Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 9

April 9

Category:Slavic ethnic groups

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Clarified during discussion with descriptions. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Slavic ethnic groups to Category:Slavic people by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: Same subject. Most children are already in both cats. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this way because the category contains lots of articles while the target is a container category, by definition. However the subcategories may well be manually moved to the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the target a container category? It's not tagged as such with a template, and has 1 P (Bunjevci, although that is already in child Category:Bunjevci). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nederlandse Leeuw: categories "by" a parameter are always a container category, they do not have to be tagged as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Marcocapelle Okay, I didn't know that, thanks. Maybe the difference between the two categories originally was that the "ethnic groups" is for groups of people, and "people by ethnicity" is for individuals, but that later users have not noticed this difference (nor did I until now, actually) and so there are lots of duplicates? In that case, the proper course of action is not Merge but Purge, and perhaps some transfers here or there. We could add a description saying one is about individuals and the other about groups, and "see-also" them to each other to make this clear to future users? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Done added a description to both. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The established practice appears to be that we first categorise the ethnic group, and then make individuals from that ethnic group into a subcategory, right? So Category:Slavic people (individuals) is a child of Category:Slavs (group). Category:Rusyn people (individuals) is a child of Category:Rusyns (group). The problems we observe have to do with the fact that a lot of categories or category names do not follow this logic:
  Category:Kashubian people (individuals) should thus be a child of Category:Kashubians (group), but currently isn't.
  
  Category:Ethnic Slovene people should be about individuals, but is also about the group, so it shows up in both Category:Slavic people by ethnicity (correct) and Category:Slavic ethnic groups, which is incorrect; for that, it would have to be named Category:Ethnic Slovenes or just Category:Slovenes; e.g. its child Category:History of the Slovenes is about collective history and therefore correctly named. (Incidentally, Category:Slovenian people correctly and clearly states "Slovenian" means nationality and "Slovene" means ethnicity. I added a clarification to the same effect at Category:Ethnic Slovene people).
  
  It's legitimate to have separate trees for groups and individuals, but the distinction must be clear. If we clear up and fix this confusion, I think I could ultimately withdraw this nomination. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:57, 12 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:Ancient Slavs

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 Category:Ancient Slavic peoples. This is in consideration of Early Slavs being about individuals, but Ancient Slavic peoples about people groups. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ancient Slavs to Category:Early Slavs

Nominator's rationale: Recently created (October 2022) duplicate of Category:Early Slavs. Ancient Slavs redirects to Early Slavs, so WP:C2D. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge per WP:C2D, consistency with main article's name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'll add that to the nomination. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not about individual people, so they'd better be moved to Category:Slavic tribes. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I've CfR'd that cat at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_10#Category:Slavic_tribes.
Regardless, several children of Category:Early Slavs are indeed about individual people (6th-century Slavs‎ (7 P), 7th-century Slavs‎ (2 C, 8 P), 8th-century Slavs‎ (2 C, 9 P), 9th-century Slavs‎ (3 C, 31 P)), and the title and description of Category:Ancient Slavs refer/redirect to Early Slavs/Category:Early Slavs, but the contents of Category:Ancient Slavs (3 P) belong in Category:Slavic tribes (and apart from Serboi they already are). The categories of Category:Ancient Slavs are a mix: Category:Slavic people (individuals), Category:Ancient peoples of Europe (groups), and Category:Slavic history (neither). So, I don't know. If we just put Serboi in Category:Slavic tribes and just Delete instead of Merge we are also done. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Btw in this case I think it would be a good idea to leave a redirect to prevent recreation. 'Ancient Slavs' and 'Early Slavs' are used interchangeably, just like with ancient and early Germanic peoples, and we could prevent future mistakes by leaving a redirect. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The expression “Ancient Slavs” is arguably an oxymoron (sometimes calqued from Russian drevnie Slaviane or some such), as the earliest Slavic groups are only identified at the very end of the Ancient period (up to 500 AD) and mainly belong to medieval history. —Michael Z. 14:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term of Late antiquity precisely applies to the period of the Slavic invasions in the Byzantine Empire, though. Antiquity ends earlier in Western Europe, but that is unrelated to Slavs. Place Clichy (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost no literature that I know of uses the term "late antiquity". Michael is right that the earliest Slavs are associated with (early) medieval history rather than late ancient history. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly the term late antiquity is mainly used in Byzantine historiography (e.g. because the Roman Empire was close to re-united in mid 6th century) but the term may well be overrated here in Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No less than 270,000 hits on Scholar though, plus 130,000 more hits for the equivalent French term. Place Clichy (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is academic because the existence of the Slavic tribes as such was not restricted to late Antiquity either, by any of its definitions. Some were mentioned into the second millennium. “Ancient Slavs” is not defining of this subject. It is wrong. —Michael Z. 14:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of that matters. “Late Antiquity” refers to the 800s at the latest. The early Slavic tribes were mentioned into the twelfth century. “Ancient” doesn’t define them by any stretch and shouldn’t be used to name a category about them. —Michael Z. 22:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Balance so far: 4 Support (myself included; 1 of them Speedy), 0 Oppose. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Ancient Slavic peoples (subcat of Category:Early Slavs), per the above, and the now closed: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_10#Category:Slavic_tribes. - jc37 09:36, 7 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.

