives of national leaders to :Category:Wives of heads of state and government

:Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: It is currently both in :Category:Heads of government and :Category:Heads of state; the category name should make clear that this category seeks to combine the families of people in those two positions. (:Category:Parents of world leaders makes clear that "world leaders" means "presidents" and "prime ministers"). WP:C2B established practice. The term "national leader" or just "leader" is too vague (as previously summarised by several users (Fayenatic London, Rathfelder, Kbdank71, and myself) in the Rulers CfD under proposal #26). This is why [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_state_leaders&action=history "List of state leaders" was moved to] List of current heads of state and government to make clear we are combining heads of state and heads of government, and nobody else. Similar examples: List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government, List of the first women heads of state and government in Muslim-majority countries, List of Muslim women heads of state and government, Heads of state and government of the Philippines, :Category:Philippine Heads of State and Government, List of assassinated and executed heads of state and government, List of openly LGBT heads of state and government, List of heads of state and government Nobel laureates, etc. (Incidentally, there are also cases where they are separated, such as :Category:Fictional children of heads of government (even though that includes presidents), List of spouses of heads of government and List of spouses of heads of state.) There are more subcategories, but I'd like to just nominate these first, then we'll do the rest later. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Split between heads of state and heads of government, as we have separate category trees for each of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• :I would not be opposed to that, but I think that, if we were going to do that, it should be a next step. It's a lot of manual work. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

::* It isn't that much manual work and it should be done anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

::*:Meh. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

::*:* It appears that lots of subcategories would need to be split too, that would make it too complicated within this nomination. So I change my vote to support as an intermediate improvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

::*:*:Thanks. I agree with what you say, and would support future noms to that effect. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Split Why are we mixing the family of the average prime minister with the likes of kings and presidents? Dimadick (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Because being related to an American President is more like being related to a UK Prime Minister than being a British royal.– Fayenatic London 08:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• :Like Fayenatic says, the prime minister or otherwise head of govt can be a lot more powerful and influential than a ceremonial president or king. Everyone knows about Angela Merkel, but who has ever heard of Christian Wulff, Joachim Gauck or Horst Köhler? Moreover, the POTUS is both head of state and head of govt. That said, as I told Marco, I wouldn't be opposed to a split, {{xt|but I think that, if we were going to do that, it should be a next step. It's a lot of manual work.}} Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• {{ping|Nederlandse Leeuw}} after renaming, what should happen with :Category:Families of Nazi leaders‎, :Category:Family of Julius Caesar and :Category:Families of leaders of the Soviet Union? They were neither head of state (except Hitler) nor head of government. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

:* Answering my own question: they should probably go to :Category:Political families. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

:*:Hah, I'm glad you already answered you own question. I did look into that first one and wasn't sure what to do with it either, but you found a solution. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

