Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 4



Winter Olympics by year stubs

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus, leaning towards keep. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  21:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting winter olympics by year stubs
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Propose deleting
 * Nominator's rationale: None of these stub types are used on more than 60 articles, and some do not have corresponding stub categories. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 20:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Category overload does exist, and the idea of deleting all these cats is nonsensical. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  21:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Category:Winter Olympics by year stubs+subcats contains 447 articles, so deleting all the templates and the category seems bonkers. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * do you mean "keep" or do you mean "merge"? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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:Songs about wealth
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11%23Category:Songs about wealth

Seafood companies

 * 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.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  19:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  20:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: merge all. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  16:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of China to Category:Seafood companies of Asia, Category:Fishing in China and Category:Food and drink companies of China
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of India to Category:Seafood companies of Asia, Category:Fishing in India and Category:Food and drink companies of India
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Russia to Category:Seafood companies of Europe, Category:Fishing in Russia and Category:Food and drink companies of Russia
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of South Korea to Category:Seafood companies of Asia, Category:Fishing in South Korea and Category:Food and drink companies of South Korea
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Taiwan to Category:Seafood companies of Asia and Category:Food and drink companies of Taiwan
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Thailand to Category:Seafood companies of Asia, Category:Fishing in Thailand and Category:Food and drink companies of Thailand
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Vietnam to Category:Seafood companies of Asia, Category:Fishing in Vietnam and Category:Food and drink companies of Vietnam
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of the Faroe Islands to Category:Seafood companies of Europe, Category:Food and drink in the Faroe Islands and Category:Companies of the Faroe Islands
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Greenland to Category:Seafood companies of North America, Category:Fishing in Greenland and Category:Food and drink companies of Greenland
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Italy to Category:Seafood companies of Europe, Category:Fishing in Italy and Category:Food and drink companies of Italy
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Sweden to Category:Seafood companies of Europe and Category:Food and drink companies of Sweden
 * Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Madagascar to Category:Fishing in Africa and Category:Companies of Madagascar
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these all contain only one or two articles. The number of seafood company articles in Wikipedia is low altogether (not even 100 worldwide). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies

 * 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.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  20:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies to Category:Outfits worn at the Academy Awards ceremonies
 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily long category name. It doesn't really make sense to distinguish/disambiguate between "Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies" and "Dresses worn at the Academy Awards ceremonies". Most people wear one outfit for both the red carpet and the ceremony, so there's no real separation between the concepts. Even when people do outfit swaps, the media tends to refer to red carpet outfits and ceremony outfits interchangeably as "Oscars dresses" and "Academy Awards dresses." &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On reflection (not that I think anyone will mind since there's been no response to this anyway) I've changed the target to "outfits worn" rather than "dresses worn", in order to be a) gender neutral and b) cover Autograph suit of Sandy Powell and the eventual article I'm going to write about Cher's stupid and wonderful 1986 Oscars getup. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Rename per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11%23Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field

Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors to Category:User svg
 * Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to have identical purposes. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  20:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose the userbox clearly states SVG is for Scalable Vector Graphics, and not vector graphics in general. I don't see how they are identical. SVG isn't the only vector graphics container format 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.

Reality television contestants by country
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: keep. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  21:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Reality television participants by country to Category:Reality television contestants by country and series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in American reality television series to Category:Contestants in American reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Australian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Australian reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Argentine reality television series to Category:Contestants in Argentine reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in British reality television series to Category:Contestants in British reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Bulgarian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Bulgarian reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Burmese reality television series to Category:Contestants in Burmese reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Canadian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Canadian reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Chinese reality television series to Category:Contestants in Chinese reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in French reality television series to Category:Contestants in French reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in German reality television series to Category:Contestants in German reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Indian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Indian reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Irish reality television series to Category:Contestants in Irish reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Malaysian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Malaysian reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in New Zealand reality television series to Category:Contestants in New Zealand reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Norwegian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Norwegian reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Philippine reality television series to Category:Contestants in Philippine reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in South Korean reality television series to Category:Contestants in South Korean reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Swedish reality television series to Category:Contestants in Swedish reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Taiwanese reality television series to Category:Contestants in Taiwanese reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Thai reality television series to Category:Contestants in Thai reality television by series
 * Propose renaming Category:Participants in Turkish reality television series to Category:Contestants in Turkish reality television by series
 * Propose deleting Category:Participants in Brazilian reality television series
 * Propose deleting Category:Participants in Colombian reality television series
 * Propose deleting Category:Participants in Italian reality television series
 * Propose deleting Category:Participants in Kenyan reality television series
 * Propose deleting Category:Participants in Nigerian reality television series
 * Propose deleting Category:Participants in Pakistani reality television series
 * Propose deleting Category:Participants in Singapore reality television series