Category:North Germanic tribes

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:North Germanic tribes to Category:North Germanic peoples

Nominator's rationale: Same subject. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_9#Category:Celtic_tribes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose this way~~, the content of the two categories is very different, it makes no sense to mix it up. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right, I forgot to Purge the pages Danes, Faroese people, Icelanders, Norwegians, and Swedes from Category:North Germanic peoples, as that category and its main article identifies them as Category:Historical Germanic peoples, and the "Viking Age people in Fooland" categories plus Category:Viking Age women cover only the 9th to the 11th century (much like Category:Germanic people by century goes no further than the 12th century). But these 5 groups still exist today, so they didn't belong in the category, and I have removed them. Does a merge make sense now? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure, because North Germanic peoples says it is the same as Scandinavians, without restricting it to historical use. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That is because 'Scandinavian' has two distinct meanings that the article possibly confuses, namely [1] people living in Scandinavia and [2] people who speak North Germanic languages and ultimately share a common linguistic ancestry. (See en:wikt:Scandinavian#Adjective). Just because [1] exist today, doesn't mean the common ancestors of [2], namely the Norsemen / Vikings, still exist today. This seems to be a case of equivocation. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That sounds reasonable enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. In its current state, Category:North Germanic peoples is not useful as its only content is precisely Category:North Germanic tribes, Category:Norsemen and the eponymous articles. Content about the modern nations probably belong in e.g. Category:Scandinavian people instead (and is already there). The proposed merger would usefully repurpose the category to historical peoples and eliminate the useless ambiguity between tribes and peoples. Place Clichy (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:36, 11 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:Northern European people

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Northern European people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Reeeeeally WP:NONDEFINING, and a rather WP:ARBITRARYCAT. There isn't even an agreed definition of what "Northern Europe" even is, but apparently it includes the Channel Islands (through Category:Jersey people), Luxembourg (through Category:Northern European countries), the Soviet Union (through Category:Soviet people), Siberia (through Siberian Finns, through Category:Finnic people), and.... the United States (through Category:Danish people > Category:Greenlandic people > ... Category:Greenlandic emigrants to the United States. Enough with the arbitrary geographic categories already! Ceterum censeo istam categoriam delendam esse. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, people in these categories have nothing in common with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's not a useful way to group national people categories. The same objection also applies to Category:Eastern European people, Category:Southern European people, Category:Western European people and Category:Central European people, which BTW largely overlap with each other. There is no standard definition of where East/North/West/South/Central Europe starts and ends, making these concepts non-defining. Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was planning to nominate those cats next, but I wanted to start with one to keep it simple. If we agree on this one, we can use it as a precedent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:48, 11 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:Celtic kingdoms

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Celtic kingdoms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_4#Category:Countries_by_language_family, by which Category:Germanic kingdoms, Category:Germanic empires etc. were deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, but manually parent Category:Noricum to Category:Former kingdoms. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 13:23, 11 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:Celtic tribes

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 Category:Historical Celtic peoples. There is no consensus on the title of the merged category. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Celtic tribes to Category:Historical Celtic peoples

Nominator's rationale: Same subject. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note The target category is tagged as of this time stamp to give more flexibility to find the best outcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Alternate Name of Destination as duplicates but rename the target to Category:Ancient Celtic peoples and tribes to match List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes per WP:C2D. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes (notwithstanding the opening sentence still bolding list of Celtic tribes) is the result of a 2018 undiscussed move by Bird Vision, who created the Category:Lists of ancient Indo-European peoples and tribes. As the category shows, all other articles using the phrase List of ancient Fooian peoples and tribes were created by Bird Vision in 2018 or 2020. This isn't necessarily wrong, it just raises questions.

Let's tag @Bird Vision: and ask them: why are both "peoples" and "tribes" necessary in a title for each of these articles you wrote? Why did you move List of Celtic tribes (which you didn't write) to List of ancient Celtic peoples and tribes, but left the titles of all other articles in Category:Lists of ancient Indo-European peoples and tribes which you didn't write as they were?

I see that you did move List of ancient Germanic peoples to List of ancient Germanic peoples and tribes in 2018, but @Bloodofox reverted it back to List of ancient Germanic peoples, saying "Tribes" is both inaccurate and controversial (see, for example, discussion regarding "tribe" at Tribe#Controversy_and_usage_depreciation). The same reason was cited by @PK2 for reverting List of ancient Slavic peoples and tribes back to List of ancient Slavic peoples. If it is true that "tribe" has become a controversial term that is gradually depreciated and falling into disuse, that is a good reason for dropping it from all these article/list/category titles. Just "peoples" will do fine. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge per nom, for now without a specific preference for the final name. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom with a preference for tribes over peoples per the above arguments by N. Leeuw. Place Clichy (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominated to "peoples", but redirect instead to preserve history.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is a general trend to move away from the term "tribe" in anthropology and historiography, and this has been confirmed on English Wikipedia, including closely-related recent CfRs such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_10#Category:Germanic_tribes and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_10#Category:Slavic_tribes.

