Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 21

 &lt; March 20 March 22 &gt;

Category:Films about honeymoon

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Films about honeymoon to Category:Films about honeymoons
 * Nominator's rationale: The Grammar Police have tracked down this crime against English as she is spoke. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. While we're at it, if you wouldn't mind, Officer, might you be able to clarify how as she is spoke is grammatically correct? Blimey, I reckon I might have missed such a linguistic oddity in my education. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a joke (I think I got it from Pogo, which apparently got it from English as She Is Spoke.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hah, that's funny! I recognised it as a joke, I just didn't know it went back to that book title (I tried to find a relevant meaning of "spoke" in Wiktionary, but that didn't solve it haha), and has become a common joke about bad English grammar. Thanks! :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Addendum: There's also Category:Works about honeymoon. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We could reverse merge that per WP:SMALLCAT, because it only has Category:Films about honeymoon in it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename as a WP:C2A. V27t (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per WP:C2A, obvious grammatical error. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 01:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:Germanic people by occupation

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 09:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting germanic people by occupation
 * Propose deleting celtic people by occupation
 * Propose deleting germanic people by nationality and century
 * Propose deleting category
 * Nominator's rationale: 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.
 * Similar noms:
 * Precedent: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_7 "Turkic rulers", "Germanic rulers", "Celtic rulers".
 * Precedent: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_4, including "Germanic countries and territories", "Germanic kingdoms" and "Germanic empires", "Iranian countries and territories" and "Iranian-speaking countries and territories".
 * Ongoing Precedent: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_16 "Germanic women by century" and "Germanic women by nationality and century". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, but manually merge Category:Iranian rulers to Category:Asian rulers and Category:Iranian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * it would be incorrect to manually merge Category:Iranian rulers (rulers who spoke Iranian languages; its parent is Category:Iranic people, its grandparent Category:People by language family) to Category:Iranian people (people from the country Iran; its parent is Category:Iran). This situation is similar to "Mongol rulers" versus "Mongolian people" that we dealt with earlier.
 * I must also object to merging Category:Iranian rulers to Category:Asian rulers, because languages don't obey geographical boundaries. Even though a similar approach was eventually taken at the Turkic rulers CfD, I'm not sure that is a good idea. Its subcategories are a mix of people who reigned in Europe, in Asia, or both. All 5 Category:Alanic rulers reigned in Europe (Ukraine, Rhineland, Gaul, Hispania). All 7 Category:Sarmatian rulers reigned in Europe (Balkans, Ukraine, Northern Causasus / Southern Russia). Category:Scythian rulers are a mix of Europe and Asia; I think they defy continental categorisation. The rest may fairly be called "Asian" on geographical grounds, but I must say I find it very WP:NONDEFINING. Moreover, WP:OCLOCATION states: In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. These "rulers" didn't know or care that somewhere in the 18th century some guy decided where the boundary between "Europe" and "Asia" was, and that they were crossing it regularly. A great many of them had probably never even heard of the words "Europe" or "Asia" at the time. I would argue (and WP:OCLOCATION seems to agree with me) that it is just as arbitrary as grouping them by language family. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Manual merging implies: only if appropriate and only if the article is not already deeper in the tree. That covers most of your objections, I guess. With respect to continents, I basically agree with you. I have once tried to get the year categories 1000-1500 by continent merged to global level, based on the argument that people living in this period did not distinguish continents, but that nomination failed. But while continent categories exist, they may be a proper merge target for at least some of the content. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. Sorry, I criticised things you didn't suggest. :-) I guess pragmatically I can agree with the manually merge suggestion for as long as the continental categories exist. Even though I don't want to give them more legitimacy than they deserve by adding more items to them. Especially as we are busy emptying Category:Asian rulers from items and cats that don't belong in it.
 * Incidentally, this has inspired me to CfD Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_22 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_22. You might want to take a look at them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The simple fact that people would put or  in a Celtic people category demonstrates the flawed logic behind these language-family-crossed-with-geography categories. Most people in Galicia or Scotland would not self-define as Celtic or speak a Celtic language, and it is certainly not defining for film directors, businesspeople or scientists from these regions to be, hypothetically, Celtic. Place Clichy (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Update Category:Germanic women by nationality and century and Category:Germanic women by century have been deleted. This strengthens the case for this nom, especially no. #1 and no. #3. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated. With all due respect to Marcocapelle, any that need further merging casn be handled by future editors after this mess is cleaned up.
 * ✅ so I am withdrawing my objection. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:Films about robbery