 * Nominator's rationale: Convert to container categories, following precedent at Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 5. Those that do not have sub-cats by series should be deleted as WP:SOFTDELETE unless and until such sub-cats are created. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  20:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming to contestants - A contestant is a participant in a game show or contest (which redirects to competition). Not all of these appear to be competition-based. Reality television would appear to be much broader than that. Maybe the whole tree could use better specification in naming? - jc37 03:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In practice nearly every reality tv show is somewhat competition-based. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not according to Reality_television. - jc37 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but I would support splitting out subcategories for those who are expressly contestants. Note that participants can include figures like Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsey (who are judges on their shows, but not contestants), the Kardashians, the Jersey Shore cast, and others who participate in a non-contestant capacities. BD2412  T 03:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Judges and other non-contestants should be removed as non-defining and over-categorisation per WP:PERFCAT. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, "reality show judge" is pretty much its own occupation, and people who do that is their regular gig should have their own category. I would say that it is also clearly defining that the Kardashians, and the regular cast of non-contest reality shows like The Deadliest Catch and Million Dollar Listing, are participants in reality television series (and not contestants). BD2412  T 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Oppose. There is a potential alternative here, but this isn't it. For one thing, not every reality series actually has its own dedicated subcategory at all, meaning that some people just get pulled out of the tree entirely if these categories are strictly containerized. For instance, there isn't a dedicated subcategory for "U8TV: The Lofters participants", which would yank Jennifer Hedger and Mathieu Chantelois and Trevor Smith out of the tree; there isn't one for Masterchef Canada, which would yank Mary Berg out of the tree; and on and so forth. And even when there is a category, such as, there aren't subcategories for winners of each individual international version, which would have the effect of orphaning lovebirds Wilfred Le Bouthillier and Marie-Élaine Thibert out of any categorization that clarified in any way that it was the Canadian edition that they won (and since there's only been one season so far of their version, they're five years away from the ability to create any Canada+Masked Singer intersection category on WP:SMALLCAT grounds.) And as for reality show judges, that most certainly can be defining and relevant to categorize for — it's probably not relevant or useful in the case of somebody who guest-judged one episode, but there's an entire class of professional judges who that's basically all they do. I mean, what is Michelle Visage even notable for at all, really, if not for being a reality show judge? (Without that, she'd just be a redirect to a band rather than having her own standalone BLP.) And yes, it's also true that not all reality shows are competitive: Kim Kardashian is certainly a reality show participant, but she isn't a reality show contestant, because Keeping Up with the Kardashians wasn't a contest. So there might be a better name for these categories, but this isn't it, and containerizing them isn't the solution to anything. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Renaming this to contestants would make certain people that are on reality television and in these categories currently, become miscategorized as not all reality TV participants are contestants. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 17:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:Professors of chemistry (Cambridge, 1702)
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: keep. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  18:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Professors of chemistry (Cambridge, 1702) to Category:Professors of chemistry (Cambridge)