I (as nom) am therefore opposed to renaming the target to Category:Ancient Celtic peoples and tribes. I'm open to Category:Ancient Celtic peoples (currently a redirect to Category:Celts) or Category:Early Celtic peoples, but that's not what this CfM is about. I just want to merge them. What to call the target cat is probably best dealt in a new CfR afterwards. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support, due to the existence of the Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe tree. But Category:Indo-European tribes and its parents Category:Ancient tribes and Category:Tribes, also exist. I understand the want to do this piecemeal, but in this case, I think deprecation/merging of the whole Category:Tribes tree should be discussed first, in order to determine a more clear direction of consensus on this. - jc37 09:46, 7 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.

Category:Anglophone people

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

The result of the discussion was: downmerge. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose downmerging Category:Anglophone people to Category:Anglophone Canadian people
Propose downmerging Category:Italian people by first language to Category:Germanophone Italian people

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 1 C, 0 P. (Note: this is not about deletion; previous CfD closed as no consensus. This is about clearing up unnecessary layers). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Both/Expand per nom. I also would get rid of Canadian parent category (before someone populates it) and just leave Category:Anglophone Quebec people. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Went to tag the Canadian cat but realized it was just recently nominated this year. Let's see how this nomination does and go from there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the CfD text wasn't properly removed after the previous nomination, quite strange. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Disclosure, I was the nominator with the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I took the liberty to remove Category:Germanophone Italian people from Category:Italian people of Austrian descent and Category:Italian people of German descent, as I don't think that a language spoken should automatically imply anything about ancestry. Main article South Tyrol, among others, is the place where the undeniable specific identity of the German-speaking minority is discussed. Place Clichy (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I hesitated when I saw those categories, but removal is probably the best option. Given that e.g. Category:People of German descent is in Category:People by European country of descent, this means all Germanophone Italian people must necessarily had had ancestors who lived in Germany. That doesn't have to be the case at all (especially according to the strict definition of "Germany" not existing until 1871). This is a needless assumption, ethnicising and nationality-ising people in South Tyrol based purely on their native language, framing a particular country as the "homeland" for native speakers of a certain language etc. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:57, 11 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:Germanic ethnic groups

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Germanic ethnic groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category Category:Germanic ethnic groups (created in 2018, originally as Category:Modern Germanic peoples) interferes with the established category tree Category:People by nationality. Ethnicity has an entirely different category tree. The description of Category:People by nationality states this clearly: This category contains articles on people according to their civic nationality (legal affiliation with a state). For articles related to people according to ethnic concepts of nationality, see: Category:People by ethnicity

The only 3 children of Category:Germanic ethnic groups that are not in the Category:People by nationality tree are Category:Afrikaner people, Category:Frisians, and Category:Swiss-German people, all of which are defined by sharing a native language, and these three native languages each just so happen to belong to the Germanic languages family. Grouping them into a category based soleley on that fact violates WP:OCEGRS: people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. Having a native language that belongs to a certain language family is WP:NONDEFINING for an individual's career.
This has been a reason to delete categories according to many precedents, including but not limited to:

Precedent: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_7#Category:Turkic_rulers "Turkic rulers", "Germanic rulers", "Celtic rulers".
Precedent: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_4#Category:Countries_by_language_family, including "Germanic countries and territories", "Germanic kingdoms" and "Germanic empires", "Iranian countries and territories" and "Iranian-speaking countries and territories".
Precedent: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_16#Category:Germanic_women_by_century "Germanic women by century" and "Germanic women by nationality and century".
Precedent: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 21#Category:Germanic people by occupation and "Germanic people by nationality and century".

Lastly, the description of the category claims: This category lists articles related to the Germanic ethnic groups. But "Germanic" links to Germanic peoples, which states: The Germanic peoples were historical groups of people (...); in other words, the "Germanic peoples" no longer exist. This is supported by the fact that Category:Germanic people by century goes no further than the 12th century, which has been established by several precedents as well (see Category talk:Germanic people#Scope). Categorising groups of people living in the 21st century as "Germanic peoples" is therefore inappropriate.

Therefore, the entire category needs to be deleted, as it has no legitimate purpose. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is not based on ethnicity but on majority language of nationalities. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very concise way of saying it! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another bogus attempt to ethnize everything, and mix citizenship with ethnicity with language family. Place Clichy (talk) 13:41, 11 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:AS Dragons players

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. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:AS Dragons players to Category:AS Dragons (Kinshasa) players

Nominator's rationale: I just disambiguated the main article to AS Dragons (Kinshasa), so this is not eligible for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 12:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Giant Snowman 12:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:09, 11 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:Water skiing by year

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/delete. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Water skiing by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:1995 in water skiing to Category:1995 in water sports and Category:1990s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:1999 in water skiing to Category:1999 in water sports and Category:1990s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2001 in water skiing to Category:2001 in water sports and Category:2000s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2003 in water skiing to Category:2003 in water sports and Category:2000s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2005 in water skiing to Category:2005 in water sports and Category:2000s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2006 in water skiing to Category:2006 in water sports and Category:2000s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2007 in water skiing to Category:2007 in water sports and Category:2000s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2009 in water skiing to Category:2009 in water sports and Category:2000s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2010 in water skiing to Category:2010 in water sports and Category:2010s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2011 in water skiing to Category:2011 in water sports and Category:2010s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2012 in water skiing to Category:2012 in water sports and Category:2010s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2013 in water skiing to Category:2013 in water sports and Category:2010s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2014 in water skiing to Category:2014 in water sports and Category:2010s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2015 in water skiing to Category:2015 in water sports and Category:2010s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2017 in water skiing to Category:2017 in water sports and Category:2010s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2018 in water skiing to Category:2018 in water sports and Category:2010s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2019 in water skiing to Category:2019 in water sports and Category:2010s in water skiing
Propose merging Category:2022 in water skiing to Category:2022 in water sports and Category:2020s in water skiing