 * 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)  Qwerfjkl  talk  10:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Films about robbery to Category:Heist films
 * Nominator's rationale: No need for two categories on the same subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, but manually disperse the articles to the subcategories by country and/or decade if possible. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Marcocapelle.
 *  Oppose : robbery = theft with assault. Heists do not necessarily involve assault, so this seems mistaken. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries define heists as robberies, e.g. Merriam Webster: "to commit armed robbery on", Collins Dictionary: "A heist is a robbery", so while heists may not necessarily involve force or the threat of force, it's a subtle distinction. Furthermore, almost all of the films in the robbery category involve violent robberies, as do the subcategories (bank robberies and train robberies), one notable exception being The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie; studios figure audiences want to see some action for their money. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably User:Fayenatic london has not received the above ping, because one needs to provide a fresh signature when pinging. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I withdraw my opposition; I thought it meant a high-value burglary. Merge and redirect. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:Online dating services
<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: split. (non-admin closure) –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 09:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Online dating services to Category:Online dating services and Category:Online dating
 * Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at Talk:Online_dating. Ideally, should be a subcategory of . Either that or just rename the existing category. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Split, it is useful to keep the services as a subcategory as (also) part of the services tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Split


 * 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:Western Canada High School
<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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting western canada high school
 * Nominator's rationale: Category contains only one article and a subcategory of alumni. User:Namiba 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete


 * 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:Monarchs of Anglo-Saxon England
<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: merge. I will redirect it for the sake of the interwiki links. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Monarchs of Anglo-Saxon England to Category:English monarchs
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom, WP:SMALLCAT. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge as nominated.


 * 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:Turkic Buddhist monarchs
<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: merge. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  10:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Turkic Buddhist monarchs to Category:Buddhist monarchs
 * Propose manually merging Category:Turkic female royalty to Category:Female royalty
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per precedent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You hadn't tagged Category:Turkic female royalty yet, so I did. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge/manual merge per nom and precedent discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge as nominated.
 * Request: the second target Category:Female royalty currently contains only sub-categories. Please would someone check whether the member pages are already within other sub-cats of that parent, in which case this merge will not be required? Also, whether they are in other subcats of the other parent Category:Turkic women? – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * only Tadj ol-Molouk is not already in the Turkic women tree since Category:20th-century Turkic women does not exist. By now all articles are also otherwise in the tree of Category:Female royalty. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


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

Has Category:Turkic female royalty been forgotten? It's been almost two months, and I don't see it at WP:CFDWM. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nederlandse Leeuw, looks like i forgot to add it there. I've done so now.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1687456412037:WikipediaFTTCLNCategories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_21" class="FTTCmt"> — Qwerfjkl  talk  17:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people
<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. (For reference, the succeeding C17/18  categories are discussed here.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:16th-century Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people to Category:16th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
 * Propose renaming Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people by voivodeship to Category:People from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by voivodeship
 * Propose renaming Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people by occupation to Category:People from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation
 * Nominator's rationale: The standard seems to be "from". People from multi-ethnic empires should not use a demonym form. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See also 22 March noms for 17th & 18th centuries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and precedent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename


 * 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.

Local historians
<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: merge all. (non-admin closure) –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 09:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Chinese local historians to Category:Local historians
 * Propose merging Category:Historians of Paris to Category:French local historians and Category:History of Paris
 * Propose merging Category:German local historians to Category:German historians and Category:Local historians
 * Propose merging Category:Swedish local historians to Category:Swedish historians and Category:Local historians
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one or two articles in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The Chinese local historians category definitely has potential for expansion, given China's long tradition of local histories (they're actually called gazetteers, but the only person in the Chinese local historians category wrote the Huayang Guo Zhi, which is a gazetteer so there really isn't any difference). There are quite a few articles in the version of the category on Chinese Wikipedia and two more in the category for gazetteer writers. Mucube (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge — that other *pedias have more isn't interesting. What matters is how many are here.


 * 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 Epirus
<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 the first two categories; and merge Category:Medieval rulers of Epirus to Category:Medieval Epirus, Category:People of medieval Greece, and Category:Medieval rulers. (non-admin closure) –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 09:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Epirus to Category:Monarchs of Epirus
 * Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Ancient Epirus to Category:Kings of Epirus
 * Propose upmerging Category:Medieval rulers of Epirus to Category:Monarchs of Epirus
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B. Category:Rulers of Epirus is in Category:Greek monarchs, and its children are kings (basileus/basilissa) and despots, so we're not talking about presidents, prime ministers, military dictators etc.
 * WP:C2D. Main article of Category:Rulers of Ancient Epirus is List of kings of Epirus, and all in this cat are labelled "kings". There is no need for "Ancient", there haven't been kings of Epirus in any other time.
 * Separately, Category:Medieval rulers of Epirus and Category:Monarchs of Epirus are WP:SMALLCATs; since we are already removing "Ancient" from the Kings of Epirus, there is no need for "Medieval" either; there is no risk of confusion between the despots and the kings, as these are clearly different titles, and there were several centuries between them.
 * The result will be 1 parent (Category:Monarchs of Epirus), 3 children (Category:Kings of Epirus, Category:Despots of Epirus, and Category:Despots of Arta), plus two items that do not fit any of the child cats (Anna Palaiologina Kantakouzene, Maria Angelina Doukaina Palaiologina). Incidentally, I've already removed Category:Byzantine governors of Epirus from Category:Medieval rulers of Epirus, as governors aren't "monarchs" or otherwise sovereign. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Merge targets? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, though Category:Medieval rulers of Epirus should also be merged to Category:Medieval rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Do not dual merge, no reason to divide by Ancient and Medieval.
 * Support but merge the third to all other parents (, and ). The Ancient Kingdom of Epirus has little to do with the medieval Despotate of Epirus besides the location, confusing them is like mixing in a single category leaders of the Sioux nation and governors of North/South Dakota. Place Clichy (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2023 (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.
 * I have no idea what to make of all the "Support but" votes, to be honest. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Place Clichy is right that Category:Medieval rulers of Epirus should be merged to all parents (, and ). I guess User:William Allen Simpson was mistaken about the intention of the merge, because nothing is being divided by that merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to support triple merger per Place Clichy and Marcocapelle.
 * Happy to go along with it. we have agreed! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:Finnish homeopaths
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 2%23Category:Finnish homeopaths

