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: has already been deleted Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fandoms a better! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Pointless category, serving no purpose Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. (There are currently no organizations or events in these categories.) – Fayenatic London 06:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People involved in anti-Protestantism to Category:Anti-Protestants
• Propose renaming Category:People involved in anti-Catholicism to Category:Anti-Catholics added 21 March
• Propose renaming Category:People involved in anti-clericalism to Category:Anti-clericalists added 21 March

Nominator's rationale: Simpler, clearer and more concise. 'People involved in anti-Protestantism' can include victims or scholars of anti-Protestantism as well as its adherents. DrKay (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I took the liberty to add two similar categories to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first two per the 2011 bias categories discussion. No opinion on the anti-clericalism one. gnu57 21:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first two per long-standing consensus. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if Category:People involved in anti-Catholicism is not kept, its subcategories should be re-parented to Category:Anti-Catholicism. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:People involved in anti-Catholicism to Category:Anti-Catholic activists. Rename the others similarly. The suggested names seem to reflect ones opinions, which we do not categorize, versus their actions, which we do. If they're notable for anti-Catholicism/Protestantism/Clericialism, it is their activism which makes that a notable feature, not their opinion.--User:Namiba 14:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first two per the 2011 consensus. Note that Category:Anti-Catholic activists (created yesterday while this discussion was ongoing) suffers the similar bias. I don't know how "activist" would better define someone's actions, especially if it mostly serves to categorize entire organizations (Know Nothings and Ku Klux Klan) which among many other positions were hostile towards Catholics (rather than Catholicism as a faith). Place Clichy (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ku Klux Klan and Know-Nothings were both openly hostile to Catholicism. They claimed no hostility toward individual Catholics, so you have that in reverse.--User:Namiba 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this hostility was about religious matters, but instead to the population, e.g. Irish and Italians, which they felt was of a lower standard. I'm not sure that this hostility extended to other largely Catholic populations like French Canadians or Germans. It was therefore a proxy for racism and had little to do with religion. Place Clichy (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a published historian of the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan claimed problems with the Catholic Church, not Catholic populations. Of course, its actions proved that these issues were inseparable, but this was a core component of the group's rhetoric. The Klan, in New England in particular, did target French-Canadians. Mark Richard has written extensively on this. Klansmen can and should be properly categorized as anti-Catholic. The organization specifically prohibited Catholics from joining and its actions often targeted the Catholic Church and Catholic populations.--User:Namiba 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then the organization should be categorized as an anti-Catholic organization, but I do not think that the category for all its members should be in anti-Catholic activists, or any member if they did not lynch or brand a Catholic themselves or publish a hatred document or do anything significant of the kind on a personal basis. It's a bit like labelling any post-2016 British Conservative politician or member as a Brexit activist because of their mandatory support of the party manifesto while it is quite well known that many had contrasted views (euphemism). Place Clichy (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge, Merge, then Delete all people from these categories per WP:OPINIONCAT; if there are organizations or events that remain probably belong in Category:Anti-Catholicism and Category:Anti-Protestantism and the nominated categories can be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Looking over Category:Antireligion. it doesn't look like we categorise this way. And that aside, what's an Anti-Catholic, Anti-Protestant, Anti-clericalist, etc? Sounds like we are applying labels and are in WP:OR/WP:NEOLOGISM territory here. - jc37 20:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well anti-clericalism was a defined phenomenon in France from 1789 well into the 20th-century, it existed in Mexico especially in the 1920s, but in some ways from the 1860s if not earlier. It was very different in both places, in Mexico in some ways it manifested in banning foriegn clerics, but in France that was never a part of it. It is clearly not a neologism. The fact that Catholics and Protestants burned each other at the stake over religious issues in the 16th-century is well documented. Mary I killed a punch of protestants and drove and equal number of them to exile in Switzerland, and Elizabeth I had a regime that punished Catholics, although some of this was more political than religious. These are clear phenomenon that really did exist. How easy it is to categorize people under these headings is a different story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While these things clearly exist, I do not think it is easy enough to come down with a straight up or down categorization. We would think that executioners for Queen Mary I were involved with anti-Protestantism, but to say that they were anti-Protestant would not be clear, they were just doing as taught. I also think the tendency to group together people engaged in largely political and in religious debates is going to conflate unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unhelpful bias categories. (t · c) buidhe 04:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge, Merge, then Delete all people from these categories per WP:OPINIONCAT; if there are organizations or events that remain probably belong in Category:Anti-Catholicism and Category:Anti-Protestantism and the nominated categories can be deleted. Same as Carlossuarez46. --Just N. (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. I cannot amend WP:SUFFIXDASH for articles, but there is a lack of consensus about applying it to list categories, so I believe I must now insert an exception there for such categories.