Propose deleting Category:Brazilian jiu-jitsu by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:2020 in Brazilian jiu-jitsu to Category:2020 in martial arts and Category:2020s in Brazilian jiu-jitsu
Propose merging Category:2022 in Brazilian jiu-jitsu to Category:2022 in martial arts and Category:2020s in Brazilian jiu-jitsu
Propose merging Category:2023 in Brazilian jiu-jitsu to Category:2023 in martial arts and Category:2020s in Brazilian jiu-jitsu

Propose deleting Category:Lethwei by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:2016 in Lethwei to Category:2016 in martial arts and Category:2010s in Lethwei
Propose merging Category:2017 in Lethwei to Category:2017 in martial arts and Category:2010s in Lethwei
Propose merging Category:2018 in Lethwei to Category:2018 in martial arts and Category:2010s in Lethwei
Propose merging Category:2019 in Lethwei to Category:2019 in martial arts and Category:2010s in Lethwei
Propose merging Category:2020 in Lethwei to Category:2020 in martial arts and Category:2020s in Lethwei

Propose deleting Category:Muay Thai by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:2005 in Muay Thai to Category:2005 in martial arts and Category:2000s in Muay Thai
Propose merging Category:2007 in Muay Thai to Category:2007 in martial arts and Category:2000s in Muay Thai
Propose merging Category:2009 in Muay Thai to Category:2009 in martial arts and Category:2000s in Muay Thai
Propose merging Category:2013 in Muay Thai to Category:2013 in martial arts and Category:2010s in Muay Thai
Propose merging Category:2017 in Muay Thai to Category:2017 in martial arts and Category:2010s in Muay Thai
Propose merging Category:2018 in Muay Thai to Category:2018 in martial arts and Category:2010s in Muay Thai
Propose merging Category:2019 in Muay Thai to Category:2019 in martial arts and Category:2010s in Muay Thai
Propose merging Category:2022 in Muay Thai to Category:2022 in martial arts and Category:2020s in Muay Thai

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Not nearly enough content per year for these categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Whole trees of almost empty categories does fall under the "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" exception of WP:SMALLCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 14 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:Zee Bangla 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Zee Bangla contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Zee Bangla is a TV network, not a TV show, and this category is intended for contestants of any show that ran on Zee Bangla. That's a pretty tenuous point in common. We do have contestants categories, but they are about specific shows. (e.g. Category:The Voice (franchise) contestants) Pichpich (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was planning to say "split" until I noticed there is currently only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 14 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:Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine

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: speedy not renamed. Take it to RM. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine to Category:Causes and Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: Renaming will make the category more accurate and specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactinites (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to add the merge target, in line with how the category page has been tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the main article is renamed by a WP:RM procedure. I would rather argue that by adding "causes" the category becomes less specific. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marcocapelle and WP:C2D, main article is Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Venue/Oppose I'm open minded about renaming Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine but that needs to be done with an WP:RM on the article talk page. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:29, 10 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:Graduate Center, CUNY

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Graduate Center, CUNY to Category:CUNY Graduate Center

Nominator's rationale: To match name of the main article CUNY Graduate Center, following the rebranding of the institution (see Nomenclature section of CUNY Graduate Center Brand Guide): "Nomenclature". CUNY Graduate Center Brand Guide. Brooks patty (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to match the main article. (If that name changes, fine with reverse merge.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:48, 12 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.

Medieval Low Countries

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. However, five of the listed categories will be upmerged per WP:SMALLCAT. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Medieval Belgium to Category:Medieval Low Countries
Propose upmerging Category:Medieval Netherlands to Category:Medieval Low Countries
Propose merging Category:People of medieval Belgium and Category:Medieval Dutch people to Category:People from the medieval Low Countries
Propose merging Category:Women of medieval Belgium and Category:Medieval Dutch women to Category:Women from the medieval Low Countries
Propose merging Category:Medieval Belgian saints and Category:Medieval Dutch saints to Category:Saints from the medieval Low Countries
Propose renaming Category:Female saints of medieval Belgium to Category:Female saints from the medieval Low Countries (move Lidwina here, from Category:Medieval Dutch saints)
Propose merging Category:Medieval Belgian nobility and Category:Medieval Dutch nobility to Category:Nobility from the medieval Low Countries
Propose upmerging Category:7th century in Belgium‎ (1 C) to Category:Medieval Low Countries‎ per WP:SMALLCAT
Propose upmerging Category:9th century in Belgium‎ (1 C) to Category:Medieval Low Countries‎ per WP:SMALLCAT
Propose upmerging Category:10th century in Belgium‎ (1 C) to Category:Medieval Low Countries‎‎ per WP:SMALLCAT
Propose renaming Category:11th century in Belgium (3 C, 1 P) to Category:11th century in the Low Countries‎‎
Propose merging Category:12th century in Belgium‎ (3 C) Category:12th century in the Netherlands‎ (1 P) to Category:12th century in the Low Countries‎
Propose merging Category:13th century in Belgium‎ (2 C) Category:13th century in the Netherlands (1 C, 5 P) to Category:13th century in the Low Countries‎‎
Propose merging Category:14th century in Belgium (4 C, 2 P) Category:14th century in the Netherlands‎ (2 C, 7 P) to Category:14th century in the Low Countries‎‎
Propose merging Category:15th century in Belgium‎ (5 C, 2 P) Category:15th century in the Netherlands‎ (2 C, 15 P) to Category:15th century in the Low Countries‎
Propose upmerging Category:Medieval Dutch merchants to Category:People from the medieval Low Countries and Category:Medieval merchants per WP:SMALLCAT
Propose upmerging Category:Medieval Dutch military personnel to Category:People from the medieval Low Countries and Category:Military personnel of the Middle Ages per WP:SMALLCAT

