- 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) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category subject page deleted. Also was created by a banned or blocked user. Shadess ( talk) 21:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 since the creator ( Mir Alexander) is a confirmed sock of JRM2018. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:40, 2 April 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 25#Azerbaijani descent
- 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) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: As per parent cats Gjs238 ( talk) 19:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note both of these categories are modeled after
Category:African Americans in the American Revolution and
Category:African Americans in the American Civil War. I don't see the usefulness in limiting them to including only military personnel and note regiments or other related topics.--
User:Namiba
19:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If the point is to be more broad, then a subcategory should be created explicitly for military personnel. American black history during WWII wasn't limited to military service. - Indy beetle ( talk) 08:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This category would exclude Rosie the Riveter. African-American contributions to the war effort include people who were not in the military, be they builder of the weapons and other things needed, USO performers, non-military nurses who helped treat the wounded, people working on the Manhattan Project, some of The female mathematicians, or "computers" at the predecessor of NASA, and the list goes on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, due to consistency with other African American war categorises and since the category also contains non-people, such as several units like 92nd Infantry Division (United States).-- Mvqr ( talk) 10:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Presumably the solution here is to create
Category:African American military personnel of World War II as a subcategory of
Category:African Americans in World War II.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree
Gjs238 (
talk)
01:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @
Gjs238: procedural question: does this mean you withdraw these two nominations?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Gjs238 ( talk) 14:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @
Gjs238: procedural question: does this mean you withdraw these two nominations?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree
Gjs238 (
talk)
01:54, 10 April 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.
- 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) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: As per parent cats Gjs238 ( talk) 19:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comment on the WWII category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:44, 4 April 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.
- 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)
Qwerfjkl
talk
16:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Propose merging Category:Daughters of monarchs to Category:PrincessesPropose merging Category:Sons of monarchs to Category:Princes- Propose merging Category:Daughters of British monarchs to Category:British princesses
- Propose merging Category:Sons of British monarchs to Category:British princes
- Propose merging Category:Daughters of English monarchs to Category:English princesses
- Propose merging Category:Daughters of Japanese emperors to Category:Japanese princesses
- Propose renaming Category:Daughters of Ottoman sultans to Category:Ottoman princesses
- Propose merging Category:Sons of Ottoman sultans to Category:Ottoman princes
- Propose merging Category:Daughters of kings of Saudi Arabia to Category:Saudi Arabian princesses
- Propose merging Category:Sons of kings of Saudi Arabia to Category:Saudi Arabian princes
- Propose merging Category:Sons of Thai monarchs to Category:Thai princes
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, this is an unnecessary fork. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support generally but a Japanese imperial daughter has recently ceased to be royal through marriage to a commoner; and Category:Princes is slightly ambiguous as the ruler of Monaco is a Prince: possibly keep in that case. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose since prince and princess are not exactly synonymous with being the children of a monarch. For instance, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie are not the daughters of a monarch, but rather the granddaughters of one. Векочел ( talk) 22:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not exactly synonymous is correct, they are close enough that a distinction is not helpful at all. They are all royalty, women, and not the spouse of a monarch. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Where would Category:Sons of emperors and Category:Daughters of emperors fit in this discussion? 67.173.23.66 ( talk) 05:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- If the merge goes ahead they will have Category:Princesses and Category:Princes as their immediate parents which is perfectly fine. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Category:Daughters of monarchs as above and because the daughters of Roman monarchs are not described as princesses (if anything it was wives). Although "close enough" may well be a reason for leaving things alone I don't think it justifies a change in categorisation towards being less descriptive. Princess covers all sorts of shapes and sizes of folk. I haven't looked at the other nominations because there is far too much unnecessary churn in categorisations to take time over. Thincat ( talk) 09:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support On second thought, this does appear to be a fork. As for recategorising Category:Sons of monarchs and Category:Daughters of monarchs, these can simply be placed under Category:Children of monarchs, and it's perfectly acceptable for one category to contain hundreds of pages (many of them already do). Векочел ( talk) 03:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- (as nom) Ok I notice there are some valid objections against merging the top categories right now, so I will strike these. The objections do not apply to the above country subcategories though because, e.g., the United Kingdom is a monarchy with princes and princesses to begin with. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:02, 14 April 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Category:American award winners
- 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 15:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This goes with
Category:American physiologist stub. Per
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#US-physiologist-stub / American physiologist stub, this template/category pair was created without prior approval, and the category is also misnamed - it should have been
Category:American physiologist stubs if approved (see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming conventions#Stub categories). The cat has only four member articles, rather than the 60 that we ask for; and despite asking for more, five weeks later there has been no suggestion of further potential candiates for this stub template.
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
09:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. This is the quintessential reason about why it's the best idea to go through WP:WPSS/P before creating stub cats. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:22, 2 April 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.