Just rename the two current outliers from spaced to hyphen:

• Category:FC Goa related lists to Category:FC Goa-related lists
• Category:Kerala Blasters FC related lists to Category:Kerala Blasters FC-related lists

– Fayenatic London 22:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all for speedy because this creates inconsistency with the rest of the Lists tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle The rest of the tree being what? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @1234qwer1234qwer4: I mean all categories in the tree of Category:Lists that have not been nominated, e.g. Category:Geography-related lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which ones in that tree would you liked renamed as well? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would argue either all or none, but that should be part of a full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle For "Africa geography-related lists‎" and similar, I would argue that "related" could be interpreted as only applying to "geography". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I hear what you are saying but I think consistency is more important. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle Okay then, are we moving this to CfD? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is up to you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle I have added a couple requests to harmonise some categories within the current naming scheme; they seem less controversial. Is it okay if I wait until they are closed and move on to move these to CfD after that? Discussing consistently named categories would avoid a lot of confusion and unnecessary case-by-case considerations. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My oppose only applies to nominations on March 13 with MOS:SUFFIXDASH rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marcocapelle I know, it's just that my newly nominated categories would need to be renamed again if we were to follow your argument at 08:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC) in the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Of course it makes perfect sense to wait until the later nominations are closed here at CFDS and then move all to CfD after that. Sorry I overlooked your question yesterday. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all these suffixdash noms, both substantively and as speedy. This is a proposed change to a long-established category naming convention, so it needs a full discussion. Substantively, it seems to me to contravene normal typography. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all these suffixdash noms As error-prone and unecessary. Will complicate categorisation. Delete MOS:SUFFIXDASH instead.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am now moving this to CFD> 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Either these categories should be moved per MOS:SUFFIXDASH, or that guideline should be abolished as suggested in some of the comments. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination only contains a subset of the content of the tree of Category:Lists. Oppose renaming only a subset, it should be all or none. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  By "all" you probably mean "all containing spaces before -related". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, by "all" I mean "all", including e.g. Category:Geography-related lists. Using two different formats in a single tree is utterly confusing, especially with a tiny difference that is easily overlooked. By the way I don't think MOS needs to be changed, this is just an exception to the rule. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not be a fan of that, since it would violate the same cited MOS rule with the other part of the category tree. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, the categories have not been tagged yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle All tagged; also adding Category:FC Goa related lists and Category:Kerala Blasters FC related lists as related to the nomination. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per BHG's comments above. This is standard typography for these categories. GiantSnowman 13:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote, just asking. What actual problem are we trying to solve here? Until that's clarified and a compelling argument made I'd have to Oppose I think. Another reason is that there's a huge list and it's all rather confusing. Can we have an RfC on the general principle instead? I'm not even sure I'm writing in the correct place or that I've seen all the arguments. But anyway "consistency pleases me" is not a compelling argument, nor is "we do it this way, but some rule that 7 people made in 2004 says not to, so let's not". Rules are supposed codify practice. Are the readers being confused? Are editors being confused? Are people fighting over this? If not leave it alone maybe. Herostratus (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Herostratus I understand SUFFIXDASH like this: If you use a hyphen, something like foo bar-related is to be parsed as "(foo) (bar-related)": For example, "New Mexico-related lists" would be new lists concerning Mexico. With a dash, multiple words are to be interpreted as pertaining to the suffix ("-related"). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see. Thank you, [[User:1234qwer1234qwer4. Well, this wasn't obvious to me. Makes sense, so I struck my vote, but I'd still much see rather an RfC at say WP:MOS to get more people weighing in, but fine. Unlike text in the middle of articles, readers occassionaly type in category names I suppose, but using a dash correction: hyphen will still take them to the right category, I believe and assume? If so I don't see a problem with the change. Herostratus (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Herostratus "using a dash will still take them to the right category": You mean a hyphen? Well, normally yes, but category redirects are usually created by a bot to categories with common non-ASCII symbols like endashes (I think), just in case anybody uses the URL bar or such. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, I meant hyphen, corrected. You mean the Wikipedia search bar? I'm sure that people do use that for categories sometimes, and of course they type the dash. Well as long as the bot makes sure to they go to the right place. (BTW I'm sure some editors will use the hyphen when creating new categories, but I suppose a bot will also correct that?) Herostratus (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Herostratus "of course they type the dash": Well, often, they will actually use the hyphen, but as I said, that is resolved by bot-created category redirects, or just the search suggestions. When creating new categories, editors will need to use a dash though. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:1234qwer1234qwer4, they will? I don't even know how to make a hyphen on my keyboard (and I've been around the track!). But fine, bot. But I think that some editors will use the dash when creating category names -- few, because most categories don't need a hyphen, and most category creators are experienced enough to suss the rule; but not zero. So maybe a bot should be requested to check for that every now and then? There's one that does it in article text I believe. Herostratus (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Herostratus I guess I should have said "hyphen-minus": It is the symbol most people will find on their keyboards, ⟨-⟩. There is no bot that fixes dashes in articles afaik, though there might be one, but mostly for other rules like MOS:RANGE, not for SUFFIXDASH. It would be very unlikely for a bot like this to pass, per WP:CONTEXTBOT. If this CfD is closed as rename to the dash versions, nominating new pages for WP:CFDS will be easy. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – There's no reason that our style in category names should be any different from what we do in the body of articles per MOS:SUFFIXDASH. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt proposal I think a better way to name these categories, and avoid the whole hyphen variation issue, is to start to use the form "Lists about foo" instead. The longer and more compound the topic gets, the less readable and idiomatic the current form becomes. The current arrangement works fine for non compound names, such as Category:Geography-related lists, but compare Category:British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies-related lists to Category:Lists about British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies for example. We already use a similar approach elsewhere, for example Category:Films by topic. SFB 15:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sillyfolkboy: This makes sense, though I'm not sure we should keep the current naming for "short" category names if we rename most of the tree as you proposed. It's better to be consistent IMO. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @1234qwer1234qwer4: Yes exactly, I'm suggesting a complete change over rather than a mixed approach. To be honest this is one of those things where the existing problem is a minor one and the amount of effort to change is quite high. Similarly, there are lots of categories in the style of "Fooian" that would be better in a different style, but the category system design makes changing these kinds of things more complex than technically necessary. We really should be looking to transfer the categories to a Wikidata item, and naming can be changed with a simple edit there. SFB 16:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well... but if the reader is searching on (say) categories containing articles about ships (which I'm sure happens some), she's going to search on "category:ships"; that would bring up "Category:Ship-related lists" but not "Category:Lists about ships". (And I assume most people by far want categories based on a topic rather than collections of lists about assorted topics.) I think that's a deal-killer, altho I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sillyfolkboy: "Lists about foo" is initially tempting, but not for long. It is a significant narrowing of scope, which would break most of our categories.
    I could live with "Lists related to Foo", which would have the same scope as "Foo-related lists" ... but Herostratus is woukd be a little less usable.
    This whole issue seems to be a set of flawed solutions in search of a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+Oppose absent any evidence anybody has actually been confused by any of these, it is just a theoretical problem that we don't need to solve, and per BHG. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf What is your opinion on the cited MOS guideline in general? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, it's a fine solution for a problem that doesn't exist in the real world. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to comply with the MOS:SUFFIXDASH guideline and per WP:C2A, WP:C2B, WP:C2D. This could and should have been speedied. And CfD doesn't undo MoS (or any other) guidelines. CfD is a procedural tail of internal maintenance nit-picking, and it does not wag the content dog. That's why C2D exists and it doesn't work the other way around, with articles being moved to agree with category names. Anyone with a wild hare up their butt about small horizontal lines yet again (as if we weren't all already very tired of this "never give up, never surrender" style-warrior crap) can open a proposal at WT:MOS to change SUFFIXDASH. Good luck with that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it is irritating when noms which comply with speedy conditions are not speedied. Oculi (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Especially for "abolitionist" rhetorical grandstanding against site-wide guidelines someone is peeved about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because I think the MOS guideline is wrong. That looks like bad grammar to me. – PeeJay 15:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discuss the MOS guideline, not this, then. Please read SMcCandlish's reply above. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the closing admin disagrees with my rationale, they are free to ignore it, but this is my opinion and I will resist attempts to implement MOS guidelines that I perceive to be wrong. – PeeJay 17:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ottoman bishops to Category:Catholic bishops in the Ottoman Empire