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C. This merger solves many issues, including some which were earlier noted at CfD People of medieval Belgium, where Several editors express interest in alternate proposals (e.g. some sort of a merge). This is that merge. To avoid pointless arguments invoking tradition, nationalism or whatever, I'm going to be very technical and precise, and phrase the rationale in the form of an F.A.Q., because I can predict many questions.

Why Category:Medieval Low Countries as overarching parent?

Middle Ages (defined as 500–1500, The most commonly given starting point for the Middle Ages is around 500 (...) For Europe as a whole, 1500 is often considered to be the end of the Middle Ages) is before Belgium (the Kingdom of Belgium, since 1830) and the Netherlands (the Dutch Republic 1581–1795, the Batavian Republic, Kingdom of Holland, Sovereign Principality of the United Netherlands, and the current Kingdom of the Netherlands, since 1815) existed, and as such, there technically was no "Medieval Belgium" or "Medieval Netherlands", but there was a "Medieval Luxembourg".
Low Countries is the common term for the geographic and historical region now occupied by these 3 present-day states (plus some adjoining regions now part of France and Germany).
Therefore, I created Category:Medieval Low Countries as a logical extension of Category:History of the Low Countries, applied to the Middle Ages. Many articles had already been written with this scope in mind (sometimes even explicitly in their article titles), and are now populating this category already.

Why should Category:Medieval Belgium and Category:Medieval Netherlands be merged into Category:Medieval Low Countries?

Belgium is in Category:States and territories established in 1830
Category:Belgian people by century doesn't go further back than the 19th century
Dutch Republic is in Category:1581 establishments in Europe; Kingdom of the Netherlands is in Category:States and territories established in 1815
Category:Dutch people by century doesn't go further back than the 16th century

Why doesn't Category:Medieval Luxembourg have to be merged, but can remain a subcategory as it is now?

Category:Duchy of Luxembourg is in Category:960s establishments
Category:Luxembourgian people by century goes back to the 12th century.

Why "People from Fooland" instead of "People of Fooland" or "Fooian people"? See precedents such as:

I hope the nomination is clear to everyone, and that I've been diligent in suggesting solutions. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose with regret, this breaks the series of Category:Middle Ages by country which is Middle Ages by modern country. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was the only flaw I could spot as well. Category:History of the Low Countries is in Category:History of Europe by region, and there is a Category:History by region and period, but there is no Category:Middle Ages by region. However, Category:Middle Ages by country also contains:
Countries that don't exist anymore:
Regions just like the Low Countries that have never been "countries":
- Category:Al-Andalus‎
- Category:Medieval Anatolia‎
- Category:Medieval Great Britain‎ (technically, the Kingdom of Great Britain was not established until 1707, so before that it was just a region)
- Category:Medieval Palestine (technically, the State of Palestine is still not fully a "country" today either)
And, uh, these:
- Category:Medieval Czech history
- Category:Medieval history of Iran‎
If we are going to accept that these categories are allowed to be in Category:Middle Ages by country despite not being "countries" today, there is no reason to disqualify Category:Medieval Low Countries either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Alternately, we could go ahead and create Category:Middle Ages by region, and populate it with Al-Andalus, Anatolia, Great Britain, the Low Countries, and Palestine, (and perhaps Czechia and Iran?), thus solving 2 issues in one go. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not an objection against middle ages by region, in fact Category:Medieval Low Countries already exists, but that is still insufficient to end Category:Medieval Belgium and Category:Medieval Netherlands. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It exists because I created it. ;) But why wouldn't it be a good reason to merge Category:Medieval Belgium and Category:Medieval Netherlands into it? The category trees clearly show those countries didn't exist yet (unlike, say, Category:Medieval France, because France did exist and still does). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that historians in every country are writing lots of stuff about medieval history of their country even if their country did not exist yet. By the way, I would rather favor merging to medieval Holy Roman Empire rather than Low Countries because Low Countries was equally non-existant as Belgium and the Netherlands were. Frisia, Gelre and Liege did not have any common history in the middle ages apart from being part of the HRE. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The counter-argument to that is that plenty of history books etc. have done the opposite when it comes to the Low Countries (Lage Landen / Nederlanden), see nl:Bibliografie van de geschiedenis der Nederlanden. Especially nl:Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden in de Middeleeuwen is a big argument for Category:Medieval Low Countries, but nl:Categorie:Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden in de middeleeuwen has been incorrectly linked to Category:Medieval Netherlands (to the exclusion of modern Belgium and Luxembourg). Category:Medieval Belgium and Category:Medieval Luxembourg have no nl.wikipedia equivalents.