Category:Lithuanian National Prize
<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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Lithuanian National Prize to Category:Lithuanian National Prize for Culture and Arts
 * Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Lithuanian National Prize to Category:Recipients of the Lithuanian National Prize for Culture and Arts
 * Nominator's rationale: Correct name of the prize: Lithuanian National Prize for Culture and Arts (Nacionalinė kultūros ir meno premija), Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename per WP:C2D. This could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename
 * Delete both per WP:OCAWARD. The recipients article contains a list.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. This is a major national prize given out annually to a single person in each category and therefore it is a defining characteristic for its recipients. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2023 (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.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, Peterkingiron is right about WP:OCAWARD, for example in Vytautas Barkauskas the award is just a mention in passing and that applies to other articles too. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Marcocapelle.


 * 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:Depictions of people on film
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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. No consensus after 4 months; suggest the nominator re-nominate the "depictions/portrayals" separately from the "in film/on film". (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Depictions of people on film to Category:Depictions of people in film
 * Propose renaming Category:Portrayals of Jesus in film to Category:Depictions of Jesus in film
 * Propose renaming Category:Portrayals of Moses in film to Category:Depictions of Moses in film
 * Propose renaming Category:Depictions of Julius Caesar on film to Category:Depictions of Julius Casear in film
 * Nominator's rationale: "In film" is predominantly used in other media rather than "on film", as shown in this Ngram. Granted, it also shows that "portrayals" is even more common than "depictions"; but "depictions" is used much more widely in Wikipedia categories for other media, and was just endorsed at Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 13. I have tagged a few sub-cats to increase participation; the remainder can follow via speedy processing. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  10:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: The alternative "Films about" is a narrower concept, and "Cultural depictions" categories were just kept rather than merged to "Works about" at Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 11. However, there is no need to rename the few direct sub-cats that are named "Films about…", as they may (i) already have that more specific scope and (ii) be part of another "films about" hierarchy. Note that Caesar has a sub-cat "Films about". Fayenatic  L ondon 11:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm neutral as to in/on, as both are used. But the first category should really be renamed, as most films depict people (yes, I know I created the category, but it was a long time ago and Wikipedia has moved on!). The parent category is Category:Works based on real people, although that is clearly poor English (how can you base a work or a film on a person? You can base it on a book, but not a person.). Note that this category is a bit of a mess as it also includes mythological figures (e.g. Category:The Devil in film‎) and general articles (e.g. Native Americans in film). I'd also support moving all these categories to "Portrayals", which is probably preferable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We should probably add "by subject" to the name of the first category, similar to Category:Biographical works by subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In film is more idiomatic unless we're discussing still photos, or the actual process of capturing someone (or their facsimile) on film. Since we're not using those specific senses, in film seems like the more natural choice.  I think that portrayals is a better word choice than depictions, but both are acceptable.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in → on – more modern language and works better in this context. Not sure about depictions vs portrayals. Jesus is depicted in countless films in pictures and on crucifixes. MClay1 (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "depicted" is more of an artistic term. If someone is played by someone on film then they are "portrayed". Although both terms are used in both media, obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * withdrawn in hopes of consensus:
 * Rename parent Category:Films about people by subject.
 * Rename children Category:Films about ...
 * Purge
 * Matching many existing children, and many entries in parent Category:Historical films. These should remain "historical". Categorization: Do not categorize tags of every detail in the film. There's no reason to categorize a picture of Jesus on the wall, or any merely supporting character. A voice in a burning bush is a "depiction", but the film is not about Yahweh. As noted above, these categories are a bit of a mess.
 * has changed the parent from Category:Works based on real people to its parent the broader Category:Cultural depictions during this discussion. IMnsHO, this is a mistake.
 * Most subcategories are about depictions or portrayals. While I would agree on renaming and purging them to "works about" categories I note that there is currently no consensus for that, Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 11. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that. While obviously tiny details don't need categorising, there are plenty of notable portrayals of historical people in film and television that are not in films and shows that are about those people specifically. MClay1 (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2023 (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.