Nominator's rationale: The bishops were not "Ottomans". They were of different nationalities. They served their episcopate within the bounds of the Ottoman Empire. Some were Roman Catholic, others Eastern Catholic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all Catholic – Ignatius Abded Aloho II was head of the Syriac Orthodox Church, an Oriental Orthodox church. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename to Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire, combining the two previous comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire. This is only a geographical parent category. It should be containerised eventually. Rathfelder (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Can support alt also. Meantime, I have boldly created Category:Oriental Orthodox bishops in the Ottoman Empire and transferred the dozen Oriental Orthodox bishops to it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire. There should be Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Assyrian, Armenia, and probably a few more subcats, according to millet (denomination). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PK is probably correct. Just to note that in the current cat, there are no Greek Orthodox, or Armenian bishops. That's not to say that they are not out there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire. There is a substantial number of articles that could be included in this category so I see no reason to limit it solely to Catholic clergy. Mugsalot (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire. The Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were Ottoman subjects for centuries. Dimadick (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire. We have articles like Egidio Quinto, who served in 2 dioceses in the Ottoman Empire, but we have nothing currently in the article about where he was born or raised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support. Ottoman bishops is too ambiguous to be a useful category. Rathfelder (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire. Constantine ✍ 11:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire, per the above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:Bishops in the Ottoman Empire, per the above. Oculi (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. It seems that everyone agrees that the current names are not appropriate, so a renomination may be the best thing to advise here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Military operations of the Iraqi Civil War in 2013 to Category:Military operations of the War in Iraq in 2013
• Propose renaming Category:Military operations of the Iraqi Civil War in 2014 to Category:Military operations of the War in Iraq in 2014
• Propose renaming Category:Military operations of the Iraqi Civil War in 2015 to Category:Military operations of the War in Iraq in 2015
• Propose renaming Category:Military operations of the Iraqi Civil War in 2016 to Category:Military operations of the War in Iraq in 2016
• Propose renaming Category:Military operations of the Iraqi Civil War in 2017 to Category:Military operations of the War in Iraq in 2017
• Propose renaming Category:2014 in the Iraqi Civil War to Category:2014 in the War in Iraq
• Propose renaming Category:2015 in the Iraqi Civil War to Category:2015 in the War in Iraq
• Propose renaming Category:2016 in the Iraqi Civil War to Category:2016 in the War in Iraq
• Propose renaming Category:2017 in the Iraqi Civil War to Category:2017 in the War in Iraq