: Support renaming and then support Split as well. --Skovl (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Further comment, after renaming a little manual work is required: Caesar's and Stalin's subcategory need to be removed and the US vice presidents' subcategory should be moved to :Category:Children by occupation of parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• :Agree with VPOTUS kids, but why remove Caesar's and Stalin's subcats? Julius Caesar is in :Category:1st-century BC Roman consuls > :Category:Roman Republican consuls > :Category:Ancient Roman heads of state, as well as :Category:Ancient Roman dictators > :Category:Ancient Roman heads of state. Joseph Stalin is in :Category:Heads of government of the Soviet Union. Seems like Caesar's family, kids etc. should just go to the heads of state cats when the split comes, and Stalin's to the heads of govt cats, but right now they are fine where they are. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• ::* You are right about Stalin, though categorizing Roman consuls under heads of state seems a mistake. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• ::*:Why? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• ::*:* Censors were perceived to be higher-ranked than consuls. The concept of a head of state just does not fit the Roman Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Regardless, Caesar was Dictator, so its pretty irrelevant if Consuls outrank Censors or vise versa.★Trekker (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• ::I do think :Category:Families of leaders of the Soviet Union should be split:
• ::* :Category:Brezhnev family > :Category:Families of heads of state per :Category:Heads of state of the Soviet Union
• ::* :Category:Mikoyan family > :Category:Families of heads of state per :Category:Heads of state of the Soviet Union
• ::* :Category:Family of Vladimir Lenin > :Category:Families of heads of government per :Category:Heads of government of the Soviet Union
• ::* :Category:Khrushchev family > :Category:Families of heads of government per :Category:Heads of government of the Soviet Union
• ::* :Category:Stalin family > :Category:Families of heads of government per :Category:Heads of government of the Soviet Union
• ::If we gave them Soviet Union-specific subcats, these would be pretty WP:SMALLCATs with 2 and 3 items, respectively, so I think they should just be put in general cats. But let's deal with that split once this CfR is done. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Containerize The new proposed title is far too awkward. If articles are only put in subcategories, the problem of imprecision goes away. Looking at Mostafa Khamenei, it could be in a new "families of Supreme Leaders of Iran" category, and already is in :Category:Ali Khamenei. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Many of the categories contained here are of historical persons whose cultures did not necessarily differentiate between these positions. I don't see why "national leader" would be unclear or confusing. If people want to have categories that are explicit in if the person is the head or state or goverment they can simply create child categories by those names.★Trekker (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• :@StarTrekker it is established practice to categorise people who are both head of state and head of government, such as the POTUS, as "head of state" only. So this wouldn't pose a problem to our category tree. And as I said to Marcocapelle above, I'm not opposed to a split into "heads of state" and "heads of government", I have only proposed to do that after the renaming is done. Marcocapelle has agreed to this procedure already: rename the cats first, start a split CfD second. One thing at a time.
• :In cases of states/cultures where there was no difference between head of state and head of government, the term "national leader" doesn't solve the issue of WP:NONDEF, it just moves it by introducing four new problems: defining "national", defining "leader", defining "national leader", and having to argue why that is better than either "head of state" or ""head of state and government". Especially because the idea of the "nation" and nationalism didn't exist until the 18th and 19th century, "historical cultures" from before those times should probably not be framed in "national" terms.
• :Finally, "national leader" has no legal significance, it is informal and often subjective (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT). For example (this a random example, but I think it illustrates this problem well), Józef Piłsudski seized power with a coup in 1926, retired as prime minister in 1928 (in favour of Kazimierz Bartel), but everyone knows he was the strongman who continued to hold the real power in Poland behind the curtains until his death in 1935, and thus was arguably the "national leader" until 1935. The problem lies in that arguably, because people argue quite a lot about Piłsudski, not least because he seized that power illegitimately in 1926, and so it is questionable whether he was really the "nation's" "leader" (coupled with arguments about justification for the coup and the "good things" he did for "the nation") or rather a "usurper" and "dictator" (coupled with arguments about how he was "self-serving" by seizing power for himself rather than respecting democracy, i.e. "the power of the people/nation" etc.) in those last years. If we accept this idea (which many Polish people do), then he was still head of government for his last 7 years, but if we reject it (which many other Polish people do), he wasn't. We can't have that in our category tree; our categories should be clear and unambiguous. Therefore, it's a good thing that :Category:Józef Piłsudski is only in :Category:Prime Ministers of Poland (which is a great-grandchild of :Category:Heads of government), and does not show up anywhere in the "national leaders" category trees. It would utterly violate WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I think his bio's lead section is stating the best compromise: {{tq|...and was considered de facto leader (1926–35) of the Second Polish Republic as the Minister of Military Affairs.}} Such articulate nuance defies categorisation. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete all — combining heads of state and heads of government is a terrible idea. Having a Union category that is then a parent of a reverse Intersection is even worse from the point of view of categorical inheritance. Much of this cruft should be deleted/merged elsewhere instead. :Category:Parents of world leaders? Hogwash, not one is a leader of the United Nations. Notability is not heritable, let alone inverse transferable.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• :@William Allen Simpson As I said to Marcocapelle above, I'm not opposed to a split into "heads of state" and "heads of government", I have only proposed to do that after the renaming is done. Furthermore, I have already proposed to rename :Category:Parents of world leaders to :Category:Parents of heads of state and government, exactly to solve the semantic issues first. Marcocapelle has agreed to this procedure already: rename the cats first, start a split CfD second. One thing at a time. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

