Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 21

• Propose merging Category:Protestant martyrs of the Middle AgestoCategory:Protestant martyrs

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- This is an unnecessary level. I would suggest that the three Czech martyrs should be categorised as Category:Husite martyrs. Protestant martyrs is a sort of oxymoron as this precedes the concept of Protestant, but I cannot think of anything better. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Protestant martyrs of the Middle AgestoCategory:Proto-Protestant martyrs of the Middle Ages. Its sub-cats would be Category:Lollard martyrs, Category:Hussite martyrs (note spelling with double s) and, possibly, Category:Waldensians martyrs (if the necessary biographical articles are written). Greenshed (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can see we do not have any articles about Waldensian martyrs. No objection against renaming Category:15th-century Protestant martyrstoCategory:Proto-Protestant martyrs of the Middle Ages, but that would be a different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That not only eliminates head-scratching about 'pre-reformation protestants' but confusion about protestant commemorations of non-protestants (imagine: Saint Dominic is in the Calendar of saints (Lutheran)!) Sparafucil (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The pre-protestant dissidents are indeed challenging to categorize but this issue is pretty straightforward: there's an extra layer here with no navigational benefit that should be merged. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Anti-Catholic propagandiststoCategory:Critics of the Catholic Church

Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope, both categories mostly contain writers who write critically about the Catholic Church. Whether or not it is propaganda is rather subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't necessarily disagree with the proposal, it sounds like the issue is with Category:Propagandists by topic rather than with this specific category. I suggest mergingtoCategory:Anti-Catholic activists.--User:Namiba 14:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose then the category should be split manually between Category:Critics of the Catholic Church and Category:Anti-Catholic activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable solution. I would support addressing the larger Propagandist category in a separate discussion.--User:Namiba 12:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment how is this not an WP:OPINIONCAT?Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose containerizing Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) = OPTION A

Nominator's rationale: containerize, a clear majority of Singaporean people (74% in 2018) is of Chinese descent, so it is not meaningful to categorize them by this characteristic. This issue was raised earlier by User:Johnpacklambert and opposed by User:Prisencolin, as a side-track in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we do not have Category:English people of English descent. When over 70% of a population fails under some heading, we do not categorize by being part of that heading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: with respect, I think this nomination is seriously flawed as it would send the incorrect message that the ethnicity of the majority is somehow the norm, and that categories for other ethnic groups (“Singaporean people of Indian descent”, “Singaporean people of Malay descent”, and so on) are deviations or exceptions from the norm. It is akin to putting all male writers in a category called “Writers”, and then having a special category called “Women writers”. I cannot emphasize more strongly that such approaches are completely wrong-headed. Either we have categories for all ethnic groups, or none at all (and place all articles in “Singaporean people”). @Johnpacklambert: I do not think “English people of English descent” is a comparable example, because “English” is not, as far as I am aware, an ethnic group. It is a form of nationality. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • English is very much an ethnic group. There are areas of modern England where the population would not be considered historically English, and there are people of English descent like Henry Ford whose ancestors lived for ages in Ireland but never became Irish and never stopped being English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not being a sociologist, I can’t say for sure if my understanding is in line with contemporary thinking on the matter, but I would have thought that ethnicity refers to categories such as “Asian”, “Black”, “White”, and so on, rather than “English”, “Irish” and “Scottish”. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This does not change the fact that “English people of English descent” is not defining at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on further thought I think that when less than 80% of a population is of a certain descent, there is some reasoning for keeping by descent categories. However I think we need to make sure that this category is only applied where we have actual evidence, and it is not assumed or imputed without evidence. I had thought the percentage of those of Chinese descent in Singapore was much higher, but since it is only 74% I think in this case there is adequate argument for having the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the change of view, though I would point out that drawing the line at 80% is arbitrary and misses the point, which is that there is no warrant for treating one group of people as the “norm” and others as deviations from the “norm”. We should either have all the categories, or none of them (that is, do not categorize by ethnicity at all). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other case in which some of us thought it might be questionable was with Category:Hong Kong people of Chinese descent, where the percentage is even higher at 92%.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another descent category that no one can explain how much of Chinese descent one must be to be defining, how distance that descent can be to be defining, and what WP:RS tell us objectively that it is defining and that the purported descent is accurate. (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories for more insight). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Carlos, you've convinced me in the error of my ways. Too subjective, not enough definition as to what "Chinese Singaporean" might entail.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Carlossuarez46 and Prisencolin: currently there are a whole lot of subcategories, that is why I proposed containerization instead of deletion. Should the subcategories be nominated for deletion too, or should we limit this to containerization of the top category? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All except the emigrants categories should be deleted as NONDEF, etc. "descent" categories. The emigrants categories are both clear in scope and verifiable - and I believe citizenship is defining, therefore change of citizenship brought about by migration across international borders (or overseas) is defining for the individual who actually migrated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll second whatever Carlos said.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I’m not fully understanding what is being proposed. If the proposal is simply to move all articles to subcategories of “Singaporean people of Chinese descent”, then I have no objection to that, although there may be some cases where the ancestral descent (Cantonese, Hokkien, etc.) is unknown. However, if the proposal is to delete “Singaporean people of Chinese descent” entirely, then I disagree unless all other subcategories like “Singaporean people of Indian descent” and “Singaporean people of Malay descent” are also deleted and all articles put into “Singaporean people”. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In both option A and option B there would be no article directly in Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent because a large majority of Singaporean people is of Chinese descent anyway, so it is not a defining characteristic. That argument does not apply to people of Indian or Malay descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OPTION B

• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Chinese descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Cantonese descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Hakka descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean politicians of Hakka descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Henghua descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Hoa descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Hokkien descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Hong Kong descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Peranakan descent see this discussion
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean politicians of Chinese descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Northern Han Chinese descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Taiwanese descent
• Propose deleting Category:Singaporean people of Teochew descent

• As nominator, I am neutral between option A and B, both are better than the status quo. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: There's too much new action being proposed at once. Please propose new deletions in another nomination..--Prisencolin (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option B follows what Carlos said. I'm fine if you switch back from supporting option B to supporting option A. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Carlos is suggesting everything in Category:People by ethnic or national descent be deleted if you follow him to the T.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then better read the question more carefully before stating "I'll second whatever Carlos said." Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The most egregious situation would be for “Singaporean people of Chinese descent” itself to be deleted and for “Singaporean people of Indian descent”, etc, to remain because this is exactly suggesting that those other people are “deviations from the norm” which, I have said, is a very bad message to send. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Majorcan Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Proposing deletion and upmerging of only entry into "Spanish Muslims". Mallorca was under Muslim rule, as was most of Spain, a lot of it for much longer (though ironically this only entry was born in a Christian Mallorca) - but there aren't categories for Muslims from Granada or Córdoba. This is an acute WP:OVERCAT of location and religion, there are no categories for Mallorcans from any other religion (nor should there be), nor are the larger population of "French Muslims" divided by location (excluding Réunion), or even the huge and diverse population of "Indonesian Muslims" broken down by island. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. In theory there could be Muslim people from the Taifa of Majorca to be categorized separately, but that was a very short-lived state. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Majorcan is not a "nationality" as its parent category suggests. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Catalan Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT intersection of region of birth and religion, propose upmerging to Spanish Muslims. Only one of the four people in the category lived in an independent Catalonia, two are modern Spaniards and one lived in a Moorish kingdom. There is no category for the majority of Catalans who are Catholic, nor should there be as that is equally overcategorising. In a European country with a larger Muslim population, France, the only category split by location is for Réunion, an island in the Indian Ocean. Even the largest and most diverse Muslim country, Indonesia, does not divide "Indonesian Muslims" to "Balinese Muslims", "Javan Muslims" Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Archbishops of SalzburgtoCategory:Roman Catholic archbishops of Salzburg