Nominator's rationale: The rest of the hierarchy has been renamed Category:War in Iraq (2013–2017) to match the lead article. These nine were also proposed for speedy renaming, but Armbrust opposed the short names on the basis that

these should be renamed to use "War in Iraq (2013–2017)" instead of just "War in Iraq" (which redirects to Iraq War).

Place Clichy countered that

There was no other War in Iraq in either 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017 so the article's disambiguator is not only redundant and useless, it would be misleading.

However, William Allen Simpson also opposed with a different suggestion:

agree that there has been more than one war in Iraq, so qualifying by year is useful. However, it should be "yyyy of the War in Iraq (2013–2017)", for each year of a multi-year war.

(That discussion is archived at Category talk:Military operations of the Iraqi Civil War in 2017.) So, a full discussion is required. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Another option would be to rename all yearly categories of the several forms of the Iraqi conflict since 2003 as 20XY in the Iraqi conflict, per Iraqi conflict (2003–present). Place Clichy (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• UpMerge Category:War in Iraq (2013–2017) by year and subcats to Category:War in Iraq (2013–2017) and Category:Military operations of the War in Iraq (2013–2017) by year and subcats to Category:Military operations of the War in Iraq (2013–2017). Looking at these (and the very few similar cats), they probably should not be split by individual year. - jc37 00:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Asia to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Asia by diocese

Nominator's rationale: To match Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by continent and diocese - that is what the category contains. Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support without prejudice as to its later re-creation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - there are stubs as well which are not 'by diocese'. By all means create a 'by diocese' subcat scheme; someone might wish to create Category:21st century Roman Catholic archbishops in Asia. Oculi (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As author I have put this to speedy. Rathfelder (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author is Laurel Lodged. And the stubs are still not by diocese. Oculi (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg your pardon. My mistake. Rathfelder (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a container for 6 sub-cats and a large stub category. I do not see why we need to add "by diocese". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is part of efforts to differentiate bishops by location of diocese from categorisation by nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw this. The parent is Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by continent. Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Asia by diocese could be a subcategory if necessary. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete WP:G7.– Fayenatic London 00:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2001 establishments in Andhra Prades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It's just a {{Category redirect}} to Category:2001 establishments in Andhra Pradesh, from a typo. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl Shouldn't category redirects be nominated to RfD per Wikipedia:Soft redirect#Deletion? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰: When I have discussed them in the past, it was at CFD. I am not aware of any change in policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl Are you sure the past nominations were checked against policy? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰: CFD is where it will be seen by the editors who understand categories. I just want this gone, and don't see what you are trying to achieve by making that task difficult. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This can be speedily deleted as WP:G6. I see no usefulness in keeping it, unlike WP:Category redirects that should be kept. I was about to close this speedily, but editors may want to discuss the process further. Normally I would suggest that the creator of the page be asked to consent to deletion under WP:G7. However, in some cases co-operation may not be expected. In this case the page's creator was re-populating the category on the day that it had been due for deletion as empty,[1] despite initially emptying it shortly after creating it.[2] CFD is the usual venue for resolving such matters. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Category redirects can be discussed perfectly well at CfD, imho, but if any guideline says otherwise I will defer. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Soft redirects should certainly be kept where they are credible search terms, but this is the result of a typo. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is totally the result of a typo on my part. It is not in any way a variation that is likely to actually happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this typo is unlikely, and yes anything in category space gets discussed here - we have routinely handled articles (usually lists) created in category space and they don't go to AFD, they get handled here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 for whether it should be sport or sports. Adding category redirect to the red-linked one for now. - jc37 15:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Washington, D.C. sport-related lists to Category:Washington, D.C. sports-related lists