::*This is still a bad idea. It just makes work, with no benefit. Work from the branches inward, not the trunk outward. Nobody cares that dual inheritance is not reflected by the name. They do not need to be temporarily renamed. They will eventually be deleted entirely as the next levels are split.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

:::* In any case we are not disagreeing on the direction to which this is going. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delete all except :Category:Families of national leaders (which probably could use a rename). These are just grouping people together by association with someone else, and not even the same "someone else"!. And not even merely by that "someone else", but by others who may have similar jobs. Yeah, no. Really bad idea for categorisation.. However, the problem is that many of the underlining subcats likely need to be nominated on the same grounds. And as this has been open awhile, that's unlikely at this stage. I think the best result here may be a "No consensus", and someone start fresh with a new nom or set of noms. - jc37 05:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• :Struck the exception- I found :Category:Political families, which any of the actual families articles (e.g. Family of Imran Khan) should already be categorised under. - jc37 05:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• :: {{ping|Jc37}} this should not be closed as no consensus per se. A later deletion discussion (or merge to :Category:Political families) does not invalidate renaming and purging to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• :::If consensus can be found here, all the better. - jc37 08:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• ::::@Jc37 it seems like you are objecting to other, overarching/related categories such as :Category:Spouses of politicians (created 2006), :Category:Consorts of monarchs (created 2007), :Category:Spouses by occupation of partner (created 2019), :Category:Wives by occupation of partner (created 2019), etc. As far as I can tell, these categories have never been challenged in a CfD. :Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends was kept in 2017, but then deleted a few days ago with the argument that it was a {{tq|Pointless middle category between :Category:Wives by occupation of partner and :Category:Association footballers' wives and girlfriends}}, thereby confirming that :Category:Wives by occupation of partner is a useful parent category and would not be deleted per WP:OCASSOC. If you think it should, I would suggest you should nominate that category / those categories first. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• :::::PS: I should note that :Category:American Football players' wives and girlfriends was deleted a few days ago as WP:NONDEFINING, but in that CfD several people stated that it was "not similar to" :Category:Association footballers' wives and girlfriends, and the "Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends" CfD confirmed that it was a useful child of :Category:Wives by occupation of partner, and that only the intermediate layer should be eliminated as "pointless". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Balance so far: 3 Support Rename, then Split (myself included), 1 Split immediately. 2 Delete all. 1 Containerize. 1 Oppose. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Note that deletion right now would merely be counter-productive as this is a container category. The deletion rationale applies to the entire tree. By deleting only the top category it will become more difficult to find the subcategories in order to nominate them for deletion too. (Fwiw, I sympathize with the deletion rationale.) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

----

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

: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:Populated places in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language. bibliomaniac15 20:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia to :Category:Municipalities of Croatia where Hungarian language is co-official