Category:Medieval Belgium and Category:Medieval Netherlands (in the sense of Nederland) also have no fr.wikipedia equivalents: fr:Catégorie:Histoire du Moyen Âge par pays only lists fr:Catégorie:Histoire du Luxembourg médiéval (with justifiable reason). fr:Catégorie:Personnalité néerlandaise par siècle doesn't go back further than the 17th century. fr:Catégorie:Chronologie de la Belgique doesn't go back further than the 19th century. And so on.

While we're at it, Category:Years in Belgium also doesn't go back further than the 19th century; before that it's "Habsburg Netherlands". Similarly, Category:Years in the Netherlands doesn't go back further than Category:1573 in the Dutch Republic (which is a SMALLCAT, and at odds with Dutch Republic being in Category:1581 establishments in Europe, but we'll fix that another day ;)).

Moreover, a merge to the HRE would exclude the County of Flanders (mostly) and Tournaisis (as well as Artois etc.) which are today part of Belgium, but until 1529 part of France. "Low Countries" has always existed as a region, just like Anatolia‎ (never politically united under that name), Al-Andalus (a historical region that was never politically united under that name) and Great Britain (only briefly politically united under that name, much later, for fewer than 100 years). Category:Medieval Low Countries is just our best option.

(Sidenote, Category:Former polities in the Netherlands is linked to nl:Categorie:Historisch land in de Nederlanden, fr:Catégorie:Anciens Pays-Bas etc. and should probably be renamed Category:Former polities in the Low Countries, exactly because again Nederlanden has been incorrectly translated into English as Netherlands, to the exclusion of the territory of modern Belgium and Luxembourg. Perhaps it should even be renamed in Dutch because it includes Liège that never was part of the Habsburg Netherlands etc. But I digress). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, "medieval Belgium" is no more or less anachronistic than "medieval Low Lands". The closest contemporary definition of a bigger region might be based on usage of the Old Dutch and Middle Dutch language but that area is still substantially different from the Low Countries as a synonym of the current Benelux. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm just gonna start quoting modern English literature:
In fact, of the numerous principalities of the medieval Low Countries, only Brabant and Liège possess good written texts of what H. Pirenne has called the legal consecration of their constitutional regime. (Medievalia Et Humanistica 1955)

During the thirteenth century, Ghent had been governed by the infamous XXXIX, three rotating bodies of thirteen men chosen by co-optation from the poorter families (those owning land inside the original portus), probably the narrowest oligarchy of the medieval Low Countries. (David Nicholas 1987)

Marc Boone, Walter Prevenier, Drapery production in the medieval Low Countries (1993)

Martha C. Howell, The Marriage Exchange: Property, Social Place, and Gender in Cities of the Low Countries, 1300–1550 (1998)

Ludovicus Milis, Religion, Culture, and Mentalities in the Medieval Low Countries: Selected Essays (2005)

Arnoud-Jan Bijsterveld. Do Ut Des: Gift Giving, Memoria, and Conflict Management in the Medieval Low Countries (2007)

Wybren Scheepsma, The Limburg Sermons: Preaching in the Medieval Low Countries at the Turn of the Fourteenth Century (2008)

Walter Simons, Cities of Ladies: Beguine Communities in the Medieval Low Countries, 1200–1565 (2010)

Jeroen Deploige, Renée Nip Manuscript and Memory in Religious Communities in the Medieval Low Countries (2016)

Maïka De Keyzer, Inclusive Commons and the Sustainability of Peasant Communities in the Medieval Low Countries (2018).

And so on and so forth. In fact, if we do a Google Books English literature word search in all books they've got between 1800 and 2019, "the medieval low countries" is far more widely used than either "the medieval netherlands" or "medieval belgium", especially in the past 50 years (the earliest phrase I could find was 68 years old). This probably has a lot to do with how English literature has evolved in the past decades, influenced by such standard works as Ernst Heinrich Kossmann, The Low Countries, 1780–1940 (1978), which isn't even about the Middle Ages, but does narrate the said period from the perspective of the Low Countries as such instead of the three countries separately. I think it's safe to say that, as far as English literature is concerned, medieval Low Countries is now the WP:COMMONNAME for this period and region. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I am confident in challenging you to find me at least 3 book titles on Google Books with "medieval netherlands" or "medieval belgium" in it. I can't find any. There are only occasional passing mentions of either phrase in a text. One of them even expressly rejects the whole idea of a "medieval belgium": Pirenne was unable to point to any geographical, ethnic or political substrate: medieval 'Belgium' had had no natural boundaries, had been largely bilingual and was split into an odd assortment of principalities and bishoprics. R. Evans, G. Marchal, The Uses of the Middle Ages in Modern European States: History, Nationhood and the Search for Origins (2010) p. 129. By contrast, medieval Low Countries is a very commonly accepted term that shows up in book titles all over the place. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Pirenne and exactly the same of what they say applies to Low Countries as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; Pirenne was searching for the origins of modern Belgium's "nationhood" and statehood. Nobody is arguing the Low Countries has either; it's a purely geographical term. In English-language literature, Medieval Low Countries is the WP:COMMONNAME for this region in the Middle Ages, as I have just demonstrated above. We therefore have strong reasons to accept Medieval Low Countries as a catname, and strong reasons to reject Medieval Netherlands and Medieval Belgium as catnames (there is no WP:SIGCOV for them, only passing mentions). Our current category trees also already indicate that the latter two are at odds with how we have defined and organised our categories, and the articles within them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it's true that historians in every country are writing lots of stuff about medieval history of their country even if their country did not exist yet. When historians from the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg do so in English, we can see from the examples I've given above that they write about 'their country' as the Medieval Low Countries. All these authors (except Martha C. Howell, who is American) are in fact Belgian and Dutch.