Nominator's rationale: This was moved per my nomination at WP:CFDS, but it appears that members of Category:American sports-related lists by state use "sports". According to another user in an off-wiki discussion, this might be an WP:ENGVAR difference, so this category might need to be moved back instead of moving Category:American sports-related lists by state and all members to "sport". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as nominated. The removal of "sport-related lists" is no help to anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @BrownHairedGirl bruh 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WTF is that "bruh" all about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @BrownHairedGirl About my very weird error. Fixed it now. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - it's Category:Sport-related lists and Category:United States sport-related lists so I don't see why it should become 'sports' at state level. Oculi (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oculi So alt rename all the other American sports-related lists by state per C2C? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, Category:United States sport-related lists should be consistent throughout, either by changing all 'sport' to 'sports' (a few), or vice versa (lots). There is some ENGVAR issue so I would defer to a US view. Oculi (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with making this consistent throughout the American tree. Although I am not American I think American-English mostly uses "sports". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever, but redirect. I have no preference on whether to use "sport-related" or "sports-related" ... but whichever is used, please ensure that there is a {{category redirect}} from the other variant. That way, readers and editors don't need to know which one is in use here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops by diocese in Australia to Category:Archbishops in Australia by diocese
• Propose renaming Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Australia to Category:Anglican archbishops in Australia by diocese
• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops by diocese in Australia to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Australia by diocese
• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Canada to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Canada by diocese
• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in India to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in India by diocese
• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in France to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in France by diocese
• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Germany to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Germany by diocese
• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Poland to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Poland by diocese
• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Spain to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Spain by diocese
• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in the United Kingdom to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in the United Kingdom by diocese
• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in the United States to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in the United States by diocese

Nominator's rationale: The form of the parent category is Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in France so this name should follow the parental form. The additional information (the "by diocese" splitter) should be at the end of the title. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree that subcat schemes should have 'by foo' at the end (although this is just a start if LL intends to remedy all such occurrences). Oculi (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• For goodness sake, merge these nominations. Same rational and same issue on 9 separate nominations is a nuisance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I support all these nominations of archbishop categories in the name of consistency. Rathfelder (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support- makes good sense JarrahTree 13:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The parent category is "in Oceania" rather than "in Australia". Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Nom corrected now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops again! Links on category pages corrected now. – Fayenatic London 08:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support clearer scope. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Billboard Hot Latin Songs number-one singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Part of phasing out categories for number-one songs.

Also proposing deletion of the following categories as they subcharts of the main category.:

• Billboard Hot Latin Songs number-one singles of the year
• Billboard Regional Mexican Songs number-one singles
• Billboard Tropical Songs number-one singles
• Billboard Latin Rhythm Airplay number-one singles Erick (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The reference is to this Cfd from January of this year. I tagged the other four categories, so this discussion should probably not end any earlier than 7 days from the time stamp after my signature →. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And by the way, since I didn't clearly state it, I agree with the proposal to delete these categories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining based on clicking through some articles. -RevelationDirect (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Birmingham to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Birmingham
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Cardiff to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Cardiff
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Glasgow to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Glasgow
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Liverpool (Roman Catholic) to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Liverpool
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of St. Andrews and Edinburgh to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of St. Andrews and Edinburgh
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Westminster to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Westminster
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Winnipeg to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Winnipeg
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Vancouver to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Vancouver
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Toronto to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Toronto
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Quebec to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Quebec
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Montreal to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Montreal
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Dubuque to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Dubuque
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Baltimore to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Baltimore
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Chicago to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Chicago
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Cincinnati to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Cincinnati
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Denver to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Denver
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Washington to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Washington
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Seattle to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Seattle
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of San Antonio to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of San Antonio
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Saint Paul and Minneapolis to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of St. Louis to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of St. Louis
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Portland in Oregon to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Portland in Oregon
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Philadelphia to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Philadelphia
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Omaha to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Omaha
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Oklahoma City to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Oklahoma City
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Newark to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Newark
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Milwaukee to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Milwaukee
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Miami to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Miami
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Los Angeles to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Los Angeles
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Kansas City in Kansas to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Kansas City in Kansas
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Indianapolis to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Indianapolis
• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of Galveston–Houston to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Galveston–Houston