:Nominator's rationale: The suggested title more accurately conveys the contents of the category. Skovl (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment . I was kindly informed about the proposal on my talkpage. I have nothing against, but the new category should instead be Municipalities and Villages or Settlements because in some cases the language is co-official only in certain villages rather than the entire municipality (for example Korođ in Tordinci Municipality).--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Territorial units in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language per WP:C2B; we've got lots of "Lists of countries and territories where X is an official language". I don't see how changing "territorial units" to "municipalities" or "municipalities and villages/settlements" is an improvement; I suggest we leave that part unchanged. Cheers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• :PS: :Category:Populated places in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language is an acceptable 2nd choice for me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• While looking for similar categories, I've found these: :Category:Hungarian communities (see all the subcategories), likewise for many other ethnic communities and countries. If we want to stay consistent, this is an option. –Vipz (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• :What defines a "Hungarian community"? I've taken a look, and apparently even if a town like Rožňava has only 18.77% Hungarians (2021 census), it is categorised as :Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia. This seems WP:SUBJECTIVECAT to me. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• ::I don't think it is implying any exclusivity there (if it is indeed necessary, description may explicitly clarify that part). I think it just categorizes local communities where there are numerous enough Hungarian communities (be it 1,5,25% or 20,50,100 individuals irrespective of percentage) to constitute formal or informal local Hungarian community (cultural and social life, language etc.). Ideally, an article on Hungarians in Rožňava would be created, but in most cases it would not be sufficiently notable separate topic, while locally undeniably relevant for Rožňava. This can lead to invisibility of Hungarians in Rožňava community where readers unfamiliar with very local geographies may be completely oblivious about them while interested in principle to learn about such cases and communities in Slovakia. This category (while certainly not ideal and always a bit subjective) addresses that issue. Of course it can be abused for irredentist POV pushing (we should be vigilant about it), but deleting it may serve those who want to oppress or assimilate minority community (and majority/dominant nationalism is usually more problematic).--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• :::I agree with a lot of your points. I think the best solution is to agree to specific inclusion criteria rather than deletion or a free-for-all WP:ARBITRARYCAT/WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. At Category talk:Hungarian communities in Slovakia Vipz and I have discussed this more in detail; I'd like to invite you to join us over there. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with changing away from this, because it just reads badly - the territorial units don't speak a language, the people in it do. --Joy (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete — What the heck is a "territorial unit"? We use "populated place", not municipalities or settlements. As Joy sayeth, concentrate on people, not officialdom.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

::Ignorance is not excuse and territorial unit is just a direct translation of teritorijalna jedinica (the term which can be applied all the way from the first-level subdivisions to cadastral municipality--- meaning Istria County is an territorial unit with co-official Italian and it is not a populated place. At the same time you can hava a village outside of the county with co-official Italian and both territorial units, county and the village, would fit in the same category). As for officialdom, it can occasionally provide quotable references, particularly when more relaxed approach is challenged, deleted and our interest in encyclopaedic dealing with certain communities questioned. As for your agreement to delete, my understanding was that Joy in fact proposed renaming the clumsy formulation where he is completely right.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

:::Mirko is right. It's reasonable to go for "territorial unit" as the overarching term to avoid needless WP:SMALLCATs if we were gonna put them in exactly the correct subcategories. The [https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/PeriodicalReports/CroatiaPR5_hr.pdf 2013 Croatian govt list] p. 34 states the following: {{tq|Područja (općine I gradovi)}} {{xt|"regions (municipalities and cities)"}}; {{tq|naselje}} = settlement. {{tq|mjesto}} = village/town. Those who have the Hungarian language ({{tq|mađarski jezik}}) as a recognised minority language ({{tq|manjinski jezik}}) are the following:

:::* Općina Bilje

:::* Općina Kneževi Vinogradi

:::* Općina Ernestinovo (naselje Laslovo)

:::* Općina Petlovac (mjesto Novi Bezdan)

:::* Općina Tompojevci (naselje Čakovci)

:::* Općina Tordinci (naselje Korođ)