- 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) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category subject page deleted. Also was created by a banned or blocked user. Shadess ( talk) 21:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 since the creator ( Mir Alexander) is a confirmed sock of JRM2018. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:40, 2 April 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 25#Azerbaijani descent
- 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) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: As per parent cats Gjs238 ( talk) 19:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note both of these categories are modeled after
Category:African Americans in the American Revolution and
Category:African Americans in the American Civil War. I don't see the usefulness in limiting them to including only military personnel and note regiments or other related topics.--
User:Namiba
19:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If the point is to be more broad, then a subcategory should be created explicitly for military personnel. American black history during WWII wasn't limited to military service. - Indy beetle ( talk) 08:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This category would exclude Rosie the Riveter. African-American contributions to the war effort include people who were not in the military, be they builder of the weapons and other things needed, USO performers, non-military nurses who helped treat the wounded, people working on the Manhattan Project, some of The female mathematicians, or "computers" at the predecessor of NASA, and the list goes on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, due to consistency with other African American war categorises and since the category also contains non-people, such as several units like 92nd Infantry Division (United States).-- Mvqr ( talk) 10:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Presumably the solution here is to create
Category:African American military personnel of World War II as a subcategory of
Category:African Americans in World War II.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree
Gjs238 (
talk)
01:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @
Gjs238: procedural question: does this mean you withdraw these two nominations?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Gjs238 ( talk) 14:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @
Gjs238: procedural question: does this mean you withdraw these two nominations?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree
Gjs238 (
talk)
01:54, 10 April 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.
- 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) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: As per parent cats Gjs238 ( talk) 19:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comment on the WWII category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:44, 4 April 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.
- 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)
Qwerfjkl
talk
16:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Propose merging Category:Daughters of monarchs to Category:PrincessesPropose merging Category:Sons of monarchs to Category:Princes- Propose merging Category:Daughters of British monarchs to Category:British princesses
- Propose merging Category:Sons of British monarchs to Category:British princes
- Propose merging Category:Daughters of English monarchs to Category:English princesses
- Propose merging Category:Daughters of Japanese emperors to Category:Japanese princesses
- Propose renaming Category:Daughters of Ottoman sultans to Category:Ottoman princesses
- Propose merging Category:Sons of Ottoman sultans to Category:Ottoman princes
- Propose merging Category:Daughters of kings of Saudi Arabia to Category:Saudi Arabian princesses
- Propose merging Category:Sons of kings of Saudi Arabia to Category:Saudi Arabian princes
- Propose merging Category:Sons of Thai monarchs to Category:Thai princes
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, this is an unnecessary fork. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support generally but a Japanese imperial daughter has recently ceased to be royal through marriage to a commoner; and Category:Princes is slightly ambiguous as the ruler of Monaco is a Prince: possibly keep in that case. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose since prince and princess are not exactly synonymous with being the children of a monarch. For instance, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie are not the daughters of a monarch, but rather the granddaughters of one. Векочел ( talk) 22:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not exactly synonymous is correct, they are close enough that a distinction is not helpful at all. They are all royalty, women, and not the spouse of a monarch. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Where would Category:Sons of emperors and Category:Daughters of emperors fit in this discussion? 67.173.23.66 ( talk) 05:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- If the merge goes ahead they will have Category:Princesses and Category:Princes as their immediate parents which is perfectly fine. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Category:Daughters of monarchs as above and because the daughters of Roman monarchs are not described as princesses (if anything it was wives). Although "close enough" may well be a reason for leaving things alone I don't think it justifies a change in categorisation towards being less descriptive. Princess covers all sorts of shapes and sizes of folk. I haven't looked at the other nominations because there is far too much unnecessary churn in categorisations to take time over. Thincat ( talk) 09:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support On second thought, this does appear to be a fork. As for recategorising Category:Sons of monarchs and Category:Daughters of monarchs, these can simply be placed under Category:Children of monarchs, and it's perfectly acceptable for one category to contain hundreds of pages (many of them already do). Векочел ( talk) 03:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- (as nom) Ok I notice there are some valid objections against merging the top categories right now, so I will strike these. The objections do not apply to the above country subcategories though because, e.g., the United Kingdom is a monarchy with princes and princesses to begin with. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:02, 14 April 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 10#Category:American award winners
- 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 15:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This goes with
Category:American physiologist stub. Per
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#US-physiologist-stub / American physiologist stub, this template/category pair was created without prior approval, and the category is also misnamed - it should have been
Category:American physiologist stubs if approved (see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming conventions#Stub categories). The cat has only four member articles, rather than the 60 that we ask for; and despite asking for more, five weeks later there has been no suggestion of further potential candiates for this stub template.
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
09:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. This is the quintessential reason about why it's the best idea to go through WP:WPSS/P before creating stub cats. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:22, 2 April 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.