Nominator's rationale: Per form of all other Roman Catholic diocese and bishop categories. Whatever about the correctness of the form, for the sake of consistency the form ought to be followed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but the nomination should include the other archdioceses in the US, and they are numerous, for which this is also the case. Farragutful (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. There are Anglican archbishops as well. Oculi (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all English cases. In setting up a hierarchy the Catholics were careful not to use Anglican sees, so that there is no ambiguity. Birmingham and Liverpool also have an Anglican bishop (not archbishop) so there is no confusion. Where there is a Church of Canada or American episcopal archbishop with the same title Category:Catholic archbishops of Winnipeg would be ample (I have not investigated whether there is ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This notion is a bit cryptic for the lay reader. Between two evils (?), either (A) considering that Archbishop of Birmingham implies Catholic relying on prior user user knowledge or (B) mentioning Roman Catholic archbishops of Birmingham for additional clarity even if some would find that redundant, (B) clearly seems to be the safer option. Also, there are plenty of other churches in the UK besides the Latin Church and Anglicans: we should probably not take for granted that Copts, Assyrians, Lutherans, Hussites, Jehovah witnesses, Raelians or any other organization would not place an archbishop in any of the above cities. Place Clichy (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is ambiguity in the UK. Bishop of Beverley is a Roman Catholic title and also an Anglo-Catholic title; at present John Hine is Catholic and Glyn Webster is Anglican. And so Category:Bishops of Beverley has gathered together disparate bishops. This would be avoided if the usual rules of category names were properly followed. Oculi (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the main article is at Catholic Church I think these should use Catholic archbishops of Philadelphia for overall consistency. That title was achieved based on the principals of common name and with a discussion at the article, which is where we can expect the most relevant expertise. That said the article in question is at Roman Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia. Confusion between Catholic/Episcopal dioceses in the US is avoided in some cases because the former use the city name, and the later often use the state name, sometimes with direction. However we are not thinking broadly enough so far in what I have said Category:Bishops in the United States by denomination has 8 subcategories. Constantine Bohachevsky seems to have been head of the archeperachy of Philadelphia, but he is also called an archbishop. List of bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, does not show any Philadelphia yet, but it does show other cities. The 8 sub-cats I mentioned above is actually too low a number. We also have Category:American Methodist bishops with 5 sub-cats and 85 contents. At that Category:African Methodist Episcopal bishops is actually conflating bishops from at least 2 different denominations (The African Methodist Episcopal Chruch and the different African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church). This is messy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic are useful to differentiate between the dioceses, and the bishops, which can be sometimes seated in the same city. Place Clichy (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The denomination of the bishops are distinguishing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Roman Catholic archbishops by country and diocese. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese and country to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by country and by diocese