Relisting comment: Category:Portrayals of Moses in film was untagged. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Much clearer scope than "portrayal". Dimadick (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not really the main point of the debate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2023 (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.

Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternate proposal: The category needs to be completely renamed because, simply put, the current name is utterly meaningless. With few exceptions, the vast majority of films are, of course, "depictions of people". (Duh.) After perusing the subcats, it seems to me that what we are talking about here is "depictions of (notable) historical figures". (Which may or may not include Mr. Stan Lee...) So I would suggest something along the lines of . Feel free to improve on this if you like. :) Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, I removed Category:The Devil in film as a subcat because, to the best of my knowledge, the Devil is not, in fact, a "person". ;) Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the current name is meaningless, I do not think that "historical" improves it as it suggests living people are excluded. The category is nearly a container category by subject and should be named as such: Category:Depictions of people in film by subject. Similar to Category:Biographical works by subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Marcocapelle. Historical implies not contemporary, which doesn't fit the contents. Category:Depictions of people in film by subject sounds like a good suggestion. MClay1 (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the parent category be by subject, as I'd proposed that above. Still disagree about "depictions"; ambiguous, refers to a picture on a wall. Prefer "portrayals". Still hope to purge unless the film is about a person.
 * Comments -
 * Ok, first - in vs. on - "on film" means quite literally that it's part of that specific film production; part of a "product". "in film" means part of the film industry. Completely different. Let's please avoid confusing/conflating "in film", with "in a film".
 * Second - Cultural depictions is a Wikipedia-created neologism. We need to not do that. The only usage I have seen outside of Wikimedia sourcing is "Outdated cultural depictions".. The usage of which is quite different than what is being discussed here.
 * "Portrayal of: - work done by an actor or artist. This differs from "presentation of"/"producton of" - which is a work presented by a "producer" of a work..There can be some overlap. but the two are not completely equivalent.
 * When "real people" appear in a non-documentary film, they are a character in a production and are no longer "real people". They are characters based on real people.
 * So this all comes down to 2 concepts:
 * 1.) The depiction of a particular individual on film
 * 2.) a work that may be based upon a particular individual.
 * I don't think that the first is something we should be categorising. (Every time the image of Jesus appears on film? which includes appearances of artwork, statuary, etc? no.)
 * The second is questionable, but we seem to have lots of these "based on" cats.
 * As a result of the above, Rename to "Works based on X" and prune.
 * If there is no consensus for that, I weakly support: Split to "Works based on X" and "Works depicting X".And punting whether we want to delete the depiction cats to a later discussion. - jc37 06:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * With apologies - pinging everyone above, to see if we can find consensus and get this closed: User:Fayenatic london, User:Necrothesp, User:Marcocapelle, User:P Aculeius, User talk:Mclay1, User:William Allen Simpson, User:Qwerfjkl, User:Dimadick, User:Anomalous+0. - jc37 09:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to ping me.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1683902120304:WikipediaFTTCLNCategories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_21" class="FTTCmt"> — Qwerfjkl  talk  14:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing new from my end: the first category should be "by subject" (or otherwise "by individual"); "works about" is better than "depictions of" as it more clearly excludes incidental non-defining depictions; and I have no opinion on "in" versus "on". Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed for me. I prefer the term "depictions" to include all depictions of the historical figure in film. I would oppose all used of "about", as it would render the categories subjective and useless. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will continue to maintain that "works based on" is very poor English when referring to people and will therefore oppose that. I also don't think we need to broaden the categories from film to wider works. I therefore continue to support "Portrayals of XXXX on film" (on reflection, I agree that "on" is preferable to "in"), although I will happily go with "depictions" if that is the consensus. The wider category still needs to be renamed, as almost all films depict people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Depictions rather than portrayals, as it is a broader description, focusing less on individual actors and more on character; in film rather than on film, since the latter suggests that the physical medium—cellulose nitrate, Kodachrome negatives—is the purpose of the categories, rather than the fact that persons are depicted on television or in motion pictures. While "works about X" could be parent categories in some cases, many depictions of persons occur in works about someone or something else, so renaming any of these categories would narrow their scope considerably with relation to film, and leave various works in which persons are depicted or portrayed with nowhere to go, so better not to turn these categories into "works about X". P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - There's a distinct difference between a.) a film based on George Washington, b.) a film which depects George Washington, and c.) a film in which George Washington was potrayed. So which one of these three do you each think that the inclusion criteria should be, and why? - jc37 13:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no difference whatsoever between b) and c), and a) is just bad English. You can have a film based on a biography of George Washington or a character based on George Washington, but not a film based on George Washington. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria should be only films which are substantially about the individual, not just films in which the individual briefly appears. Both are portrayals or depictions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, for "a", why do you say that "based on" is "bad english? What's your evidence? I'm looking at Special:PrefixIndex/List of films based on and this Google search, among other things.
