Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24
February 26 >

February 25

[edit]

Category:Members of the International Law Commission

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#Category:Members of the International Law Commission

Bay Area Rapid Transit lines

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This proposed renaming is to sync up with their respective main articles being moved per Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit#Requested move 10 February 2023, in which there was consensus that the lines are now commonly known by their color designations rather than their termini. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Years in (the Kingdom of) Hungary

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#Years in (the Kingdom of) Hungary

Category:Pretenders to the Ukrainian throne

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 2 members, only 1 of which, Pavlo Skoropadskyi, held the title of Hetman of Ukraine (an unsourced article which is also entirely about him) for a few months in 1918 in the unrecognised German-Imperial puppet-state the Ukrainian State. The supposed "next" person to hold this "title in pretence" is Oleksandra Skoropadska-Ott, who doesn't even have a page. I say we delete it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fellows of the Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi

[edit]
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: already deleted, emptied by creator. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created another Category:Recipients of the Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi Fellowship to match similar category names. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The akademi exists to make awards in film theatre and other arts. Is membership of this (called fellowship) really sufficient to be the basis of a category? Perhap delete both, but listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete Ideally the original category would have come here for a rename. But, given the current dueling categories, the delete makes sense so we don't have 2. (PKI raises a valid question about whether we should even have 1.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Attitude Studio films

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry "films by studio" category for a company that wasn't actually one of the single-entry's studios. The company is listed in the film's IMDb profile as an "other company", not as a "production studio", and even in our article the only context provided for the category is a first-person Q&A interview with a person at Attitude Studios who is credited only as the creator of the film's original visual concept rather than one of the principal filmmakers, and the studio itself doesn't have any Wikipedia article at all -- so the film can hardly be defined by the supporting participation of an otherwise non-notable company strongly enough to justify a one-item WP:SMALLCAT for it.
This was, further, created by a serial overcategorizer who has since been blocked from editing Wikipedia at all, in part because of their tendency to overcategorize films for the supplementary participation of sales agencies and sound design and VFX companies and funding agencies as if they were "studios". Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT in West Africa

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, odd intersection unrelated to the LGBT topic. The subcategories already are in Category:LGBT in Africa by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Taylor Swift controversies

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAT "not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category". Not sure why we need a separate category, including some not-very-relevant articles (songs like "Shake It Off" or "Better than Revenge" or real estates such as High Watch). I don't see the need for this category as it might be a case of WP:OCASSOC, WP:ARBITRARYCAT or WP:OCMISC. Ippantekina (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

LGBT rights

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These each contain only 1 article on LGBT rights; the first four are already categorised in LGBT rights by country and by continent. Merge per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 12#Category:LGBT in Oman. – Fayenatic London 11:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and structures by monarch

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#Category:Buildings and structures by monarch