:::So what we've got is 2 full municipalities, 3 municipalities where it only applies to 1 settlement each, and 1 municipality where it only applies to 1 village/town. Total: 6. It's reasonable to group these all together as "territorial units". E.g. if we went for only "municipalities", it would be a SMALLCAT with just 2 items, because the rest is only partially applicable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Question about Darda The items in the category seem to coincide with Minority_languages_of_Croatia#Municipalities_with_minority_languages_in_official_use, except Darda, Croatia, which is in the category but not the list. The list's main source is [https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/PeriodicalReports/CroatiaPR5_hr.pdf this 2013 Croatian govt document], which doesn't mention 'Darda' on the relevant pages 34 and 35. [https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806c7fee Page 30 of this 2003 CoE document] does state 'The Municipality of Darda has prescribed the following rights for members of the Serbian and Hungarian national minorities: - official use of Serbian and Hungarian languages,' but that was a long time ago, before the 2013 govt doc. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287187610_Minority_languages_and_the_language_policy_in_the_rural_area_of_Baranya_Croatia_-_A_case_study A 2012 study by Ljubica Kordić] seems to suggest in the Abstract that only Croatian is the official language in Darda, while minority language courses are optional for school children: {{tq|Local authorities of the village Darda have chosen to apply the Model C as most appropriate for their multilingual community and the teaching staff of their school. According to the Model C of minority language education, the minority language is taught as an elective course. The decision to attend the respective minority language programme must be confirmed by parents.}} (p. 538) So, should we exclude Darda from the category, or add it to the list? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

::Croatia has this quite rigid minority languages law obliging only municipalities with one third of minority population to introduce minority language into fully equal official use with some notable resistance even to this practice. The situation is somewhat (but not significantly) improved by the explicit permission for municipalities/counties to do it on their own if there is less than 1/3 of minority population. That is why there is this almost unique situation that in some cases minority languages may even loose their co-official status (you will find concern over it in mentioned CoE reports with practice being criticized even by the president of Croatian Constitutional Court) and that is why Council of Europe does not follow Croatian official requirements in its own reports but instead follow the situation of minority languages wherever there is more than 20% of some minority (claiming that Croatia is obliged to protect minority languages even in places where they are not official). Darda may be one of these cases where the language lost it co-official status and I would certainly not feel comfortable to remove it myself even in that case, but if you feel the need to do it that is arguably understandable (it is possible that Hungarians there were never 1/3 of population, but one local government introduced such a statute and the other changed it). Now, all of this is related ONLY TO full and equal co-official status of minority languages on the entire territory of some unit as defined by the Constitutional Act (introduced as a precondition for international recognition and changed for the beginning of the EU accession process). The case with education in minority languages is completely separate and regulated by the The Law on Education in language and script of national minorities and Law on Use of Languages and Scripts of National Minorities and that is why you have minority language classes and schools in many municipalities and towns where minority languages are NOT official. Also, minority institutions and media are free to use minority languages in their publications, signs etc. anywhere in the country so you will find for example Czech or Serbian Cyrillic inscriptions in Zagreb, but only on minority institutions and public institutions there are almost never obliged to communicate in minority language (exception being that you can get documents such as Croatian identity card with minority language anywhere, you can register organization with minority name and I think you may get translation in court procedures if requested). I know it is extensive but hope it helps in clarifying the situation so you can do what you think you should do (probably removing it since it may be that the language is not in fact co-official anymore, but it does not mean it is not used for public/educational purposes).--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

:::Yet I should probably be quiet since this entire section is not directly related to Category rename request and inclusion of Darda is not part of it. I apologize to everyone, I just like the topic :D .--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

::::That reads very much like the situation in Slovakia, where minority language communities can lose their co-official minority language status based on census data per municipality. (Although this allows for dynamic demographic developments in any direction, in practice it usually has the effect of the slow assimilation of minority languages to the majority language. In Belgium, there is ongoing conflict about whether assimilation was the goal of local co-official language use, or whether permanent bilingualism was the goal, see Peeters directive.) As you say, it seems unique to Croatia that local govts have the option of requesting co-official language status, as well as minority language education, even if they do not meet the demographic threshold. I must also say that 33% is the highest minority-language threshold I have heard of in Europe (Croatia 33%, Belgium 30%, Slovakia 1990s 20%, Slovakia now 15%, North Macedonia 10%).