 * As for "b" and "c", there is a difference. "Depiction" can include any image at all of a character, including photos and artwork. "Portrayal" merely means that someone portrayed the character in the film, regardless of how long the character appeared, and regardless of their seeming importance to the film (or lack thereof). - jc37 16:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I see it, "portrayals" focuses on the actor playing the role, and how he plays the character; "depictions" can apply equally well to the actions, circumstances, and consequences of the character's actions on history (or other contexts), or to the fact that an actor represented the character, whether or not the film was about that character. For instance, Caesar is portrayed in a film about Caesar, and you can meaningfully discuss how he's portrayed; Decimus Brutus might appear in the film, but it's not about him and the way the actor wishes to portray him might not be that important, although he and many lesser figures might be depicted in the film without significant character development.  That said, I can see an argument to interpret it almost the opposite way, but depictions still seems more flexible.  I also think that in film is a better choice to indicate the medium of motion pictures or television, whereas on film suggests that the physical medium—film reels, negatives, prints—is the subject.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Split Category:Depictions of people on film to Category:Films portraying people by subject and Category:Films based on people by subject. The concepts have been inappropriately merged. Finesse "in" versus "on"; portrayals over "depictions"; based on is better English.
 * Threading the needle of proposals by and . If we don't use "about" as previously proposed, then "based on" is better than "based upon biography of" — it's not about the biography, it's about the subject person.
 * So those for the parent cats, and then "Films portraying X", and "Films based on X" as the individual subcats, respectively? I can accept that compromise. Using "portraying" is better than "depicting", at least. You could even do "Film portrayals of people by subject", with "Film portrayals of X", as subcats, if that makes people happier. - jc37 13:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose "in film" but support "depictions of". "On film" should be used instead of "in film" in my opinion because its the general way to describe depictions from that medium, same way "on screen" and "on television" is. "Depictions of" is in my opinion the best choice because it's broader than "portrayal" (which often means how something is depicted and mainly pertins to actors performances in my experience). I don't agree that "cultural depictions" or "depictions of" is something like a neologism, its just a description of what the categories or article sections cover. I also don't agree that "Works about" or "Works based on" is better, not all depictions of something or someone is a work (intellectual work/creative work etc).★Trekker (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide an example of a "depiction" that is not a "creative work". - jc37 17:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have already asked me this once before and I have already provided examples. You failed to get support for the idea that fictional characters are "works" back in February. And besides that, articles like Depictions of Muhammad and Buddha in art are often not about individual works or series of works but about trends, styles, types and reasons and reactions to depictions of persons. Artist impersonators like Michael Jackson impersonators are also not "works".★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC) And before you link the creative work article again; no I don't find that article to be convincting since it's literally a stub about a legal concept with no more than 2 citations.★Trekker (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Failed to get support from you? : )
 * That discussion you linked to had concerns withe "about", because - as we're noting here - just because something is depicted in a work, doesn't mean that that work is entirely about whatever is being depicted. Indeed, above it's been noted that a picture of Jesus might appear in a film, yet that film may not be "about" Jesus, just because an image was depicted. Using "depictions" is a really bad idea in categorization.
 * Anyway, to respond to your examples, Performance art is still a work of art. Anything that falls under the fine arts are a work of art, for that matter.
 * And you say the articles you note aren't even depictions, but rather "...but about trends, styles, types and reasons and reactions to depictions..." - if true, then those are not depictions but rather, are about "stuff" which are about depictions - why would they be categorised here? : )
 * I get that you don't like the article. (Not sure what you don't like about a referenced legal definition, though.) And I get that you don't like dictionary definitions. The problem with that is that makes your position original research. I'm backing my assertion up with verifiable references. (Here's another: [.) What do you have besides your personal opinion? - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 21:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments - depiction and portrayal. It's interesting how imprecise both terms can be. The fun part is that "in film", we could be talking about the film as the piece of art, or the appearance of a piece of art in the film. The difference between talking about The Thomas Crown Affair - a film - and about The Son of Man - a piece of art which appears in the film. And per the definitions I just linked to, both "depiction in film" and "potrayal in film" apply to The Son of Man's appearance in that film. The painting is about a person. What, you don't like that it's an artist's interpretation of a person? But that's what all art of people is. An artist's interpretation. Oh wait you want the art to be about specific people? Ok. How about House of Wax? Are we saying that we are going to categorize that film based upon all of the historical people depicted in that film? To be honest, after re-reading this discussion, and in light of the actual definitions for these terms, I'm starting to lean towards Delete all. If no consensus for deletion, I'll Support William Allen Simpson's compromise above. - jc37 06:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:Rulers of Pontus
<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 to Category:Monarchs of Pontus. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Pontus to Category:Kings of Pontus Category:Monarchs of Pontus
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D List of kings of Pontus. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: nomination amended from "Kings" to "Monarchs" to include queens regnant. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename
 * Comment on queens regnant I've found evidence that two women in Category:Queens of Pontus, namely Pythodorida of Pontus and Laodice (sister-wife of Mithridates IV of Pontus) (as well as Julia Mamaea (wife of Polemon II of Pontus), who doesn't have her own article) were queens regnant of Pontus rather than "queens consort" as categorised. That would mean they belonged in the "kings/queens" category and thus in Category:Kings of Pontus. Are we okay with adding these two women under the name of "kings", or do we still want to go for something gender-neutral like Category:Monarchs of Pontus? My nom depends on WP:C2D List of kings of Pontus, but we could also easily rename that to List of monarchs of Pontus while we're at it. "Pythodorida of Pontus (Queen)" was and is already mentioned in the list. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2023 (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.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also perfectly fine with "monarchs". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Updated. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * do you also agree with the amended nomination? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. If you'd pinged us on the day you found them, we could have avoided the relist. Once I've !voted, I'll rarely look again without a ping.
 * Ok I'll keep that in mind. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:Monarchs by religion
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed mw-archivedtalk" 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: as follows.