 * Nominator's rationale: More concise, and bit less narrow. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 1702 professorship is oldest permanent chemistry chair in the UK, and is notable though more for its interesting role in the history of science than the quality of its early incumbents. It was founded in response to cultish admiration for Newton, and its history covers the whole Modern Period and tallies with transition from Newtonian alchemy to recognisable chemistry. Incumbents played an interesting role in establishing in the UK the teaching of experimental science by researchers. Readers could conceivably wish to navigate these holders by category. I am working my way through some of these interesting professorships (partially as a means of diffusing the huge Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge), and will likely add create a more inclusive category called Category:Professors of chemistry (Cambridge) in due course... Charlie A. (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarification. I'm not particularly opposed to renaming the category per se. If there's an established convention I'm unaware of, or there's an alternative preferred for some other reason (e.g. Category:Holders of the 1702 professorship of chemistry at the University of Cambridge or Category:Professors of chemistry (1702) at the University of Cambridge etc.) But I think there's a good reason to keep the category for this particular interesting professorship, as opposed to all chemistry profs at Cam. Charlie A. (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Let Charlie A. work through this. --Bduke (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's a specific chair. Category:1702 Professors of Chemistry (Cambridge) would be okay. See Category:Professors of the University of Cambridge for capitalisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: capitalisation, fwiw I've tried(!) to be consistent about this...
 * <Title, if it exists> Professors of <Upper Case Subject> (<Institution if required>, <Date if required>) – holders of a specific chair that hasn't been substantially renamed in its history (e.g. Category:Regius Professors of Ecclesiastical History)
 * 'Professors of <Upper Case Subject> (<Institution>) – either (a) contains holders of a specific single chair, or (b) holders of multiple chairs at the same institution with the same name (e.g. Category:Professors of Music (Cambridge) relates to a single chair; Category:Professors of Political Economy (Cambridge) relates to multiple chairs, and contains a more specific subcategory for the notable one)
 * <No title, even if it exists> Professors of (Institution, <Date if required>) – holders of a specific chair that has been renamed substantially (e.g. Category:Professors of botany (Cambridge) contains holders before and after it became Regius, no year of establishment is required to disambiguate in this case; also see 1702/chemistry example above).
 * <Title> Professors (<Institution, if required>) – contains holders of a chair/chairs that has/have a consistent title, but differing/multiple subjects (e.g. Category:John Humphrey Plummer Professors)
 * <Generic subject> professors at <Institution> – contains holders holding various chairs in the same broad field at the same institution (e.g. Category:Engineering professors at the University of Cambridge)
 * Not arguing that the above is a perfect solution, and it's probably over-engineered, but they're conceptually different categories and I'm trying to apply the same format to each concept. Charlie A. (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (i.e. do not merge). This is a specific named professorship.  Category:1702 Professors of Chemistry (Cambridge) would be OK.  This is now the Professor of Organic Chemistry.  I presume there are sibling categories for physical and inorganic chemistry, though not of such antiquity; if not there should be.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:Former assembly constituencies in Telangana
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: keep. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Former assembly constituencies in Telangana to Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Telangana‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Proper naming like, see, and also Defunc is the correct meaning. IJohnKennady  talk  08:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The dominant convention of Category:Former constituencies is to use "Former", and I prefer the open proposal at CFD May 3#Former_constituencies to standardise on "Former". --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - subcategories of Category:Former constituencies should use 'former' unless there is some convincing local objection to the word. Oculi (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per current discussion (?yesaterday) where the proposal is to normalise on "former". In any event Close to match other CFD discussion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:Television series by Stone Stanley Entertainment
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11%23Category:Television series by Stone Stanley Entertainment