nl:Marc Boone and nl:Walter Prevenier could have picked an English-language title like Drapery production in medieval Belgium, but chose not to, and went with medieval Low Countries.

nl:Arnoud-Jan Bijsterveld could have named his book Do Ut Des: Gift Giving, Memoria, and Conflict Management in the Medieval Netherlands, but chose not to, and went with Medieval Low Countries. And so on. These aren't incidental mistakes, they form a pattern of conscious decisions about how to write about this time and place. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A 2008 WP:RM precedent at Talk:Renaissance in the Low Countries#Requested move resulted in renaming Renaissance in the Netherlands to Renaissance in the Low Countries with unanimous support. Incidentally, I do think that Netherlandish remains a valid English adjective in terms such as Early Netherlandish painting, especially for Nederlanden. There is no such adjective available yet for Low Countries (like Lowcountrish, Lowcountrese, Lowish, Lowese or anything), so whenever we need one, I think Netherlandish is acceptable instead of Dutch, Belgian etc. or having to phrase everything in a genitive like the Low Countries' culture or culture of the Low Countries; Netherlandish culture would be fine with me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle It seems like we are not going to agree, and nobody else is really commenting. I don't like arguing with you, I much better like cooperating with you. How about we close all Merge and Rename proposals as No consensus, and we only carry out the five Upmerge per SMALLCAT proposals for now? We or someone else could always revisit the issue later. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the best we can actieve right now. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The split between Belgium (previously Spanish then Austrian Netherlands) and (northern) Netherlands did not happen until the Dutch rebellion under William the Silent in c.1570. Previously they were the northern part of the realm of Burgundy, and earlier still separate counties and duchies. Calling them Burgundian would be strictly correct but misleading as Burgundy is now used of the southern part of that realm. Some of it was strictly part of Holy Roman Empire, but some Burgundian lands owed theoretical allegiance to France. It is convenient to use "Low Countries" as a convenient descriptor for this area between France and Germany. This is after all an English translation of Nether-lands. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you agree with my proposal, but I'm afraid for the wrong reasons. I'm arguing that some parts of what we now call "Belgium", "the Netherlands" and "Luxembourg" were never part of the Burgundian State, nor of the later Habsburg Netherlands, such as the Prince-Bishopric of Liège. All of it, except most of the County of Flanders until 1529 (Ladies' Peace of Cambrai), did belong to the Holy Roman Empire, however. The Duchy of Burgundy and Free County (Franche-Comté) of Burgundy did indeed owe allegiance to France (just like Flanders until 1529), but they were never geographically part of what ate today the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. "Low Countries" is a translation of Lage Landen; "Netherlands" is a translation of Nederlanden (plural); unlike the modern country of Nederland (singular), but still commonly translated plural in English as "the Netherlands". Technically it should be "Netherland", but that singular never caught on in English, except in the name New Netherland. The most important fact you and I agree on is that it is convenient to use "Low Countries" as a convenient descriptor for this area between France and Germany. Because it is broader than just the "Burgundian / Habsburg Netherlands", and encompasses areas that are part of modern Belgium and the modern Netherlands that never were part of the "Burgundian / Habsburg Netherlands", but which Belgian and Dutch (Nederland) historians in English literature all commonly call "the Low Countries". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Agreement reached to close all Merge and Rename proposals as No consensus, and only carry out the five Upmerge per SMALLCAT proposals for now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Could you perhaps close this as indicated by the comment above (agreement reached between me and Marcocapelle)? There has been no progress for over a month, and we already agreed this is the best outcome for now. Thanks. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:27, 3 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.