There was no resolution oto whether WP:OCEGRS was applicable, but it was noted that the Zoroastrian category was not in line with the category naming convention, and that the Khagan ones are WP:SMALLCAT (non-admin closure) –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 02:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No consensus Category:Monarchs by religion
 * Rename Category:Zoroastrian rulers to Category:Zoroastrian monarchs
 * Merge Category:Christian Khagans to Category:Christian monarchs
 * Merge Category:Kievan Khagans to Category:Christian monarchs
 * Propose manually deleting monarchs by religion
 * Propose manually deleting zoroastrian rulers
 * Propose deleting christian khagans
 * Propose deleting kievan khagans
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS. This is a trivial intersection with religion. Category:Rulers by religion, Category:Muslim rulers and Category:Buddhist rulers were recently manually deleted for the same reason. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * PS Adding Category:Christian Khagans (also per WP:OR and WP:SMALLCAT: 1 child, 1 item) and Category:Kievan Khagans (which has Category:Christian Khagans as its only parent; also per WP:OR). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose deleting the Kyivan khagans category based on this discussion. It has nothing to do with religion. The given rationale doesn’t apply to it. —Michael Z. 07:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It does, because it is completely unconnected to other category tree, except through Category:Christian Khagans. The degree to which the early Kyivan monarchs were "k(h)agans" and Christian or pagan is subject to ongoing scholarly discussion. It is a fascinating topic, and I've written a lot about it recently at Grand Prince of Kiev. But it is also a complicated discussion that requires nuanced, evidence-based answers. It cannot be simply decided by some guy categorising them according to his own WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Consensus may change after an earlier keep in 2016: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_12. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose deleting Category:Monarchs by religion and Category:Zoroastrian rulers. The religion of a ruler is not trivial or incidental; anyone who thinks that only has to look at history to be proven wrong. Constantine  ✍  07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:Zoroastrian rulers may better be converted to Category:Ancient Iranian monarchs which is much more defining. Zoroastrism was the main religion in ancient Persia, the fact that rulers were also Zoroastrians is trivial in that context. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I oppose renaming to Category:Ancient Iranian monarchs, because it is already in Category:Monarchs of Persia, Category:Monarchy in Persia and Iran and Category:Iranian dynasties. This is highly duplicative and has petty added value. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (updated) Keep Category:Monarchs by religion as useful container for the various existing subcategories; where a monarch is titular head of a national church (and conducts war against other religions), it can be defining; Rename Category:Zoroastrian rulers to Category:Ancient Iranian monarchs per Marcocapelle; Delete Khagans as nominated.
 * I oppose renaming to Category:Ancient Iranian monarchs, because it is already in Category:Monarchs of Persia, Category:Monarchy in Persia and Iran and Category:Iranian dynasties. This is highly duplicative and has petty added value.
 * The concept of making monarchs the "head" of a "national" church is early modern, and I'm not sure if it really exists elsewhere but in England. Head of the Church doesn't mention any other church but the Church of England (Supreme Governor of the Church of England, for which there is no category, presumably because it would just duplicate Category:British monarchs).
 * If we look at how the categories are currently actually populated, it's much more a random free-for-all in Category:Christian monarchs, where we've got Category:6th-century Frankish kings‎ (and more random Frankish-king-by-century cats), Category:9th-century English monarchs‎ (and more random English-monarch-by-century cats), Boleslaus I, Duke of Bohemia (who appears a lot more pagan, actually), Category:Christian Khagans (already CfD'd here), and so on. Especially monarchs from the early medieval conversion generation are questionably Christian/pagan (e.g. Constantine I still using Sol Invictus in his symbolism decades after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge when he supposedly converted to Catholicism).