Category:Rulers

[edit]
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: procedural close / no consensus. As mentioned in the trailing comments, this discussion has sort of turned into a "project" of sorts. It feels wrong to close it with updates happening and a presumption that consensus might emerge following various actions being undertaken, but there isn't clear consensus at the moment for a single specific action to be taken right now on the category, and the landscape of the original comments may be outdated weeks/months down the road, making it an even more herculean task to close if it's left open.
Feel free to renominate when appropriate, and I'd suggest a copypasta of the changing parts into a new project/userspace page (maybe via a closely related WikiProject?); you can even notify the people involved here with things like WP:AWB so they can follow along. slakr\ talk / 04:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a complicated question with many issues and sub-issues, and it has far-reaching implications for all subcategories and all articles named "List of rulers of X". I don't know if deletion is the right course of action, but currently it is the best I can think of because of WP:OVERCAT, and I'll explain why I arrived at that conclusion. (Sorry if I'm verbose, but because deleting this category can have far-reaching consequences I wanna make sure that I am clear and precise about the issues that I see). I am open to many other possibilities if anyone can offer any (such as renaming, merging etc.).
  • A: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Vague definition, arbitrary inclusion: The main problem is that the term "ruler" has not been properly defined anywhere on English Wikipedia. Apart from the unrelated concept ruler (a device used to measure distances or draw straight lines), there is only a brief mention at Ruler (disambiguation): A person who wields significant or total political power, with the latter link redirecting to Power (social and political) explaining how complex the term "power" is. Furthermore, significant or total is of course a very vague description. wikt:en:ruler#Noun provides little more clarity: A person who rules or governs; someone or something that exercises dominion or controlling power over others. This doesn't really clarify the degree of power (significant or total) that a "ruler" has; it could be as much as an absolute monarch, but a local police officer in some village somewhere arguably also controls power over others (albeit to a much more limited degree). Wiktionary even suggests that a "ruler" doesn't have to be a person but can also be a something, which opens the door for many more vague and arbitrary inclusions of e.g. organisations, institutions or even private companies (e.g. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary provides the example At that time the East India Company was the virtual ruler of Bengal.).
That said, the connected Wiktionary entry wikt:en:rule#Verb [1] equates it with wikt:en:reign#Verb, which is [1] The exercise of sovereign power, [2] The period during which a monarch rules, and [3] The territory or sphere over which a kingdom; empire; realm; dominion, etc. is ruled. Meanwhile, wikt:en:dominion#Noun [1] states Power or the use of power; sovereignty over something; stewardship, supremacy. These entries do suggest that a "ruler" is a hereditary/dynastic monarch with sovereign (total?) power. Virtually all examples listed at wikt:en:Thesaurus:ruler under "Hyponyms" are also examples of hereditary/dynastic monarchs with sovereign power (with the exception of "autocrat", "dictator", "governor", "Führer", and "tyrant", which aren't necessarily dynastic). Merriam-Webster confirms as much: one that rules. specifically: SOVEREIGN. Synonyms: autocrat, monarch, potentate, sovereign, sovran. M-W defines sovereign as one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty. Synonyms: autocrat, monarch, potentate, ruler. Incidentally, the fact that Category:Rulers is currently a subcat of Category:Sovereignty also suggests that "rulers" are sovereign.
This all may seem fine, until we ask the question whether to include presidents (i.e. elected or appointed heads of state in republics). Do presidents "rule", "reign", "exercise sovereign power"? I don't think so. Unless they can be simultaneously labelled an "autocrat", "dictator", "Führer", "tyrant" etc. (as in the Thesaurus), i.e. a non-hereditary head of state who seized power illegitimately (rather than being appointed or elected) or exercises supreme authority without institutional checks and balances (e.g. a president who was initially elected democratically, but then abolished institutional checks and balances, like Alexander Lukashenko, who proudly calls himself a "dictator"), and thus may be said to "rule with an iron fist" or something, these are not the verbs we use to describe a president's job. We do, however, sometimes say that a president governs, but not with sovereign power. wikt:en:govern#Verb also makes this distinction: [1] refers to exercis[ing] sovereign authority and gives The old king governed the land wisely as an example, but [2] seems more like the job of an elected/appointed president (or prime minister) of a republic: To exercise political authority; to run a government. This is in line with Merriam-Webster's definitions of 'president' as in 'chief of state': [5a] an elected official serving as both chief of state and chief political executive in a republic having a presidential government. [5b] an elected official having the position of chief of state but usually only minimal political powers in a republic having a parliamentary government. So, while a monarch (de jure or de facto) owns a country, a president serves a country, or has (...) only minimal political powers. This is clearly not exercising sovereign authority, and presidents in systems such as these can be voted out of office or impeached, and obviously they do not come into power through hereditary succession as monarchs do (inheriting the country as a family's possession passing down from one generation to the next). One might still argue that a president in a presidential system is still a "ruler" in the sense of wield[ing] significant political power or controlling power over others, but that seems to me to be too vague to be useful and thus WP:NONDEFINING.
  • B. WP:NARROWCAT Little overlap, lumping things together: From the observations under A, it follows that the term "ruler" usually refers to a hereditary/dynastic monarch exercising sovereign power, and that (excepting some cases) presidents are not properly called "rulers" who "rule", "reign", have "dominion" or otherwise "exercise sovereign power/authority". Rather, they are heads of state who govern, or run the government, or serve, or "exercise (limited) political authority". The overlap between these two types of functions/positions/"jobs" is too narrow to be lumping them together under the heading of the vague term "ruler". (Yesterday I already made this point inter alia at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Category:Lists of heads of state.)
  • C. WP:OVERLAPCAT Duplication because "ruler" can mean whatever you want it to mean: Perhaps ironically, the lack of overlap between what presidents and sovereign monarchs do, while both are sometimes categorised as "rulers", leads to overlap in or duplication of content (WP:REDUNDANTFORK). There is a List of rulers of the Netherlands (some of which weren't sovereign hereditary/dynastic monarchs) and a List of monarchs of the Netherlands (all of which were arguably sovereign hereditary/dynastic monarchs). Because "rulers" aren't necessarily dynastic, one can argue these lists are technically both legitimate and distinct collections of information. But it's a whole lot of duplication, isn't it? Apart from the other issues with these two pages, and the fact that we could merge them as part of efforts to solve them, there are countless examples of this; I just want to use this example to tackle the larger question for all of English Wikipedia:
  1. Should we consider "ruler" as a synonym for "head of state"? Then we should merge Category:Rulers with Category:Heads of state. (and all Lists of rulers of X should be renamed List of heads of state of X)
  2. Should we consider "ruler" as a synonym for a sovereign hereditary/dynastic monarch? Then we should merge Category:Rulers with Category:Monarchs (a subcat of Category:Heads of state). (and all Lists of rulers of X should be renamed List of monarchs of X)
  3. Should we consider "ruler" as simply too vague a term to describe a position/function/job so as to be WP:NONDEFINING, and thus make it prone to WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:NARROWCAT, and WP:OVERLAPCAT? Then I suggest that we delete the category. For the reasons I have given above, I think this is the best option.
I am well aware of the implications (that's why I'm taking so much care to explain the numerous issues). It could lead to the deletion of every single subcategory with "ruler(s)" in it. It could lead to having to rename, split or merge many articles with "ruler(s)" in the title in these categories. But if we wish to follow our policies and guidelines, fix the mess that we have created, and ensure that it will not emerge again, I think we should agree to make this decision, and implement it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently thinking that Category:Political office-holders by role is sufficient to make Category:Rulers redundant. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong procedural oppose, this is a container category. The only thing we would achieve by deleting the category is that we can no longer navigate between e.g.
Category:Legendary rulers
Category:Women rulers
Category:Fascist rulers
Category:Göktürk rulers
Category:Rulers of Azcapotzalco
Category:Western Yan rulers
while these are all obvious rulers categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think those categories are not properly defined either and may fail WP:NONDEFINING, because all of them do not make clear what a "ruler" is. In addition, "Fascist" and "legendary" may fail WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Listing Benito Mussolini as a "Fascist ruler" may seem very reasonable on the surface, but he was not a monarch or head of state (or president), but prime minister serving under king Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, who de jure "ruled" Italy as sovereign, and had appointed Mussolini to head the government. "Rulers" are in the Category:Sovereignty. So if anything, the king should be categorised as a "Fascist ruler", not Mussolini. If we want to be clearer (and do not think "Fascist" fails WP:SUBJECTIVECAT), I would suggest putting the king into a "Category:Fascist heads of state", and Mussolini into a "Category:Fascist heads of government". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you are entitled to think that the subcategories are not properly defined either, but as long as they exist Category:Rulers is the proper parent category. Feel free to nominate the subcategories though, in separate nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I explained in my response to Kbdank71, I prefer to take things one step at a time by questioning "Rulers" as a valid/useful/meaningful/clear/unambiguous categorisation, and if we agree here that it is not, we will work out the implications of that for the items and subcategories in it on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough to take one step at a time. But then better start with e.g. Category:Göktürk rulers or Category:Rulers of Azcapotzalco in order to test whether these can be renamed and moved under Heads of state or Heads of government. If and only if everything here ultimately is moved under either Heads of state or Heads of government we no longer need Rulers on top of the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether it makes more sense to adopt a top-down or bottom-up approach in this case, because one will eventually affect the other. To play the devil's advocate, I could also make the case that we shouldn't delete Category:Göktürk rulers or Category:Rulers of Azcapotzalco, because Category:Rulers exists and nobody (until I did so with this CfD) has challenged that category, so we may assume that "ruler" is a legitimate categorisation in general, therefore it is legitimate to categorise Göktürk and Tepanec rulers as well. This is the reverse of your argument that Category:Rulers shouldn't be deleted because its subcategories are legitimate. Taken together, this constitutes circular reasoning akin to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If such arguments were a sufficient defence, no category could ever be deleted, because each category and its subcategories would always validate each other's existence.