::::Haha don't worry, I find it interesting as well! :D Wikipedia probably wouldn't even exist if nobody ever wanted to find out how things really are. But perhaps we should move this discussion to :Category talk:Hungarian-speaking territorial units in Croatia? It's quite separate from the CfR, I suppose. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. The part with freedom (but not the obligation) is not unique at all, many if not all countries permit this option of more inclusive approach (for example, some minority languages are co-official in Vojvodina even in Municipalities with 2% of citizens belonging to some community, situation with Italian in Istria is similar). It is quite unusual in fact that minority languages may loose their official status and that part is criticized both by CoE and the president of the court as this is against the best practice of the respect of acquired rights. That is also the reason why census change does not lead to any automatic change in the language status and if they really want to, municipalities may take this populist decision to recall the official status explicitly which may lead to further effective or ineffective challenge for intrusion of the acquired rights (in this sense, if Hungarian in Darda is quotable, we may need the decision on the subsequent status change, it may be that the state given report follows only municipalities obliged to introduce minority language). Assimilation is certainly not some explicit official goal for traditional linguistic communities, although de facto, negative social environment (where the mainstream society is much less approving than the formal legal framework) and official restrictiveness caused by some ontological dilemmas, may very well lead to it. But some people argue that assimilation is at play even in bilingual situation where the dominant language is always first - that's why you even have situations like in Canada where English-French bilingualism is official everywhere except in Quebec where only French is official. I don't think there are cases like this in Europe except in Finland with Aland Islands.--MirkoS18 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment — after that wall of text, there's no consensus to rename.
• #Nobody cares whether something is a direct translation or transliteration.
• #Since 2012, en.wikipedia has used populated place for these.
• #If not a populated place, then it is not Hungarian-speaking. Only people speak.

:William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Update 2 days ago, :Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia was closed as rename to :Category:Municipalities in Slovakia where Hungarian is an official language. This decision is the result of discussions @Vipz, @MirkoS18 and I had (as a result of this CfR by @Skovl, actually) at Category talk:Hungarian communities in Slovakia#Scope, the agreements we reached there, and the CfR which I then posted, which was supported by @Marcocapelle, @RevelationDirect and @William Allen Simpson. With this clear consensus, we've established a precedent that is also applicable here. I expect nobody will object to at least the words {{xt|Category:...in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language}}, so whatever the first word or word group should be, we can all agree on the rest.

:While it is true that "territorial units" in the current name is somewhat unusual in our established category trees and naming practices, it is justifiable as an ad hoc grouping that has a legal basis, because it can be almost directly based on [https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/PeriodicalReports/CroatiaPR5_hr.pdf the relevant legal document provided by the Government in Croatia in 2013] (mentioned above): the term {{tq|područja}} on Wiktionary :en:wikt:područje means {{tq|areas, regions, territories}}, and the term {{xt|(teritorijalna) jedinica}} (mentioned by MirkoS18 above) also shows up in that legal context. There's no point in splitting this up into municipalities/cities/towns/villages/settlements for a total number of 6 items which have 3 different administrative-level statuses (it would just create SMALLCATs). There is even less of a point to introducing U.S. administrative terminology such as "populated places".

:Therefore, I think we just shouldn't change this part of the current catname. "territorial units" is fine as it is. I suggest we only change the rest, which we already agree on. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Populated places is the standard term throughout wikimedia, see :Commons:Category:Populated places. It is the standard for the World Economic Forum, the governments of the US, Canada, and Australia, and the [https://datacore-gn.unepgrid.ch/geonetwork/srv/api/records/4a64faed-8674-4bb2-baad-fb6446ee3a6d UN]. WP:COMMONNAME: Do not name based upon individual word translations from foreign languages.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep/Alternative Rename :Category:Populated places in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language feels intuitive to me but open to other configurations. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• :Alright, I find this acceptable. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Populated places in Croatia where Hungarian is an official language per William Allen Simpson and Nederlandse Leeuw. Populated places don't speak a language, the people in it do. :Category:Populated places in Croatia where Hungarian is a co-official language is good as well, a little bit more precise. --Nagsb (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE —William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• :Alright, I find this acceptable. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