Nominator's rationale: The first splitter is "by country" so that should appear first in the title. The next piece of additional information (the "by diocese" splitter) should be at the end of the title. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt rename to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by country and diocese, we never duplicate "by" in cases like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grand so. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt rename to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by country and diocese. Diocese should indeed be last. Oculi (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt rename to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by country and diocese per Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Rapid human age change in fiction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rapid human growth change in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: How is this defining? What is rapid human growth change? We don't have any article about this concept nor any similar categories. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a child instantly turning into an adult, or an adult quickly turning back into a child, is a non-defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is my initial reaction. This seems a defining plot element to me. The two stories that came to my mind with such a plotline are in this category already. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quite a defining plot trope, though I find the current title confusing. Some of these characters are rapidly aging, such as in an in-universe version of the soap opera rapid aging syndrome. Others experience rejuvenation. But I do not associate either trope with the term "growth change". Dimadick (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not defining, not a genre, and this category purportedly sweeps in any fiction that has rapid human growth change (whatever that means), and not a single article has WP:RS telling us that it's defining. Even some of the keep arguments cannot quite delimit what is/isn't included. I remember many cartoons where a character ingests too much or inhales helium and "grows"; seems relatively common. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Perhaps it should be renamed Category:Rapid human developmental growth change in fiction, which refers more specifically to the subject of human developmental growth, and therefore would be less confusing than the current title? --Davoniac (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The problem here is shown that we can't even agree on what this is about. TVtropes may be helpful, as I think the intention is to discuss aging tropes. But then again, we have Category:Rapid human age change in fiction. I cannot find anything else that's major, I got bigger + Increadible shrinking man? I cannot find a TVtrope related to 'size change'. But anyway, the current category is ORish in name, and we can't even agree if it is about aging, rejuvination, or just changing size (growing/shrinking). All that said, there may be potential for Category:Rapid human growth or shrinking in fiction, perhaps, but is it defining? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah! Thank you Piotrus, I had not spotted that category. Merge to Category:Rapid human age change in fiction, because I can't see what's meant to be the difference between this and that. We have Category:Fiction about size change for growing/shrinking; "rapid age change" is for child <–> adult story lines. What's more, 10 out of 11 existing members are already in that parent; only Bananaman needs to be added. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: And ah - I didn't notice Category:Fiction about size change, good one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Piotrus: I've now added "see also" links both ways. – Fayenatic London 07:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Davoniac: you made both this and Category:Rapid human age change in fiction; what difference between them did you have in mind? – Fayenatic London 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Fayenatic london: I meant it as being more specific to the situation of a child turning into an adult or an adult turning into a child. "Age change" is more broad and includes situations were an elderly person is rejuvenated to a young adult state or a young adult rapidly ages to old age.--Davoniac (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Davoniac: Thank you for explaining your reasons. I hope you'll take it in the spirit of constructive criticism, but I still don't believe the name of your category is clear (it could also be considered relevant for size change - human to giant, for example; in fact, my first thought of this category was about the size-changing pills in the Alice story...) - plus I am also afraid that drawing the arbitrary border between 'rejuvenation to adult' vs 'rejuvenation to a child' is a hard and the difference is not defining. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Rapid human age change in fiction. If the "growth change" category is causing confusion, then I support merging it into the broader "age change" category. --Davoniac (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 - Though it probably shouldn't have been completely emptied while discussion was ongoing, it sounds (from the discussion) like it had 3 articles and all 3 are currently categorized appropriately elsewhere in the tree. - jc37 15:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dinosaurs of Chile to Category:Dinosaurs of South America

Nominator's rationale: New category, dinosaurs are categorised by continent, as political boundaries didn't apply in the Jurassic. Le Deluge (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only move article Arackar to Category:Dinosaurs of South America, the other two articles are already in a subcategory of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nah, I don't want things to get crowded and too big, and want things organised.--Eotrachodon (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is organized by period instead of by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eotrachodon: I do not understand your reasoning for removing Arackar completely from the valid and well-populated hierarchy of dinosaurs of South America. Please do not make such edits without explanation. Anyway, the article states that it was found "in a layer… that dates back to the Late Cretaceous period", so I have added it to Category:Late Cretaceous dinosaurs of South America. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we should not apply politically geography to pre-human history.Actually Chile is anachronistic for even millennia of human history, but this is just plain absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 - jc37 15:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Defunct departments of the United Kingdom Government to Category:Defunct departments of the Government of the United Kingdom
• Propose renaming Category:Ministerial departments of the United Kingdom Government to Category:Ministerial departments of the Government of the United Kingdom
• Propose renaming Category:Non-ministerial departments of the United Kingdom Government to Category:Non-ministerial departments of the Government of the United Kingdom
• Propose renaming Category:Logos of the United Kingdom Government to Category:Logos of the Government of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: rename, fix the order between "government" and "United Kingdom" per WP:C2D, WP:C2C: Government of the United Kingdom, Departments of the Government of the United Kingdom, Category:Government of the United Kingdom, Category:Departments of the Government of the United Kingdom. There is also a capitalization issue (G or g), but the discussion about capitalization should be left to a broader discussion based on a nomination of all subcategories within Category:Government of the United Kingdom. The first three nominated categories were earlier opposed at WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi, William Allen Simpson, and Laurel Lodged: pinging contributors to earlier speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Government is capitalised in the UK when used in this sense: see Parliament and the Government: 'the Government', 'HM Government', Her Majesty's Government (term). This said I would prefer 'government of the United Kingdom' to the present 'United Kingdom Government'; Wikipedia:Category_names#State-based topics explicitly favours 'of Foo' for Government. Oculi (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I too agree with Oculi and would prefer 'government of the United Kingdom'. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer 'Government of the United Kingdom' because it is (part of) a formal title (Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Oculi (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: as the creator (many years ago) of the departmental ones, I believe I followed some kind of rubric in coming up with them - but I may have not done or that may have since changed. However, what William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) said above rings a bell - I believe the logic was that the description is supposed to get more precise as you go along the category name. I don't think it's a hugely important difference, I don't think we need to change it to improve the functionality or usability of the encyclopaedia, and I don't think changing it is going to be worth the time - but if it fits better with the relevant article names then perhaps that's reason enough.