    As I hinted at under B and C, I actually did adopt a bottom-up approach yesterday (3 February) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Category:Lists of heads of state, where I took the List of rulers of the Netherlands as an example. My focus there was more on the arbitrariness of the Hollandocentric approach of identifying the County of Holland as the only / central "predecessor state" of the current Kingdom of the Netherlands, but the effect is very similar: items that do not really belong in the same list are lumped together with very poor justifications. As I explored more lists and categories and the rules about WP:OVERCAT today (4 February), I concluded that questioning the use of the all-too-vague term "ruler" was a far more viable approach, and that nominating the Category:Rulers for deletion would be the best way to evaluate its usefulness/accuracy/validity etc. As I wrote in the nom and in response to Kbdank71, I realise how complex the issue is (that's why I have taken such care to explain my reasoning), and that it has potentially far-reaching consequences (that's why I think we should tread carefully and apply any precedent reached here pragmatically, on a case-by-case basis, taking the situation of each subcategory, list or article into account). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have modified my vote to strong procedural oppose. It does not make any sense to orphan all existing rulers subcategories. I have no issue with any "fixing" of subcategories prior to deletion of the top category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point. However, as I discovered while responding to Fayenatic below, there is a Category:Political office-holders by role (created in 2005) which is another parent category of both Category:Heads of state and Category:Heads of government. Would you be okay with moving all subcategories of Category:Rulers (created in 2013) to Category:Political office-holders by role for the time being until we discuss each of their futures case by case? This prevents orphaning them if Category:Rulers is indeed deleted. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting argument. Did you know that "politics" derives from ancient Greek "ta politika", meaning "the matters of the city (polis)"? For all of written European history, there have been poleis, polities, policies, politics, politicians and political office-holders. Even more fun is that the word "ruler" doesn't exist in Latin, but is derived from Latin regula ("rule", "regulation"). Even so, long before the Romans began to impose their "rule" around the Mediterranean, the Greeks already had poleis and politika. We could go on if you like, but I doubt it will help your case against deletion, this starts to sound more like WP:NOTFORUM (otherwise I'd love a good etymological discussion), and I'm not sure what is procedural about this objection. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose only applies to my objection to the original nomination. I acknowledge there is politics and ancient Rome, I should have said: "before politics was invented in their country". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't understand your objection. If we put all subcategories of Rulers (temporarily) into Political office-holders by role, "we can still navigate between them". Semantically, I also still don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that there have been situations in which a head of state or a head of government was not a political office-holder? That there are situations in which there are states or governments, but no politics? You seem to have a very specific understanding of what "politics" is. Do you mean "party politics"? "Parliamentary politics", perhaps? Because those are relatively modern phenomena, but "politics" is much broader and has arguably existed as long as humanity has. Political offices such as kingship and priesthood are some of the oldest jobs in recorded history. (Some ethologists argue there is politics in the animal kingdom as well, even though they don't have elections, parties, parliament buildings etc.) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a procedural discussion. It is about how the word politics is used in common language, where it involves at least a little bit of division of power. Absolute rulership and politics rule each other out. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that seems to confirm what I thought: you apply a more specific definition of "politics", assuming that there can be no "politics" within a country/state/society unless power is divided between several people. But even if we were to agree on that (which I do not), "politics" is broader than just internal affairs. As en:wikt:politics [4] states: Political maneuvers or diplomacy between people, groups, or organizations, especially involving power, influence or conflict. If absolute monarch A declares war on absolute monarch B, or A concludes a peace treaty with B, then that is external affairs, foreign policy, international politics. This has happened throughout human history, as no absolute "ruler" has ever "ruled" all of humanity, but was always territorially/geographically limited in power. Between absolute monarchies there is always diplomacy and conflict going on, i.e. politics. To absolute monarch A, absolute monarch B is the top political office-holder in realm B, and vice versa. This categorisation is perfectly justifiable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The relative power of Head of state and Head of government varies from one place and time to another, and this somewhat undefined category and its "rulers" sub-cats do work in bringing these together in a way that is helpful for navigation. The other content is also justifiable; "Children of rulers" is a valid and useful thing to have under "Rulers", even if it has to be called "Children of national leaders". – Fayenatic London 21:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you're acknowledging that it is a somewhat undefined category is more evidence to me that it is WP:NONDEFINING. Moreover, there is no need to put Category:Heads of state and Category:Heads of government together in the redundant Category:Rulers (created in 2013), because both are already in the Category:Political office-holders by role (which was already created in 2005, and serves the navigational purpose you seek). This is yet more evidence that Category:Rulers can/should be deleted per WP:OVERCAT. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had noticed that they were also both in that parent, but in that case along with various lower political office holders who are clearly less than rulers. The possibility of navigating between the contents by other means does not contradict the usefulness of Rulers. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that various lower political office holders (...) are clearly less than rulers seems to contradict your earlier statement that The relative power of Head of state and Head of government varies from one place and time to another (which I think you said correctly). I don't think it's hard to argue that in certain countries with a purely ceremonial king or president, the Minister of Foreign Affairs (especially during a diplomatic conflict), the Minister of Home/Internal/Domestic Affairs, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance (especially during an economic crisis), the Minister of Defence (especially during war), the Minister of Health (especially during a health crisis like a pandemic) etc. have more authority/power than the ceremonial head of state (whose function is strictly limited and circumscribed by protocol), or even the head of government, and are therefore clearly more than "rulers" . If a monarch or president is no more than a figurehead or puppet, how much of a "ruler" are they, really, if they're not the one (de jure or de facto) running the country? Exactly because the word "ruler" doesn't come with a clear set of competences and responsibilities, but is so volatile, it becomes useless for categorisation, even if it may seem so "clear" on the surface. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I consider that a formality. If you agree that these are useful ways of renaming, merging or deleting the subcategories (depending on each situation), then there is no theoretical obstacle anymore to deleting Category:Rulers as redundant. There are better alternative terms for "rulers" available in each of these cases, and a better taxonomy of categories is evidently due. But as you already granted, it is fair to take things one step at a time, and that first step is deleting Category:Rulers and moving all its subcategories (at least temporarily) to Category:Political office-holders by role. Suppose that we could not agree on whether Göktürk khagans are best put into its subs Category:Heads of state or Category:Heads of government, we could put them in the parent Category:Political office-holders by role (indefinitely or until someone figures out they were govt or state heads). I don't think it's necessary for us to agree on what to do with each subcategory before we delete the top category, if only because it would make easy navigation in this already-long CfD even more impractical. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Government leaders — matching current parents.
    1. Wow, that's the most verbose nomination rationale I've ever encountered.
    2. The log shows that this category was previously deleted in 2007.
    3. But it was recreated again in 2014.
    4. We don't generally work top down, unless to match a significant majority of existing subcategories. In this case, there are many "ruler" subcatgories. But many of them should be renamed as well.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename suggestion: That seems identical to Category:Heads of government.
  1. Yes, it's a complicated issue, that's why I've tried to cover all relevant points. Subsequent discussion has shown that a merge with Category:Political office-holders by role could also have been my angle (which could satisfy some or all of Marcocapelle's objections), but the effect would have been the same.