----

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

: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 all. bibliomaniac15 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:European monarchs to :Category:Monarchs in Europe

:* Propose renaming :Category:European kings to :Category:Kings in Europe

:* Propose renaming :Category:European monarchs by century to :Category:Monarchs in Europe by century

:* Propose renaming :Category:Asian monarchs to :Category:Monarchs in Asia

:* Propose renaming :Category:Asian kings to :Category:Kings in Asia

:* Propose renaming :Category:Asian monarchs by century to :Category:Monarchs in Asia by century

:* Propose renaming :Category:African monarchs to :Category:Monarchs in Africa

:* Propose renaming :Category:African kings to :Category:Kings in Africa

:* Propose renaming :Category:North American monarchs to :Category:Monarchs in North America

:* Propose renaming :Category:South American monarchs to :Category:Monarchs in South America

:* Propose renaming :Category:Monarchs of the Americas to :Category:Monarchs in the Americas

:* Propose renaming :Category:Oceanian monarchs to :Category:Monarchs in Oceania

:* Propose renaming :Category:Oceanian kings to :Category:Kings in Oceania

:Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C Per parent :Category:Heads of state in Europe, per children :Category:Monarchs in the British Isles, :Category:21st-century monarchs in Europe, :Category:20th-century monarchs in Europe etc. The other noms follow the same logic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

:PS: As Laurel Lodged noted, {{xt|they were not "Kings of Africa", they were kings in Africa}} etc. This is the purpose of the CfR. It's not a CfD, I'm proposing to rename these categories. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete all — these regional occupation super-categories do not aid navigation, they are already in parallel categories. We've spent months killing off similar sportspeople regional super-categories. :Category:Monarchs of the Americas will only ever have 2 subcategories, North and South. What a waste of time!
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• :Which ones were deleted exactly? I see :Category:Sportspeople by continent still exists, for example, but if there are relevant precedents, I'd like to take those into account. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose overall deletion, e.g. :Category:European monarchs is a perfectly valid container category to hold subcategories by century and by country. :Category:Monarchs of the Americas may well be merged to :Category:Monarchs by continent though. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - grouping by continent is perfectly standard: see {{cl|Categories by continent}} and in particular :Category:People by continent. However :Category:Monarchs of the Americas is an outlier and not part of a wider tree AFAIK and should be unmerged per Marcocapelle. Oculi (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• :Well its parent is :Category:Royalty in the Americas, its sibling is :Category:Royal families of the Americas, and its grandparent :Category:People of the Americas. They don't seem to be particularly large cats and I think we could unmerge them all, but perhaps that's better for a separate nomination. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all per Marcocapelle. Regional categories aid navigation more than country-level categories. Dimadick (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

:* {{ping|Dimadick}} to avoid misunderstandings, I opposed deletion, but I did not comment on the original rename nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This is a rename proposal, not a deletion proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - they were not "Kings of Africa", they were kings in Africa. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• :Exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Marcocapelle, it also seems like a change for the sake of change Marcelus (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

:* {{ping|Marcelus}} to avoid misunderstandings, I opposed deletion, but I did not comment on the original rename nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

:*:@Marcelus there is an important distinction between "Kings of Africa" and "kings in Africa" etc. as Laurel noted. 2 main reasons:

:*:# An adjective like "European" may imply something about the identity or "ethnicity" of the monarch in question, even though "European" is purely geographical in this case (we are constantly running into categories where language, language family, ethnicity or nationality are categorised in generalising and misleading ways, such as "Turkic rulers" being "Asian" and "Germanic rulers" being "European");

:*:# It could be misleading about the location of the monarch's territory, leading to problems with overseas territories outside Europe that may be much larger than the European territory (e.g. Greenland in North America being 98% of the territory of the Danish Realm, even though Margrete II of Denmark is arguably more a "monarch in Europe" because she resides in Copenhagen).