Category:Hololive
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11%23Category:Hololive

Category:Burial sites of the House of Burke
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  21:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Burial sites of the House of Burke to Category:Burial sites of the House of Burgh
 * Nominator's rationale: There are currently a couple of pages included in this category: burials at

Blackfriars, London, and Athassell Priory and Ballintubber Priory.

As you can see from these pages themselves, the burials of the people from the 'House of Burke' are surnamed either de Burgh or Bourke.

People with the surnames Burke, Bourke, de Burca and de Burgh are all derived descended from the founders of the dynasty, the House of Burgh.

de Burgh was the original surname which later (in Irish) became de Burca/Burc/Burke/Bourke, etc.

Therefore, since all these people are descended from the original dynasty of Burgh, this category should be renamed as Category:Burial sites of the House of Burgh to reflect the origins of the family. Thank you. WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - article is at House of Burgh. Although it was moved there without discussion in 2021 by the nominator there seems to have been no objection. Oculi (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:House of Burke
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  21:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:House of Burke to Category:House of Burgh
 * Nominator's rationale: There are currently a variety of pages included in this category: people surnamed Burke, Bourke, de Burca and de Burgh (which is correct).

All these surnamed people are descended from the founders of the dynasty, the House of Burgh.

de Burgh was the original surname which later (in Irish) became de Burca/Burc/Burke/Bourke, etc.

Therefore, since all these people are descended from the original dynasty of Burgh, this category should be renamed as Category:House of Burgh to reflect the origins of the family. Thank you. WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - article is at House of Burgh. Although it was moved there without discussion in 2021 by the nominator there seems to have been no objection. Oculi (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per article name. But, as Oculi notes above, the article rename was a bit sneaky. At the very least, the nominator ought to have mentioned this fact and declared an interest. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought I'd followed the advice properly so that anyone could comment (advice on renaming page does suggest 'being bold' when renaming) though I didn't think I was being that 'bold', I weighed-up the pro's and con's and thought 'Burgh' was more broad as an umbrella for all versions of the dynasty's name. No sneakiness intended, sorry if I got it wrong as a relative newcomer. But thanks for your support for this category change. WilldeBurgh (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:British lieutenant colonels
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  21:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting british lieutenant colonels
 * Nominator's rationale: Totally pointless category. The biggest problem is that it does not specify service and lumps lieutenant-colonels of the British Army, British Indian Army and Royal Marines together, despite the separate categories for officers of these services. But also, categorising by specific rank reached serves no useful purpose. The proliferation of these rank-specific categories needs to be stopped now. Pure overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If you object to having all these in one category, then split it. A colonel of marines would historically be an unusual appointment, possibly even a sinecure, as marines served on board ships in smaller numbers than required a colonel to command them.  British officers in the army in India held the king's commission, even if commanding Indian troops, in contrast to Indian officers whose commission came from the viceroy.  The distinction drawn is thus not a valid one.  We should only categorise soldiers by the highest rank they attained (as they will inevitably have passed through the lower ranks first), but if we have articles on lieutenant colonels we should have a category for them.  Colonels (unlike generals) are not notable per se, so that having an article means they have achieved something of note.   Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If it was going to be created it should have been split in the first place before umpteen articles were added to it, thus making more work for other editors. The point about the Indian Army is that whether they held the King's Commission or not, they were not officers of the British Army but of the Indian Army. Two completely separate organisations that should not be lumped together (but unfortunately all too often are by those lacking in knowledge of the subject). Indians could also hold the King's Commission, incidentally. Viceroy's Commissioned Officers were a completely separate rank category similar to warrant officers. As for the Royal Marines, lieutenant-colonels (and colonels) traditionally served ashore in the three Royal Marine Barracks, but it doesn't mean they didn't exist (and since WWI they have commanded battalion-sized units just like army lieutenant-colonels). But I don't see how any of that is relevant in the first place. I simply fail to see how rank-specific categorisation is not a classic case of overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, what is the point of categorisation in the first place? It's to aid navigation. But does anyone actually think, I know, I'll look up all the people with articles on Wikipedia who reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel and didn't go any higher? No, of course they don't. It just doesn't make any sense. It's categorisation for the sake of it. What's next? Category:British second lieutenants? Category:British lance corporals? Category:British leading aircraftmen? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Lower ranks would be categorised in a general soldiers or an army officers category. I might support having a majors category, but probably not lower than that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So why categorise this rank in particular? It's no more useful than they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that British Army officers and soldiers are already categorised by regiments or corps. See Category:British Army officers and Category:British Army soldiers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per nom.  This is a pointless mishmash. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, mismash as BHG says it. British Indian Army ranks were also inflated, like 2-4 ranks above regular ranks.-- Mvqr (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2022 (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.