  2. Thanks for mentioning it: 08:13, 12 September 2007 Paul A talk contribs deleted page Category:Rulers (empty; woolly characteristic (compared to, e.g., "monarchs", "presidents", etc.); content before blanking was: '.' and only contributor was User:Panicsuch). I didn't know it was deleted before, but agree with that rationale completely; the word "ruler" is too WP:NONDEFINING. When it was recreated in 2013, it was put in the Category:Heads of state and Category:Heads of government, both of which were already in the Category:Political office-holders by role. So to summarise: it was never needed, it was previously deleted (for the same reason I seek to delete it now), and then nevertheless recreated with a redundant function.
  3. *27 May 2013.
  4. I'm glad you agree many subcategories also need to be renamed. For reasons I explained to Marcocapelle, I saw top-down as the best approach here.
Apart from the suggestion to rename Category:Rulers, you seem to agree with pretty much all my points. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on subcategories: Category talk:Child rulers and Category talk:Socialist rulers show previous discussions about how vague/unclear the term "ruler" is. The first category states: A child ruler is someone holding an office of sovereign and temporal authority who has not yet reached the age of majority in their culture, apparently the result of discussions had on its talk page. Category:Child rulers is a subcategory of Category:Monarchs and Category:Royal children, also indicating that "child rulers" got into their position through monarchal hereditary succession. On the other hand, socialist/communist states are arguably republics by definition (as socialism/communism are republican, anti-monarchist ideologies), so all people in Category:Socialist rulers did not get into their position through hereditary succession (except unofficially Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un. Even if the latter died tomorrow and would be succeeded by his underage son, the latter would not count as a "child ruler", because constitutionally and legally North Korea is a republic, not a monarchy). Therefore, interestingly, these categories cannot co-exist. The way they define "ruler" is incompatible. The comments at Category talk:Child rulers already noted these problems in 2008:
  • This is a potentially very large and problematic category. (...) Is "ruler" synoymous with "monarch"? (...) PatGallacher (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, this category is potentially huge, and the cut-offs are admittedly fuzzy. (...) Due to their nature, child rulers will almost always be hereditary monarchs. However, I could envisage some exceptions (eg. republics with strong dynastic rule), so I have entitled the category “Child rulers” instead of “Child monarchs.”--Iacobus (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "Head of State" is a better term than ruler? But I won't change the category title unless others think it worth it.--Iacobus (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
PatGallacher and Iacobus already observed the problem of calling a non-hereditary position "ruler". I also think "republics with strong dynastic rule" is kind of a contradiction in terms (that's why I marked it in red). We may be talking about elective monarchy (in which the same family de facto repeatedly gets their members elected through power/influence/bribery, e.g. the Holy Roman Empire, or crowned republics such as the Republic of Venice), or about premodern states such as the Republic of Florence which (with the exception of 1494–1498) had a dynastic hereditary head of state and thus were not "republics" in the modern sense of the word. Therefore, it is no surprise that Category:Holy Roman Emperors is a subcat of Category:German monarchs, Category:Rulers of Florence is a subcat of Category:Italian monarchs, and Category:Doges of Venice is a subcat of Category:Italian princes (which is a sub-subcat of Category:Monarchy in Italy). Long story short, even if a premodern state is historiographically called a "republic", it could still be an elective monarchy (Venice) or hereditary monarchy (Florence).
In practice, all people in Category:Child rulers were/are monarchs. If anyone is not, they probably shouldn't be in the category. In practice, all people in Category:Socialist rulers were/are non-monarchs and did not get into power through hereditary succession (and North-Korea officially doesn't count).
Conclusion: Because of the heavy association of "ruler" with (hereditary) monarchy on the one hand, but the occasional usage of "ruler" in non-monarchical non-hereditary contexts (such as Category:Socialist rulers and also Category:Fascist rulers mentioned above) on the other hand, plus an unclear relationship between the term "ruler" vis-à-vis the terms "head of state" and "head of government", we get a woolly characteristic, resulting in potentially very large and problematic categor[ies], of which the cut-offs are admittedly fuzzy. This was known and recognised back in 2007 and 2008 already. Paul A did the right thing by deleting Category:Rulers in September 2007, but then Iacobus created Category:Child rulers in January 2008 even as its obvious parent category Category:Rulers had just been deleted, and PatGallacher warned Iacobus about various potential problems, with Iacobus readily conceded, suggesting “Child monarchs.” as an alternative (which I think is a good one).
Essentially, we still have to fix the same problems they were dealing with by renaming/merging/deleting all these subcategories (on a case-by-case basis). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rulers update 1
[edit]
  • Update/overview: As a result of the feedback I have received in this CfD (thank you all!), especially the fact that Category:Rulers was previously deleted in 2007, as well as a further exploration of the category tree and reading the previous discussions at Category talk:Child rulers and Category talk:Socialist rulers, my understanding of the situation has improved. Right now, I think it's better to merge Category:Rulers with Category:Political office-holders by role. Deleting it orphans its subcategories (which I now understand to be a valid objection by Marcocapelle), and risks that it will be recreated once again (as it was 2013 after being deleted in 2007), and the problematic nature of the terminology and categorisation resurfacing again in the future. Making it a redirect prevents this. I don't know if I can change proposal halfway through a nomination, or if I need to retract it first and start anew? (Maybe @Marcocapelle: can explain this?)
Either way, as it has just been relisted, I'd like to give an overview of the possible solutions that have so far been discussed (and sometimes already agreed) for newcomers here (this is also intended to address the future of the subcategories:
  1. Merge Category:Rulers with Category:Political office-holders by role ("Category:Rulers" becomes a redirect).
  2. Merge Category:Rulers by continent with Category:Political office-holders by continent.
  3. Merge Category:Rulers by religion with Category:Monarchs by religion‎ (seems to cover all people in it, except perhaps a Buddhist warlord who wasn't necessarily a "monarch") OR split into Category:Heads of state by religion‎ and Category:Heads of government by religion‎ (the latter will most likely be empty for a while). Note that per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes, we should not categorise living heads of state/govt by religion at all, unless it's relevant and sourced: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Deleted
  4. Rename Category:Child rulers to Category:Child monarchs. Renamed
  5. Rename Category:Legendary rulers to Category:Legendary monarchs. (Unless someone has ever heard of a "legendary (elected) president" or something, but all people in this category are described as monarchs, usually "kings"). Renamed
  6. Merge Category:Lists of rulers with Category:Lists of political office-holders. Both are already in Category:Lists of office-holders.
  7. Rename Category:Women rulers to Category:Female political office-holders. There is already a Category:Lists of female office-holders (which includes non-political positions), and it follows the logic of the established parent categories, applies the adjective "female" rather than the noun "women", and is broad enough to encompass non-hereditary positions (even though List of female hereditary rulers is presented as the "main article". I suppose List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government could aspire to the same status for this category). Result: Keep. Category:Female political office-holders created as separate category for elected or appointed political offices (i.e. women who were not queens regnant or regents).
  8. Rename Category:Göktürk rulers to Category:Göktürk khans (or Category:Göktürk khagans), compare Category:Khans and Category:Mongol khans). Same goes for Category:Xueyantuo rulers, rename to Category:Xueyantuo khans. Renamed
  9. Rename Category:Rulers of Azcapotzalco to Category:Tlatoque of Azcapotzalco. It is already in Category:Tlatoque, alongside Category:Tlatoque of Ecatepec, Category:Tenochca tlatoque, Category:Tlatoque of Texcoco, and Category:Tlatoque of Tlatelolco. Renamed
  10. Merge Category:Sixteen Kingdoms rulers with its parent Category:Sixteen Kingdoms royalty; there is not enough distinction. Before discussing the subcategories, I think it's worth noting that English (and other Western) literature tends to be inconsistent in translating Chinese noble titles. For the Sixteen Kingdoms, a lot of "rulers" carried or claimed the title 王 ("wang", see en:wikt:王#Definitions), which is variously primarily translated as [1] "king, monarch", or [2] "duke, prince". This is inconsistency is reflected in the subcats of Category:Sixteen Kingdoms rulers: "Former Liang rulers‎, Northern Liang princes‎, Sixteen Kingdoms emperors‎, Sixteen Kingdoms regents, Southern Liang (Sixteen Kingdoms) princes‎, Western Liang (Sixteen Kingdoms) dukes‎, Western Qin princes‎, Western Yan rulers". I haven't checked, but apart from "emperors" and "regents", I suspect that each of these catnames was based on the Mandarin Chinese term 王 "wang". Renaming all of them to "royalty", just like the grandparent category, seems like a good pragmatic solution to avoid having to choose an exact translation of 王 "wang" and checking each item in each (sub)category if it applies in each specific case. Renamed Category:Sixteen Kingdoms monarchs.
    :Rename Category:Former Liang rulers to Category:Former Liang royalty Result: Renamed to Category:Monarchs of Former Liang
    :Merge Category:Western Yan rulers with its subcat Category:Western Yan emperors, rename it Category:Western Yan monarchs.
     Result: Renamed & upmerged.
  11. Rename Category:Jurchen rulers to Category:Jurchen monarchs.Upmerge to Category:Rulers per the example of its recently upmerged parent Category:Tungus rulers, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#Category:Jurchen rulers. "Jurchen" refers to the Jurchen people, and the three examples in this category are Wuyashu (a Jurchen chieftain), Nurhaci (a Jurchen khan) and Category:Jin dynasty (1115–1234) emperors (a Jurchen imperial dynasty), so it's rather arbitrarily lumping people together. Renamed Category:Jurchen chieftains
    Same goes for parent Category:Tungus rulers. Merged
  12. Rename Category:Mahan confederacy rulers to Category:Mahan confederacy monarchs per List of Mahan confederacy monarchs. Renamed