:*:Several related categories are already named {{xt|Fooians in area Y}}, so per WP:C2C this renaming should happen. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

:*::To avoid such misleading conclusions it's good to add the decription on the category page, about what the category is containing. Only for someone who is obsessed with ethnicity/nationality etc. phrase "European monarchs" can mean anything different than "Monarch of European countries". As I said, it's a change for the sake of change Marcelus (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

:*:::There are plenty of Wikipedia readers and users "obsessed with ethnicity/nationality etc." We have CfDs about this almost every day. The point is to make sure the contents abide by our policies and guidelines. If you don't care, you should vote Neutral rather than Oppose (or not say anything at all). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

:*::::Which policies and guidelines? Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

:*:::::WP:C2C, WP:NONDEFINING, WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OCEGRS etc. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

:*::::::I don't see how the current naming goes against any policies you linked, you need to be more specific. Marcelus (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

:*:::::::I refer you to my comment of 16:26, 2 April 2023 for explanation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Rename all per nom. For clarity, and because "...in X" seems to be the direction we're going with such things. Neutral on deletion. - jc37 05:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• :Thanks for phrasing your comment as "Rename". A lot of people seem to think this is a CfD, but it's a CfR. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom and Laurel Lodged. --Nagsb (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE —William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Balance so far: 5 4 Support Rename all (myself included), 1 Oppose Rename all (Marcelus). 1 Delete all (William Allen Simpson), 3 Oppose Delete all (Marcelus included). So apart from 1 person nobody wants delete, and there is a 5-to-1 4-to-1 majority for Support Rename all. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• :Comment I've just found the following lists, bases on which an indirect WP:C2D argument can be made:
• :* List of the last monarchs in Europe
• :* List of the last monarchs in Asia
• :* List of the last monarchs in Africa
• :* List of the last monarchs in the Americas
• :Etc. They are currently not in any continental monarchs categories, but if they did, :Category:Monarchs in Europe etc. would make sense as a catname. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

----

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

: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/merge/delete. per William Allen Simpson's alt proposal. bibliomaniac15 23:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Descendants of Buenaventura Báez to :Category:Báez family

:* Propose renaming :Category:Descendants of Samuel Adams to :Category:Wells family (U.S.)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Descendants of Ulises Espaillat

:Nominator's rationale: rename, re-parent and purge, we normally categorize by family rather than by descent. Purge articles that do not belong to the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support The specific descendant is not very defining; the family more so. - RevelationDirect (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, except that the second rename should be to :Category:Wells family (United States), and the existing :Category:Wells family will be renamed to :Category:Wells family (United Kingdom). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• #Purge and Rename #1 to :Category:Báez family; for goodness sake, this has WP:NOTDEFINING spouses of grandchildren and great grandchildren.
  
• #Purge and Merge #2 to :Category:Adams political family; it should have folks like John and Samuel Adams, but the Wells were again WP:NOTDEFINING generations removed and by marriage. Anna Maria Wells married a non-notable grandson of Samuel Adams, so she's not a decendent and it is not an element of her notability. The rest of the Wells seem to be her grandchildren, so great-great-grandchildren of Adams. Heck, the first article Alfred Cumming (governor) doesn't even mention either Wells or Adams.
  
• #Delete #3 as nominated.

:William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• {{ping |Marcocapelle |RevelationDirect|LaundryPizza03 ||Place Clichy}} please respond to WAS' alternative for #2. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

:* The alternative is perfectly fine with me as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

:* Also support alternative. Remote descendants are not defined by their relationship with Samuel Adams. Place Clichy (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

----

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