 * No doubt lots of hagiographers have sought to paint them as the great examples to be followed, but history tends to be a lot more complicated than black and white, pagan and Christian etc. In hundreds of cases, these are WP:SUBJECTIVECATs (how "Christian" one is, and to what degree "Christian" is or should be a synonym for "ethical"), or WP:ARBITRARYCATs (when there is evidence that the person in question adhered to multiple religious traditions, worshipped multiple deities of different traditions, mixed religious practices, supported different religious institutions through construction of places of worship, minting of coins with mixed symbolism etc.). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point about Ancient Iranian monarchs, then Category:Zoroastrian rulers should just be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:Muslim politicians was recently deleted per WP:OCEGRS as well. It follows the 2019 systematic deletion of all Category:Politicians by religion categories. Technically, this should be decisive for monarchs by religion, because Category:Politicians is the great-great-grandparent of Category:Monarchs. Given that Category:Rulers by religion, Category:Muslim rulers and Category:Buddhist rulers were also recently deleted, I see no reason to make an exception for monarchs. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I confess I am surprised to hear the opinion that religion for monarchs is 'trivial' seriously uttered. That would be a surprise to many of them, especially those who were crowned in a church, are called Defender of the Faith, converted to a religion thus bringing their entire people with them, supported the principle of cuius regio, eius religio, based their sole legitimacy on religion (e.g. caliphs) or assumed such names like 'Sword of the Faith', etc etc. It would be nice if religion were irrelevant, but the last few thousand years of recorded history show that this is very much not the case... WP:OCEGRS is about 'trivial intersections' and gives musicians and sportspeople as example, it does not sate that *all* intersections with religion are trivial! Quite the contrary: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". I would argue that the religion of a monarch has historically been very relevant. I am even more surprised we are doing blanket deletions based on discussions where four to five editors participate, and then use that as a precedent for 'technical' deletions further down the line. This is matter for a wider WP:RFC, not for a couple of editors who happen to stumble upon these discussions to decide. Constantine  ✍  11:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cplakidas, In general, categorisation matters are decided at CfD, not through an RfC.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1679418415038:WikipediaFTTCLNCategories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_13" class="FTTCmt"> — Qwerfjkl  talk  17:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no doubt some monarchs in whose career their personal religion mattered a lot, but it should not be assumed to be relevant by default, as the inclusion of broad categories such as Category:6th-century Frankish kings does. Religion often appears to have been used by various monarchs as a tool to attain certain political goals on Earth that have little to do with the supernatural. Cuius regio, eius religio is a typical example of that: a German prince could decide what religion his subjects must believe in, and thus adopting Lutheranism instead of Catholicism allowed him to be more independent of the Pope and the Emperor. Meanwhile, the 'Catholic' French kings were quite happy to ally themselves with the 'heretical' Lutheran German princes for political and territorial gain during the Wars of the Reformation. Religion is often quite simply WP:NONDEFINING for who a monarch was or what they did, so unless WP:RS say otherwise, WP:OCEGRS applies. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: 'Defender of the Faith' and similar titles have also been used by various monarchs to assure that religious minorities in their countries will be protected from any harm that may come to them. Various Ottoman sultans have sworn to protect the Christians within their empire. Charles III recently made various statements to the same effect. Such an attitude, or even policy, is more one of oecumenism than adherence to a particular faith, thus again defying categorisation. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Charles III's ecumenical notions are very much a modern phenomenon for an anointed sovereign, and notable precisely because they reinterpret in a 21st-century inclusive way a medieval title with very clear connotations of non-toleration. Claiming that historically this has been the case is wrong, plain and simple. The title was granted by the Pope for the defence of Roman Church doctrine, and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 has clarified which faith is to be defended: 'a significant alteration was the explicit inclusion of an oath to maintain "the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law"'. Constantine  ✍  09:16, 7 April 2023 (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.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * withdraw Category:Monarchs by religion until the subcategories have been handled bottom up; Delete the rest as nominated.
 * Oppose deletion of, but upmerge that one to as SMALLCAT. No objection to deletion of Kievan khagans; the three member pages are already within Christian or Orthodox monarchs, and within Category:Grand Princes of Kiev, so it does not seem an important category. Oppose Category:Monarchs by religion as an appropriate parent. If there is no consensus to delete the Zoroastrian category, shouldn't it be renamed to Category:Zoroastrian monarchs? – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:Estonian cabinetmakers
<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: merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Estonian cabinetmakers to Category:Cabinetmakers
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge


 * 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:Renaissance Revival architecture in Estonia
<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: merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Renaissance Revival architecture in Estonia to Category:Renaissance Revival architecture
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge


 * 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:Horse racing venues in Estonia
<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: merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Horse racing venues in Estonia to Category:Horse racing venues and Category:Horse racing in Estonia (Category:Equestrian sports in Estonia)
 * Propose merging Category:Horse racing venues in Finland to Category:Horse racing venues and Category:Horse racing in Finland
 * Propose merging Category:Horse racing venues in Hungary to Category:Horse racing venues and Category:Horse racing in Hungary
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge


 * 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:Buildings and structures in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
<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: merge to Category:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to Category:Buildings and structures in Western Sahara
 * Nominator's rationale: The small category, contains only one page. Why not to merge into existing Category:Buildings and structures in Western Sahara? Skovl (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge, but to Category:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. It is not clear whether there is a building involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per Marcocapelle.


 * 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:Society of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 2%23Category:Society of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

Category:Estonian Eurodance groups
<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: merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Estonian Eurodance groups to Category:Eurodance groups and Category:Estonian electronic music groups
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge Per nom. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:First ladies of Honduras
<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: speedy renamed. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:First ladies of Honduras to Category:First ladies and gentlemen of Honduras
 * Nominator's rationale: Now, even in Honduras, a female president's male spouse has appeared. The category title must also be changed. Sangjinhwa (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Two things to note here. Firstly, this is an entirely uncontroversial issue with a clear explanation — it's no longer just theoretically possible that a male spouse of a female president of Honduras might happen in the indeterminate future, but is now a present reality — so this didn't need to come to CFR for a week of discussion, and could have been handled as a speedy. And secondly, the very next thing the nominator did after listing this for renaming was to preemptively move all of the articles into the proposed new category before the proposed new category actually existed, which is not the proper renaming process: even if the category name is wrong and needs renaming, articles still have to stay in the wrongly-named category until such time as the correctly-renamed category actually exists, and articles may never be preemptively moved into a redlinked category pending a future renaming that hasn't already happened yet. But since there was no compelling reason to move all of the articles back to the old category pending an uncontroversial rename that didn't need seven days of discussion, only to be moved back into the new category again next Tuesday, I've just gone ahead and moved the category. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


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

Bulgarian emperors
<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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:10th-century Bulgarian emperors to Category:10th-century Bulgarian tsars
 * Propose renaming Category:11th-century Bulgarian emperors to Category:11th-century Bulgarian tsars
 * Propose renaming Category:12th-century Bulgarian emperors to Category:12th-century Bulgarian tsars
 * Propose renaming Category:13th-century Bulgarian emperors to Category:13th-century Bulgarian tsars
 * Propose renaming Category:14th-century Bulgarian emperors to Category:14th-century Bulgarian tsars
 * Propose renaming Category:15th-century Bulgarian emperors to Category:15th-century Bulgarian tsars
 * Nominator's rationale: rename, the Bulgarian monarchs were called tsar which has become a proper English-language word. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename as nominated.
 * Support per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


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

Bulgarian monarchs
<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: merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:10th-century Bulgarian monarchs to to Category:Monarchs of the First Bulgarian Empire, Category:10th-century Bulgarian people and Category:10th-century monarchs in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:11th-century Bulgarian monarchs to Category:Monarchs of the First Bulgarian Empire, Category:11th-century Bulgarian people and Category:11th-century monarchs in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:12th-century Bulgarian monarchs to Category:Monarchs of the Second Bulgarian Empire, Category:12th-century Bulgarian people and Category:12th-century monarchs in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:13th-century Bulgarian monarchs to Category:Monarchs of the Second Bulgarian Empire, Category:13th-century Bulgarian people and Category:13th-century monarchs in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:14th-century Bulgarian monarchs to Category:Monarchs of the Second Bulgarian Empire, Category:14th-century Bulgarian people and Category:14th-century monarchs in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:15th-century Bulgarian monarchs to Category:Monarchs of the Second Bulgarian Empire, Category:15th-century Bulgarian people and Category:15th-century monarchs in Europe
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with mostly just one emperors subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge redundant layer.
 * Support per nom. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:Sportspeople by ethnic or national descent
<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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting category
 * Propose deleting sportspeople by continent and ethnic or national descent
 * Propose deleting sportspeople by country of descent by continent
 * Propose deleting sportspeople by region of descent
 * Nominator's rationale: Category naming does not provide for by region encapsulating by country, nor does Categorization of people provide for by region or by continent encapsulating by nationality and occupation. WP:COP-HERITAGE Categories that intersect heritage with occupation, residence, or other such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right....


 * Summary: Trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality. These are not harmless as these "regional" subcategories are also a proxy for race, and are understood that way. Continuing removals after categories were emptied by previous discussions.


 * Followup to:
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 14
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 8
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 8
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 1
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 27
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 24
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 12
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial intersection between occupation and ancestors' nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:TRIVIAL and WP:OCEGRS. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:Sportspeople by continent and ethnic or national descent, Category:Sportspeople by country of descent by continent and Category:Sportspeople by region of descent are now empty. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, because #1 African descent just completed. Logging cleanup.


 * Delete per previous discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


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