  13. Rename Category:Maya rulers to Category:Maya monarchs. Alternative titles: "ajaws" or "ahaus", the endonymic title for most Maya monarchs, Renamed Category:Maya monarchs. though in Iximche they apparently had a Ahpo Xahil or Ahpo Sotzʼil Renamed Category:Kings of Iximche. The article Maya rulers uses "ruler" and "kings" interchangeably, but usually without sources (most articles about Maya royalty appear to be poorly sourced). Renamed Maya monarchs. Same applies to Category:Rulers of Yaxchilan. Renamed Category:Kings of Yaxchilan. One problem, however, is that certain unnamed monarchs have been numbered by scholars as Ruler #[number], e.g. 23rd Ruler, in Category:Rulers of Tikal and others. Alt renamed Category:Monarchs of Tikal. I don't know how strongly embedded this convention is in scholarship, but we might use this as an exception to the general rule (no pun intended) that the term "ruler" should be avoided. In that case, this category and its subcats do not need to be renamed. Nevertheless, they would fit in the Category:Heads of state of former countries, alongside e.g. Category:German monarchs, and do not need Category:Rulers as a parent. Renamed Category:Maya monarchs.
  14. Rename Category:Rulers of Ladakh to Category:Monarchs of Ladakh OR Category:Ladakhi monarchs. All people in it reigned over either Maryul/Kingdom of Ladakh (described as a "kingdom" or "monarchy" with "kings" or "rulers") or the Namgyal dynasty of Ladakh (opening sentence: The Namgyal dynasty was a dynasty whose rulers were the monarchs of the former kingdom of Ladakh that lasted from 1460 to 1842 and were titled the Gyalpo of Ladakh." Well that's 5 different terms we could play with, but let's just go for "monarchs", shall we?) Renamed
  15. Merge Category:Rulers of Lampang into parent Category:Lanna royalty; it has only 1 item. Kept
  16. Rename Category:Rulers of the Kingdom of Marwar to Category:Kings of Marwar. What other "rulers" would a kingdom have but kings? Renamed
  17. Merge Category:Rulers of Yemen with Category:Political office-holders in Yemen. Almost completely overlap. Result: Bold manual merge with Category:Monarchs of Yemen (also on Commons).
  18. Split Category:Fascist rulers into Category:Fascist heads of state (e.g. Victor Emmanuel III of Italy) and Category:Fascist heads of government (e.g. Benito Mussolini). Result: Deleted.
  19. Split Category:Socialist rulers into Category:Socialist heads of state (e.g. Wilhelm Pieck) and Category:Socialist heads of government (e.g. Otto Grotewohl). Result: Deleted.
  20. Split Category:Communist rulers into Category:Communist heads of state (e.g. Hu Jintao) and Category:Communist heads of government (e.g. Wen Jiabao). Result: Deleted.
  21. Rename Category:Belarusian rulers to Category:Belarusian princes (because all entries are princes of Polotsk, Minsk, Turov and the Grand Duke of Lithuania) and place it in Category:Princes by country. (I propose to discuss the future of List of rulers of Belarus separately because it is complicated). Result: Deleted (for being anachronistic).
  22. Rename Category:Rulers of Florence and to Category:Heads of state of Florence. Renamed Category:Heads of state of Florence. Create a separate Category:Gonfalonieri of Justice. Not done (so far). This covers the de facto de' Medici dynasty 1434–1569 period (known as "Lord of Florence" 1434–1494 and 1498–1532, and as "Duke of Florence" 1532–1569). As its highest-ranking member, the Gonfaloniere of Justice may be considered the head of the Florentine government, the Signoria of Florence. During the absence of the de Medici' in 1494–1498, they functioned as both head of state and govt, so Girolamo Savonarola and Piero Soderini may be categorised as both, but all other Gonfalonieri of Justice only as heads of government of Florence. To keep it short and simple, I would suggest creating a Category:Gonfalonieri of Justice. Let's have a separate discussion on what to do with List of rulers of Tuscany (I think it's too complicated to be handled here, but I'm leaning towards a split, because there is a disconnect between the Margravate of Tuscany and the Republic of Florence of several centuries, and they are essentially two different states). Renamed Category:Heads of state of Florence.
  23. Let's have a separate discussion on what to do with List of rulers of the Netherlands (I think its contents should be split out and merged into other existing articles such as List of monarchs of the Netherlands, Count of Holland etc.). Result: Renamed Lists of rulers in the Low Countries (for now), removed WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, connected it to nl:Lijsten van heersers in de Lage Landen and made it a list of lists just like it.
  24. Rename ALL categories and lists with "state leaders" in them to say "heads of state and government" instead, per Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 1#Rename. The parent article List of state leaders was renamed on 28 June 2007‎ to List of current heads of state and government. This applies inter alia to all lists mentioned in Lists of state leaders by century and Category:Lists of state leaders by year. This is such a huge operation that I propose that a bot will be tasked to carry it out.
  25. Rename Category:Rulers by century (Category:Rulers by millennium Result: Deleted) and their subcategories in the same way by replacing "rulers" with "heads of state and government"; I also recommend that a bot do this. I do not think it's worth manually checking which ones of these were heads of state, heads of govt or both simultaneously, just to make a point about "ruler" being too vague a term. "heads of state and government" has been an acceptable alternative for the equally vague "state leaders" since 2007, I think this is worth following in this case.
  26. Create Category:National leaders as a redirect to Category:Political office-holders by role. Done.
Split Category:Families of national leaders into Category:Families of heads of state and Category:Families of heads of government. Split Alternately, we could keep them in joint categories named "heads of state and government" as in previous examples. Or we could put them more directly under the parent category as Category:Families of political office-holders.
The same goes for its subcategories such as Category:Children of national leaders and Category:Parents of world leaders, as well as Category:Official social partners of national leaders. Split Alternately, we could keep them in joint categories named "heads of state and government" as in previous examples.
(Commentary) As both Fayenatic london and Rathfelder pointed out at Category talk:Socialist rulers#Opposed renaming proposal, "Leaders" is far too vague, or may not be clear, and Kbdank71 implied the same about "national leaders". I demonstrated with the example of Belarus what a mess that creates, and that it is just as vague and WP:NONDEFINING as "ruler", in practice awkwardly lumping "head of state" and "head of government" into another redundant category. (The only difference seems to be that "ruler" is more commonly applied to heads of state/govt in monarchies, and "national leaders" is more commonly applied to heads of state/govt in republics, but in practice, all these four terms are highly interchangeable. The fact that Category:National leaders doesn't didn't even exist yet should have been a reason to question the existence of Category:Families of national leaders and its subcategories).
I'll update this overview when there are more developments. I still don't think we need to figure out everything to do with the subcategories here yet, but at least these examples can give a clear indication in which direction we could be heading for a clearer and more accurate, logical and useful organisation of categories, articles and lists. I'd appreciate any further suggestions, additions or perhaps objections to potential issues. I'm confident we can figure this out together. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my mind, it seems reasonable to assume that nearly all pre-modern "unspecified rulers" subcategories can be moved under Heads of state (in many cases even under Monarchs). If that happens, we are left with just Heads of state and Heads of government, which together no longer requires a parent category. However I would still advocate postponing the merge until it actually happens that we are left with those two subcategories, otherwise it will become a mess. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: I'm delighted to read you have changed your mind. I must also admit that your objections were valid (although I struggled to understand them at first), which is why I also changed my mind from "Delete" to "Merge", so thank you for raising them! So, would you like me/us to find solutions just for the subcategories of Category:Rulers, or also its subsubcats, subsubsubcats etc.? Because the latter may require a lot more work. Second, can I just alter my proposal from "Delete" to "Merge" right now? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, all 31 subcategories have been accounted for (I took some of them in groups, and added some that we happened to take examples along; I just numbered them to make discussing them easier). I have found solutions for every single one of them. Are we ready to do this? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for thinking this through. It will require 31 more nominations (or even more, for the lower levels). If you are ready to pursue on them, I am ready to support them (at least in principle, I may have some different ideas when it comes to details). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome, it was a lot of work, but I guess someone had to do it. [Same remark I made to William Allen Simpson below:] I'm not sure it makes much sense to nominate them all separately though. It's a package. I don't want to have to do this discussion 31 times over and over by having to explain the whole story again to all new users who would get involved because they happen to see one of them nominated; it's already very long as it is. I could agree with a two-step process, in which we first agree to Merge Category:Rulers into Category:Political office-holders by role on the basis of this concept, and then we mass-nominate them all together for centralised discussion. Would that work? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes they are. You seem to be following a too specific, modern definition of "politics". Compare:
  • en:wikt:politics#Noun [1] A methodology and activities associated with running a government, an organization, or a movement. Ruling by strength of arms and transferring one's ruling [powers] by inheritance are activities associated with running a government. They are just not the kinds of activities people living in democratice states with rule of law are familiar with; we associate "politics" with parliamentary democracy, elections, parties, separation of powers etc. but those are fairly modern concepts, and not the only way of doing politics (not that I would recommend doing it differently, but it happens).
  • merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics [1c] the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government. This can be done by strength of arms (not that I would recommend it, but it happens), and founding and maintaining a dynasty in which control over a government is passed on by inheritance is a certain kind of "art" (again not one I would recommend, but happens). The manoeuvering that monarchs often had to undertake to ensure that once they would be dead, their designated heir would be widely accepted as the next monarch, is also regularly referred to as "politics" in literature (I've written a lot about this in war of succession if you're curious).
  • Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary [1] the activities involved in getting and using power in public life, and being able to influence decisions that affect a country or a society. Such activities could be military activities, i.e. strength of arms. Naming one's own successor is influenc[ing] decisions that affect a country or a society by enabling one's offspring (or other relatives) to ru[e] by inheritance.
  • Yes, individual words have meaning, and I have considered their meaning carefully. "Political" is fully applicable to all so-called "rulers", even if their politics are not the kind we are familiar with in modern times. As I explained to Marcocapelle, even if a "ruler" has absolute power within a society, they will still have to do diplomacy with "rulers" or heads of state/govt of foreign societies. There are lots of declarations of war and peace treaties between absolute monarchs: writing those documents are undeniably activities associated with running a government intended for winning and holding control over a government, be it one's own government (e.g. by concluding a peace treaty to prevent unconditional surrender and losing all power) or that of a foreign society (by defeating it and imposing one's terms upon it). Such activities aren't just military activities involving strength of arms, but also diplomacy, foreign policy, international politics.
2 3. "Leaders" is too vague; Fayenatic, Rathfelder, Kbdank71 and I agree on this. "Government leaders" = Category:Heads of government.
4. You're welcome, it was a lot of work, but I guess someone had to do it. I'm not sure it makes much sense to nominate them all separately though. It's a package. I don't want to have to do this discussion 31 times over and over by having to explain the whole story again to all new users who would get involved because they happen to see one of them nominated; it's already very long as it is. I could agree with a two-step process, in which we first agree to Merge Category:Rulers into Category:Political office-holders by role on the basis of this concept, and then we mass-nominate them all together for centralised discussion. But as long as you oppose that first step, we can't proceed. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still opposed to merger. The process will take however long it takes. I've been participating in politics for 45 years, share a house with a former Member of Congress, and have watched her teach political science for 20 years. I'll insist that this encyclopedia be accurate (to the best of my ability).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@William Allen Simpson: fair enough if the process needs due time. I also passionately share your insistence that this encyclopedia be accurate, and I hope that our combined knowledge and expertise (I'm a trained historian, and have been involved with Wikipedia for 15 years, a few years shorter than you apparently have been) can lead to increased accuracy. Which is why I have devoted quite some effort to defining "politics" based on some leading English-language dictionaries, and why I think all "rulers" can be categorised as "political office-holders", even if this may seem a bit of an odd way of phrasing things because of how we think about the terms "politics" and "political" (and "office") in the 20th- and 21st-century North America and Europe in which you and I grew up and have been living. I can imagine that the real-life experience you have had with politics in a modern republic without a hereditary head of state leads you to associate the word "politics" quite strongly with what you are familiar with. On the other hand, as a historian who lives in a (now-constitutional) monarchy and regularly studies literature about pre-modern government, institutions, power, law, conflict etc., my understanding of "politics" is much broader than that of modern parliamentary democracy involving elections, parties, debates, votes, agreements etc. including the ways I have mentioned.
To cite a random example from a book I've been reading recently, Halperin, Charles J. (1987). Russia and the Golden Horde: The Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History. p. 222. ISBN 9781850430575. page 37: The longevity of the Mongol Empire and its successor states, including the Golden Horde, owed much to their flexible and creative administration and to the legacy of Chingis Khan's charismatic leadership and political acumen. Though he died before the Russian [sic] conquest, the figure of the World-Conqueror looms large in any consideration of the Mongol impact in history (emphasis by me). I don't think there are serious doubts about the fact that Genghis Khan rose to power, and maintained and expanded his power, primarily through strength of arms, with the author even calling him World-Conqueror; and yet, the author attributes political acumen to him. Later still, he states: Chingis Khan's military and political genius and charismatic leadership cannot be questioned; neither can the number of lives during his pursuit of glory.
I can hardly imagine any other human in history who has ruled quite as much by strength of arms as Ghengis Khan, and his reign is described with the word "political". It's not the kind of politics you and I are familiar with, let alone would recommend (to put it extremely mildly, speaking for myself), but this is how the word "political" is commonly, regularly and unambiguously used in English-language literature in historical contexts of seizing and maintaining power through military force, and then passing it on dynastically through hereditary succession. Wouldn't you agree that those dictionary definitions as well as these examples from literature (I could provide more on demand) are sufficient to use the term "political" when referring to these historic heads of state and government? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a polymath, but not a historian. As an undergraduate honors student (in the '70s), I had a multi-semester class on intellectual history. But 1/3 of the class were graduate students, and they graded on a curve. So it was an incredibly difficult class for me (an engineer and musician). There was no mention of Genghis Khan. He didn't seem to have much influence on intellectual history, however much he affected eastern slavs.
  1. English wikipedia is using the modern contemporary definition of "political office-holder". We don't have category qualifiers for pre-modern understanding.
  2. They have to meet Max Weber's definition of legitimacy.
  3. Much of human interaction can be described as political. That doesn't make every human leader a political office-holder.
  4. War is politics by other means. That doesn't make every war winning leader a political office-holder. Coercive power is not the same as political power.
  5. Hereditary succession does not yield a political office-holder.
  6. Including Category:Royalty under Category:Office-holders does not make royalty a political office-holder.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "nearly all pre-modern unspecified rulers subcategories can be moved under Heads of state (in many cases even under Monarchs)". To add on that, modern rulers can be split between Heads of state and Heads of Government. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Socialist rulers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Fascist rulers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Communist rulers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page and this one also contain a dozen follow-up nominations for a number of subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Thanks for those nominations! I hadn't seen them until now, but I've commented on them and I think I'm all caught up now. You've taken some of the easiest of my proposals above that can already be implemented, sometimes changing them for the better. In some cases I (somewhat) disagree and have proposed alternatives, but in general I'm glad you've taken these initiatives. It's a whole lot of work, I'm glad I don't have to do this all on my own and some of my ideas are taken on board. Thanks once again. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support -- The 25 specific suggestions may well be a good solution. However, "rulers" is a good term to use for the an ultimate parent category, precisely because it is somewhat vague, something worth encouraging at that high level. I am not comfortable describing kings as "office-holders": monarchs is a better term to be used at a high level. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Monarchs are and have always been (described as) political office-holders. To give a few examples from literature (very easy to find):
      • Macmillan's Magazine, Volume 66 (1892), p. 23: "Since the Doges of Venice[, the Pope] is the sole example remaining of an elected monarch. He holds office for life, not by right of birth but of election (...) in the spiritual sphere he is supreme: he both reigns and governs; and it is of very few political heads that so much can be said."
      • W. R. Brock (1951, 2011), p. 232–233: "The old type of [British] monarch was the political centre of the State; the new type of monarch [since the mid-19th century] was a centre for the affections and loyalty of the people. (...) Finally, it must be remembered that, though the modern monarch does not direct policy and has few political duties, those few are important. Unlike the Ministers, the monarch holds office for life; he is always there to advise, and in a crisis he may have the important duty of choosing a Prime Minister."
      • N. Wood (2001), p. 30: "A limited constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy holds office of very little actual power. The monarch, nevertheless, can still exercise appreciable power – not of a formal or legal nature – by skilfully fashioning an aura of authority (...) If the essence of politics is power, that power is wedded to authority."
      • Rebecca Stefoff (2008), p. 21: "What is monarchy? In simplest terms, it is a government with a monarch, a man or woman who is the sole head of state and holds office for life. Often, but not always, monarchy is hereditary (...)"
    Some sources outright call a monarch a "political office holder":
  • Herman Dicker (1962), p. 154: "The Japanese therefore possess a sense of historic continuity, since the Emperor is the only descendant of a stone age monarch who still holds political office in modern times . But the Emperor is more than a political office holder. He combines religious, cultural, social and political authority in a way which is difficult to analyze."
I don't understand why some people find this odd; it is a very common and well-established way of speaking/writing about the job of being a monarch. It doesn't matter if they are elected as monarch (e.g. the Pope or the Doges of Venice) or inherit the office from a family member (in most other cases); once they are monarch, it's perfectly normal to say he or she holds office for life. Besides, the words "politics" and "political" are never far away: an old/absolute monarch is the political centre of the state and a political head, a modern/constitutional monarch still has important political duties, and authority, [which is] wedded to power, [which is] the essence of politics. I could go on, but this should suffice to demonstrate that it's perfectly fine to put monarchs in the Category:Political office-holders by role (as they have already been since 2005). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Same with "kings". International Business Publications (2012), p. 12: "The King of the Belgians is the constitutional head of the Belgian state and holds office for life. (...) His main political function is to designate a political leader to form a new cabinet after an election or the resignation of a cabinet." Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @William Allen Simpson: this is also an answer to what you have stated above. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers update 2