In terms of capitalisation, there is a distinction between "government in the United Kingdom", which is a concept, and "the Government of the United Kingdom", which is a thing. I think the terminology, and capitalisation, here is a little different to that in the US, where "government" is more commonly taken to include not only the executive power but also the judicial and legislative - which it absolutely would not be in the UK. This category is about what Americans would consider to be the executive branch, so whatever we do, we need to keep government capitalised in this context. ninety:one 10:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All too long -- Several of the non-ministerial ones are "Executive agencies", though perhaps not all. Departments of UK government would be long enough. Ministerial departments should be departments. The government legal service is miscategorised: it is overseen by Attorney-General, though he is technically not a minister; this also applies to Crown Prosecution Service. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them might have EA status, but they are still departments, and not all departments are EAs. The Government Legal Department, which used to be called the Treasury Solicitor's Department, is a NMGD (and an EA). The Government Legal Profession (which used to be called the Government Legal Service) is related but separate. There is an functional distinction between ministerial and non-ministerial departments which we ought to preserve. (The Attorney General is by convention not a member of the cabinet (he merely "attends" it), but he is nonetheless a minister.) ninety:one 18:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Government agencies and parastatals of Kwara State to Category:Executive branch of the government of Kwara State

Nominator's rationale: merge to Category:Executive branch of the government of Kwara State, Category:State agencies and parastatals of Nigeria and Category:Organizations based in Kwara State per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Government agencies and parastatals of Kano State to Category:Government of Kano State

Nominator's rationale: merge to Category:Government of Kano State, Category:State agencies and parastatals of Nigeria and Category:Organizations based in Kano State per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:11th-century Church of Denmark churches to Category:11th-century churches in Denmark
• Propose merging Category:11th-century Church of Norway church buildings to Category:11th-century churches in Norway
• Propose merging Category:12th-century Church of Denmark churches to Category:12th-century churches in Denmark
• Propose merging Category:12th-century Church of Norway church buildings to Category:12th-century churches in Norway
• Propose merging Category:12th-century Church of Sweden church buildings to Category:12th-century churches in Sweden
• Propose merging Category:13th-century Church of Denmark churches to Category:13th-century churches in Denmark
• Propose merging Category:13th-century Church of Norway church buildings to Category:13th-century churches in Norway
• Propose merging Category:13th-century Church of Sweden church buildings to Category:13th-century churches in Sweden
• Propose merging Category:14th-century Church of Denmark churches to Category:14th-century churches in Denmark
• Propose merging Category:14th-century Church of Norway church buildings to Category:14th-century churches in Norway
• Propose merging Category:14th-century Church of Sweden church buildings to Category:14th-century churches in Sweden
• Propose merging Category:15th-century Church of Denmark churches to Category:15th-century churches in Denmark
• Propose merging Category:15th-century Church of Norway church buildings to Category:15th-century churches in Norway
• Propose merging Category:15th-century Lutheran churches in Germany to Category:15th-century churches in Germany
• Propose merging Category:15th-century Church of Sweden church buildings to Category:15th-century churches in Sweden

Nominator's rationale: rename, the current category names are confusing because the churches were Catholic when built in the 11th to 15th century and converted to Lutheranism in the 16th century. The target categories exactly exist to circumvent that kind of confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Would also support an ALT of Category:xxth-century Roman Catholic churches in Denmark or Category:xxth-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Denmark. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support mostly AS NOM. All churches in Denmark adhered to Rome until the Reformation, after which they continued (without interruption) as state Lutheran churches. The reestablishment of a RC church is the result of later missionary activity with no continuity. In the case of Germany, some churches became Lutheran and some remained Catholic so that in that case dual merge also to Category:Lutheran churches in Germany to reflect their current (or recent) status. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is only one church building in the German category and this is already in Category:Lutheran churches in Lower Saxony so a single merge as nominated suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 - jc37 21:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who have access to Questia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: According to the article Questia, As of December 21, 2020, it ceased operations. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Questia/Userbox * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Menelik II

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:PERFCAT, and WP:OCAWARD)

The Order of Menelik II was a house order from Ethiopia and, without exception, all the Ethiopians in this category are members of the Ethiopian Royal Family who are already categorized under Category:Ethiopian Royal Family. Most of the foreign recipients don't mention Ethiopia at all beyond the award so it may have been a diplomatic souvenir. (There are a a couple exceptions with ambassadors and military advisors to the county but they are already well categorized.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of the Roman Eagle

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

The Order of the Roman Eagle was a short-lived general purpose award from Fascist Italy from 1942-45. The only articles in the category is King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy and 3 German Nazi officials, all of which just mention this award in passing with other honours. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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