Category:Rulers of Thuringia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 19#Category:Rulers of Thuringia

Category:Rulers of Styria

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 16#Category:Rulers of Styria

Category:Rulers of Sicily

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. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Sicily to Category:Governors of Sicily

Nominator's rationale: This was another typical "rulers" category in which appointed positions such as governors were mixed with hereditary positions such as kings. I've moved all of the latter to Category:Monarchs of Sicily, which already existed, and done a lot of re-parenting already. If we rename the remainder to "Governors of Sicily", the job is basically done. We could containerise it if we like, but that doesn't seem necessary for the moment. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Query What about Category:Viceroys of Sicily? Were they governors mixed with hereditary positions? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- In answer to LL, these viceroys were governing Sicily for the Spanish or other king, so that governor is an appropriate parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 16 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:Quadi rulers

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:Quadi kings. WP:BARTENDER. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Quadi rulers to Category:Quadi kings

Nominator's rationale: All are called "king" in the sources cited in each of the 5 bios. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nom, or else to Category:Quadi chieftains. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an acceptable alternative for me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:40, 9 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:Rulers of Lithuania

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 17#Category:Rulers of Lithuania

Category:Russian rulers

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: downmerge. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose downmerging Category:Russian rulers to Category:Russian monarchs

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Downmerge, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Downmerge per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:53, 11 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:Dark Horse Comics film characters

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 17#Category:Dark Horse Comics film characters

Category:Rulers of Moldavia

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. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Moldavia to Category:Monarchs of Moldavia

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of monarchs of Moldavia, which I BOLDly renamed per WP:C2C parents Category:Lists of Romanian monarchs and Category:Romanian monarchs, and to make clear we are not talking about heads of state/govt in republics. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 9 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:Rulers of Milan

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 4#Category:Rulers of Milan

Category:Fictional cannabis users

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. This is a bit of a weird one, but there's only one member who explicitly has a cannabis addiction, making this a smallcat. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional cannabis users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per category description: This category is for fictional characters for whom cannabis paraphernalia is a defining characteristic . Everyone in it should already be WP:DEFINING. Otherwise purge anyone who cannot meet this requirement. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nederlandse Leeuw: In that case it needs to be renamed to something that makes it clear that its supposed to be a defining characteristic, you can't just make a non-defining category and slap a demand description on it strongly telling people to not add it to random articles, because that will never work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarTrekker (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you checked whether many of its members are incorrectly categorised? That would be the test it if works or not. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I checked a number of articles and it was not or barely mentioned in these cases (there was one significant mention of LSD though). This is not maintainable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep but purge~~ I've checked all entries under S, T and W, and this is my conclusion:

Defining (keep in category):

Willie the Weeper

Patsy Stone

Hayley Smith (American Dad!)

Nondefining (remove from category):

Ash Williams

Turtle (Entourage) (probably not)

Jax Teller

Janice Soprano

A.J. Soprano (was expelled from college but not for smoking cannabis, so unlike Trotter not a single-but-career-altering event)

Saracen (comics)

Doubtful (discuss):

Rodney Trotter (was expelled from college for smoking cannabis, so a single but career-altering event)

Effy Stonem (it is mentioned in series 2 and 3 and plays an important and perhaps even essential role there, but doesn't seem to be defining, as it is absent in series 1 and 4, so this character changes; the last name "Stonem" also doesn't appear to be a pun on being "stoned")

That seems enough to keep it as a cat without becoming a SMALLCAT after purging. I'm open to nom's idea that it might need a better name to prevent adding characters for whom it is nondefining, because the disclaimer (added in 2016, shortly after it was created in 2015) doesn't appear to (have) work(ed) well enough. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimers generally do not work, the category title must be clear enough in itself. I can not think of a better title though, so I still think deletion is the better option. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the character in question needs to be an actual addict? Addiction arguably defines one's life. Recreational controllable use normally doesn't. Given that its parent is Category:Fictional drug addicts, this probably should actually be the right course of action. Rename to Category:Fictional cannabis addicts + purge then? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That would definitely be an improvement. Let's give it a try. Of course the category needs to be purged upon renaming this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ This is generally not defining to characters, although the exceptions noted above are true. I don't think headers work because they don't show up in WP:HOTCAT but open to a narrower category under a different name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional cannabis addicts (per parent Category:Fictional drug addicts) + purge? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & Purge Sure, I'm open minded with that approach. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As reasonable as this approach appears to be, from my looking it seems the only article which specifically asserts a cannabis addiction is Hayley Smith (American Dad!) Others mention addictions to other drugs such as cocaine or just a drug addiction generally without further clarification. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then better move Hayley Smith (American Dad!) to Category:Fictional drug addicts and delete Category:Fictional cannabis users after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Consider me a vote to delete. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you got me. I've done pretty much everything I can to save this category, but it is a hopeless case. It either inappropriately labels characters (e.g. on closer inspection, Willie the Weeper is addicted to "dope" and Patsy Stone to "smoking", but not cannabis/marijuana etc.; the article mentions nicotine and cigarettes) or serves no legitimate purpose, so putting Hayley Smith in fictional drug addicts and otherwise deleting the category is the most reasonable conclusion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the people I sorted above are only those with surnames S, T, and W, just as a sampling of 11 people out of the 63 in total to test whether a purge could prevent deletion per SMALLCAT, but there might be other addicts amongst the remaining 52 that we haven't checked. @QuietHere: did "your looking" include all 63? I don't expect a lot more to show up, and I'm not bringing this up to still prevent deletion, just that if we might run into another supposed addict like Hayley Smith, we could still put them in the parent category for fictional drug addicts, otherwise we might miss them upon deletion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the whole category. There are several others which should be sorted into the parent cat or some of the other children if they aren't there already, but Smith is the only one that specifically calls out a cannabis addiction like I said. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:34, 12 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.