[edit]
Most of these are still undecided have now been decided, and they have prompted further rulers-related CfRs, CfMs and CfDs. Also, for easier navigation, I have subdivided this CfD into two subsections called "Rulers Update 1" and "Rulers Update 2", I hope that is okay. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for helping build this meta-category, although the verbose nature means that most folks (including me) will never read it all. Based upon your language usage here, though, I've reached a conclusion about some of the unresolved issues:
    • Certain germanic language practitioners reflexively manufacture compound words. English has had some early germanic elements, but is heavily influenced by romantic grammar.
    • Not "subdivided". You divided. They may be "subsections", because the nomination itself is a "section" or "topic" header, but normally we'd call them "sections" under the topic. There's no need for excessive prefixes.
    • A long standing complaint in my own field is "pre-shared key". Compared to a "post-shared key"? In any case, a "key" is an indexing method, such as using a book to derive the secret. (Silk and cyanide techniques.) In all of my computer security protocol designs, I've fairly consistently used "secret" and "shared-secret".
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. On the other hand, I don't need a lecture on mistakes "germanic [sic] language practioners" make. Let's skip irrelevant linguistics and focus on the task at hand. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, "political office holder" isn't a germanic compound word (mathematically a union). It is an intersection of 3 concepts, all of which must be present.
    • An elected monarch seems an outlier, but is still not a "political office holder". Sh/e is merely an "office holder" — holding office. All of human effort is political, gaining office may be political, but not holding a life-time sovereign office with no impeachment process.
    • A monarch who advises (or selects or whatever) a head of government does not become "political" by virtue of that limited involvement. Indeed, its value is that it is considered "apolitical".
    • A monarch who holds the office by force is not a "political office holder", notwithstanding that the court itself becomes the center of government politics.
    • Using force to affect a political aim is the actual definition of terrorism.
    • All of your examples seem to be mere circumstances of words appearing near to each other, not reliable sources of academic research.
    • I've been involved in politics for most of my life, and lived with a politician and political scientist for 1/3 of it.
    • If I don't respond, assume I'm not agreeing, because it is impossible to impart a lifetime of education in a category discussion.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [citation needed]. I have provided literature which says they are.
  • [citation needed]. I have provided W. R. Brock (1951, 2011) as evidence that they do.
  • I'm not sure that is relevant, William. None of the literature references I have provided to the effect that a monarch is a political office-holder say anything about "ruling by force", so we do not need to assume that this is part of the definition.
  • There's more than one definition of terrorism; many of them do not contain the word "political". But as said above, "force" is not part of the definition of being a monarch, so this is irrelevant too.
  • "Not reliable sources of academic research"? Macmillan's Magazine was a literary periodical published by Macmillan Publishers, one of the main academic publishers in the world. W. R. Brock (1951, 2011) was published by Cambridge University Press in their category "Political Science". N. Wood (2001) was published by Palgrave Macmillan in their category "Political Science". Stefoff (2018) was reviewed by history professor Thomas James Dandelet of University of California, Berkeley. Dicker (1962) was published by Twayne (a former subsidiary of Macmillan Library Reference). These are some of the most academic reliable sources you will find.
  • Yeah, you've said that before, and it's irrelevant to the question at hand. I have lived my entire life in a monarchy, but that doesn't make me an expert on monarchy; nor does the fact that you've lived your entire life in a republic make you a non-expert on monarchy either. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on a user's CV.
  • Again, your lifelong highly-educated CV is not an argument why monarchs aren't political office-holders. I'd love for you to respond by engaging with the arguments I have made, and the reliable sources I have provided. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that links to what appears to be a "letters to the editor" section of a literary magazine. This is not academic peer reviewed material. That opinion letter also calls the Pope a "pretender" and a "despot". The words "holds office for life" do not translate "office holder", and the nearby text very few political heads does not mean the Pope is a political head of any office. In context, that refers to other heads than the Pope. ... and it is of very few political heads that so much can be said. The constitutional monarch reigns, but does not govern; the American President governs but does not reign; the French President neither reigns nor governs. But the Pope in his ecclesiastical realm does both; in this department he is a true despot. Moreover, the Pope is chosen by a College of Cardinals: electors who are also appointed for life, not elected by the populace. Sadly, the US electoral college was modeled on the Papal selection, but that has been remedied by subsequent law to ensure the electors are in fact elected. Also, none of the current sub-categories concern the "ecclesiastical realm".
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The words "holds office for life" do not translate "office holder" Yes they do: en:wikt:officeholder: Noun. officeholder (plural officeholders) A person who holds an office.
none of the current sub-categories concern the "ecclesiastical realm". Yes they do. There is in fact a direct line down from "Rulers" to "Popes" Category:Rulers > Category:Rulers by continent > Category:European rulers > Category:Heads of state in Europe > Category:European monarchs > Category:Popes. Fun fact: there are several ways up the chain by which you can show that Popes are political office-holders. E.g. from Category:Popes > Category:European monarchs > Category:Heads of state in Europe > Category:Heads of state by continent > Category:Political office-holders by continent > Category:Political office-holders. There are many other ways to figure out that Popes are political office-holders. "All ways lead to Rome". ;) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Variants of Papal "monarch" categories have been removed repeatedly for 15 years, by multiple editors, and by an arbiter. Even "king" has been removed. Yet they snuck back in last year. Vatican City is sovereign in itself by treaty, but is only an observer at the UN. It is not a nation. It is a most a "city-state". Most importantly, it is ecclesiastical, not secular. Wikipedia is post-enlightenment.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll grant you that the statehood of Vatican City is currently legally shaky. Nor is it a "nation" (one could even argue nations don't exist but are imagined communities, but that's a whole other topic). But before the Unification of Italy and the Roman Question, the Popes were also the heads of state of the internationally recognised Papal States. The consensus is that it was an elective monarchy, with both spiritual and temporal power (including things like, you know, an army). Just like the early modern kings of Poland, grand dukes of Lithuania and princes of Transsylvania, they were elected to lifelong office and were monarchs. The fact that it is ecclesiastical doesn't make it any less monarchy-y, only non-hereditary. (Don't blame me, I didn't make it up). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that "rulers" is a good term to have for a top of the tree category, covering: emperors, kings, sultans, presidents, prime ministers, etc. I regard "office-holder" as an Americanism, not applicable everywhere, particularly in historical contexts (before the days of constitutions) when a monarch was a supreme ruler. An office holder has an office, which implies subordination to someone or something else. In the case of USA, that is the US constitution. However, can Henry VIII of England or Charles I of England in the period when he was trying to rule without Parliament or that absolute monarch Louis XVI of France be correctly described as a mere officeholder? "Ruler" is sufficiently vague to cover a multitude of situations. I would suggest that which rulers were communist or fascist is reasonably well established, but should be limited in scope. Fascist should be limited to European regimes (particularly Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal) established between 1918 and 1945; and communist as ending in 1989; 1991 for USSR; but continuing for China and North Korea; possibly also Laos and Vietnam. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An office holder has an office, which implies subordination to someone or something else. (...) can Henry VIII of England or Charles I of England in the period when he was trying to rule without Parliament or that absolute monarch Louis XVI of France be correctly described as a mere officeholder? Well luckily people were writing about that at the time! As you might be aware, medieval European Christian monarchs reigned by the Grace of God, or at least, that's what they repeatedly stated in their laws. In the Kingdom of the Netherlands where I live, every single new law that is adopted still opens with the words We Willem-Alexander, by the grace of God, King of the Netherlands (...). It implies humility and subordination: "None of us mere humans are worth holding any kind of power, because God is all-powerful, but He has been so graceful as to grant me a bit of earthly (temporal) power". A more assertive early modern guy like Louis XIV argued that he reigned by droit divin or "divine right of kings": the Christian God had given his ancestors, him and his descendents the "right" to hold supreme political office for life in an earthly (temporal) realm. It's a closely related concept grace of God, but the effect is the same: these monarchs are subordinate (only) to God. If the logic here is that the highest authority has no "office", then fair enough, I won't argue that God is a political office-holder. But I will argue that Louis XIV was one. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O-oh, Luwey was the King of France, Before the revolution.... Bu-ut then he got his head chopped off, Which spoiled his const-i-tution.

Vox populi vox dei. Louis wasn't a political office-holder. (American children learn this song in class circa ages 5-6.)
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's nice. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has had the Category:Political office-holders in ancient Rome since 2006. That's right, the community agrees that millennia before constitutions were written, there was such a thing as political office-holders. What's even funnier is that since December 2004, Category:Roman emperors have been considered "office-holders" and "politicians by office". (I've only been on Wikipedia since January 2008, so I didn't make it up; you have been around since November 2005, not quite ages 5-6, but you've had a bit more time to figure this out than I did). Currently, Category:Roman emperors and Category:Kings of Rome are children of Category:Ancient Roman heads of state, a child of Category:Political office-holders in ancient Rome. Oh, and before you ask: Category:Kings of France > Category:French monarchs > Category:Heads of state of France > Category:Political office-holders in France. It's three clicks, not that far-fetched. Dansons le Carmagnole, vive le son, vive le son... Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I and others continue to work through the Rulers category tree from the bottom up. We're getting pretty good at it, finding pragmatic and practical solutions everywhere, and clearing up decades of confusion. We still have a way to go, but we're getting there. Of my/our 26 original proposals, 17 have now been completed (often not how I expected, but usually better than I originally had in mind). Of the remaining 9 proposals, 4 are currently in progress (for Maya rulers I need to clear out its children first). My only regret is nominating Category:Women rulers too early; it was way too high up the tree, and the rest of the tree and the community just weren't ready for it yet. I've learnt patience, and filing CfDs bottom up without making them dependent on each other. I've got a whole scheme worked out now to make sure nominations do not conflict with each other, and it's working pretty well. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    19/26 completed. 2 still in progress. 5 awaiting action (depending on certain factors). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opose to the deletion of a ruler -category. The term "ruler" is a necessary non-specific parent category to specific categories such as monarchs and regents. Not all titles and positions from different cultures and time periods are easy to define. There is a strong need for a non-specific parent category. Further: what will hapen to categories such as "3rd-century BC rulers"? There is a need for a category that sort rulers by century, and "ruler" is such a broad term, that it can be used from antiquity until present day. It would be anachronistic to use a term as "office holder" for a person in ancient times.--Aciram (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The non-specific parent category you are looking for is Category:Political office-holders (which is a sibling of Category:Rulers through Category:Leaders). Category:Monarchs and Category:Regents are already in the Category:Political office-holders tree through Category:Heads of state. Thus, we don't need a "Category:Rulers".
    Not all titles and positions from different cultures and time periods are easy to define. True, but we should try to WP:DIFFUSE. As the process above shows, we have been pretty successful so far: we have been working very carefully, procedurally, and reaching collective consensus on a case-by-case basis.
    what will hapen to categories such as "3rd-century BC rulers"? I don't know, we're not yet at that stage. But the precedents suggest the direction we should be taking when we get there.
    "ruler" is such a broad term That is the problem. This CfM shows that.
    It would be anachronistic to use a term as "office holder" for a person in ancient times No, see e.g. Category:Political office-holders in ancient Rome (has existed on English Wikipedia since 2006).
    I hope I have answered your concerns. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: The reason why regents aren't "rulers" is pretty simple: Category:Regents is not in the Category:Rulers tree, and not in the Category:Sovereignty tree (Rulers' parent). The underage monarchs under their regency are the ones who are legally the head of state. The child monarch holds the sovereignty, not the regent, who is merely acting on behalf of the child monarch until they come of age.
    As established above, "rulers" is usually a synonym for "monarchs", and whenever it isn't, it's not a useful term because it's not WP:PRECISE enough. (This is why all presidents etc. have been removed from the Rulers tree, and part of the reason why e.g "Communist/Socialist/Fascist rulers" were deleted).
    Regents are also not "rulers"/monarchs because they do not obtain their office through hereditary succession. Even though the child monarch under their regency does, and pretty much all regents are royalty (usually the same family as the child monarch), regents do not have to be next in line in the order of succession. E.g. in Salian systems, women can never succeed, so they are by definition excluded from the order of succession; but they can become regents. Regents can be appointed automatically (e.g. the widowed queen consort becomes regent once her husband-kin dies and the heir is still underage, but in some cultures/systems it could also be a brother, sister, uncle etc. of the dead king), or elected by some sort of royal/princely council.
    Regents also do not pass on their office through hereditary succession. A regency ends when the child monarch comes of age, not upon the death of the regent; the reign of the child monarch is presumed to have begun upon the death of the previous monarch. If the regent dies before the child monarch comes of age, usually a new regent is appointed or elected, rather than the oldest son of the regent (or something) succeeding the dead regent. (There are other options, such as that child monarch B dies and then the regent is next in line to succeed previous monarch A, and thus becomes next monarch C).
    At no point, however, is the office of a regent that of a "ruler" with sovereignty, who enters or exits office through hereditary succession by virtue of the office of regent. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow - Reading over this, I think you all are doing a great job in cleaning this up. I agree that wikt:ruler is just too vague a term for categorisation. Even just from the discussion above between the denotative and connotative differences between "head of state", "head of government", and even just "political office holder". Looking over the references above, I don't think "political office holder" is the right target for monarchs, though - "...But the Emperor is more than a political office holder. He combines religious, cultural, social and political authority in a way which is difficult to analyze." - that one cinches it for me, it's more than a typical office holder. Eventually, I think the Rulers categories are probably going to end up as a manual Split between the Monarchs, Heads of state, and Heads of government categories. With a bunch of articles (a fair amount of them seem to be tagged for cleanup and need of references) likely needing to be split/cleaned up/renamed as well. - jc37 16:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rulers update 3 emerging conventions
[edit]
This sometimes involves additional manual mergers. Similarly, Women rulers of/in Foo can be renamed to Woman monarchs of/in Foo if it only includes woman monarchs, but not all of them necessarily had the title of "queen regnant". The relevant precedents are:
  • Note on "monarchs" versus "kings/queens regnant": A convention has emerged to rename categories from Rulers of Foo or Fooian rulers to Monarchs of Foo or Fooian monarchs if it includes kings and queens regnant of Foo per MOS:GNL. This is especially done if splitting them in gender-specific categories such as Kings of Foo and Queens regnant of Foo would result in either or both becoming a WP:SMALLCAT (fewer than 3 items/subcategories combined). The relevant precedents are:
In some cases, a small number of female monarchs is accepted as members of Kings of Foo categories. Sometimes there are specific reasons for that, such as Jadwiga of Poland in the Category:Kings of Poland, because Jadwiga was officially crowned as "King of Poland" — Hedvig Rex Poloniæ, not Hedvig Regina Poloniæ. Polish law had no provision for a female ruler (queen regnant), but did not specify that the monarch had to be male. Anna Jagiellon was similarly officially titled Anna Dei Gratia Rex Poloniae. Sometimes the presence of a single woman in a category of "kings" is (apparently, so far) seen as an acceptable exception to the rule of MOS:GNL, such as queen Erato of Armenia in Category:Roman client kings of Armenia. This last case plays a role in the current "Category:Roman client rulers" CfR (filed by me) on whether it can and should be renamed to "Category:Roman client kings", regardless of whether it includes women, but open to Alt renames such as "Roman client kings and queens", or "Roman client monarchs", in a balanced assessment of MOS:GNL versus WP:COMMONNAME in view of English-language literature on the topic. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that neither of these kinds of "princesses" as such were regnant, and thus not "rulers". There is no Category:Princesses regnant yet, but perhaps there should be. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: It is unclear whether "nationality" is even relevant to monarchs:
  1. because foreign nationals are permitted to hold certain political offices (perhaps including monarchs, certainly including deputy mayors in the Netherlands) in another country, so that "nationality" is WP:NONDEFINING for Category:Political office-holders;
  2. because "nationality" is a modern concept ("nationality" cannot define monarchs if "nationality" itself doesn't exist yet), and there are many pre-modern situations in which monarchs appeared to define the state rather than the other way around; and
  3. because "fooian monarchs" has the risk of being/becoming an WP:ARBITRARYCAT/WP:SUBJECTIVECAT due to the risk of anachronistic/nationalistic claiming of certain former states "belonging" to certain modern countries (see also the "Belarusian rulers" CfD).
Relevant precedents:
  • RM on rulers of Saxony To whom it may be of interest: at Talk:List of rulers of Saxony#Requested move 14 May 2023, I'm applying the guidelines and conventions we have established to a case of dukes, electors, and kings, whom I would like to call "monarchs" per WP:COGNOMEN 5#, and the article itself already seemed to do. I thought it was uncontroversial enough for an undiscussed move, but one user thought it may not be appropriate to label "rulers" below the level of king as "monarchs", and requested an WP:RM. Although several of our category CfRs and CfMs have concluded otherwise, I may be right or wrong. Either way, this RM could set a precedent for the rest of the process, which at various stages also touches upon this point. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RM on rulers of Saxony closed as no consensus. Not what I hoped for, but I think the no consensus result in itself once again confirms that there is disagreement about what "ruler(s)" means. It might be worth listing various definitions/statements of users who emphatically argue that they do know what "ruler(s)" means, and then comparing them. If they can't even agree amongst themselves what "ruler(s)" means, while maintaining it is "clear" or "sufficiently vague" what it means, their arguments may ultimately refute each other. This would confirm the growing consensus to move to clearer and more specific terms, as the ever-growing list of precedents has shown. I do think we need to continue to take all fellow Wikipedians, who maintain the validity of "rulers", seriously. Because the alternatives we come up with sometimes – apparently or actually – do not work better than the status quo. Improvement should always be our goal, and we should always remain open to learning from relevant objections. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One thing the RM discussion at List of rulers of Saxony did show pretty clearly, however, was that presidents, prime ministers, ministers etc. are not "rulers". I've taken this to rename several List of rulers of Fooland articles which included presidents, prime ministers, ministers etc. to Lists of political office-holders in Fooland per established category trees, opening sentences, "See also" sections etc. It's progress of a kind. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rulers update 4 current nominations
[edit]
  • Process as of 20 June 2023 Of the original 26 proposals, 21 have now been fully completed.
  • The #25 Category:Rulers by century tree will probably take the most preparation, as it involves case-by-case diffusion on what the word "ruler" means in each and every case.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parades in Latvia

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Australian transport stubs

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unproposed, unnecessary, and unused. Her Pegship (?) 00:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_25&oldid=1162967027"