Nominator's rationale: There is only one diocese. They are all Roman Catholic. The anchor article is Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Salzburg. Rathfelder (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- An unnecessary change because there are no rivals. This has always been a Catholic see. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's a merge (of a recent duplicate creation to the original, created in 2007) not a rename. Follow the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Salzburg and the parent categories Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Austria, Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Salzburg. Oculi (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even if there were no rivals it should still be merged to maintain consistency with the convention of the RC tree. I do not say that that convention is correct, I merely say that it is there and ought to be respected until something better has general agreement. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency, per nom and Laurel Lodged above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:KhayyamologiststoCategory:Researchers of Persian literature
• Propose merging Category:Nasir Khusraw Researchers from IrantoCategory:Researchers of Persian literature
• Propose merging Category:Nizami Researchers from IrantoCategory:Researchers of Persian literature
• Propose merging Category:Saadi Researchers from IrantoCategory:Researchers of Persian literature
• Propose merging Category:Rudaki ResearcherstoCategory:Researchers of Persian literature

Nominator's rationale: In most cases these are not mentioned in the biographical article text, so not WP:DEFINING. Others are WP:SMALLCAT. This is a follow-up to a similar merge at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Category:Sanai Researchers from Iran. Note: I have already added the contents of each category as an entry or list under "See also" in the related articles on the literature topics (early writers). – Fayenatic London 19:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of MexicotoCategory:Roman Catholic archbishops of Mexico (city)

Nominator's rationale: To designate the denomination. To match the Category:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico (city) (which I have boldly created). To disambiguate the city from the state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as we need to distinguish between Roman Catholic archbishops of Mexico and Anglican archbishops of Mexico. If in the future there are enough articles on Anglican archbishops of Mexico to justify a category, then, arguably, Category:Archbishops of Mexico, might be used as a parent category to both the Mexican Roman Catholic and Mexican Anglican archbishop categories. Greenshed (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support so as not to conflate them with their Anglican counterparts. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match the article title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but "Catholic" would be sufficient. Reusing the existing name as a container for both archbishops would be good, but perhaps that should be Category:Archbishops in Mexico. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gay nobilitytoCategory:LGBT nobility

Nominator's rationale: For similar reasons as discussed for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 10#Category:Gay royalty. Particularly with an historical set, categorising an individual as gay specifically rather than LGBT more broadly is difficult to define. I'm also not sure if nobility is an occupation Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support maybe it's more a way of sporting a hat than an occupation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Category:LGBT nobility should probably become a subcategory of Category:LGBT people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category no longer populated by the software after gerrit:585519 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This looks like a procedural deletion. This category was populated only by the MediaWiki software, and MW no longer does so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Our Lady of Częstochowa churches in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Classic WP:SHAREDNAME Le Deluge (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Request @Le Deluge: Can you please repopulate this category so we can evaluate this nomination? - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, this category has been emptied. Please do not nominate a category at CFD and then empty it. It wastes everyone's time. If the emptying was done by another editor, my apologies. But this has happened a lot recently. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss something, or was it the tail on the third letter? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is 100% a case of shared name. It is not really a de facto ethnic category. I had friends who were immigrants from India who went to such a Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete shared names of churches is one of the enumerated examples at WP:SHAREDNAME. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Cancer survivors

• Propose Deleting Category:Appendix cancer survivors‎
• Propose Deleting Category:Breast cancer survivors‎
• Propose Deleting Category:Cervical cancer survivors‎
• Propose Deleting Category:Colorectal cancer survivors‎
• Propose Deleting Category:Kidney cancer survivors
• Propose Deleting Category:Leukemia survivors‎
• Propose Deleting Category:Liver cancer survivors
• Propose Deleting Category:Lung cancer survivors
• Propose Deleting Category:Ovarian cancer survivors
• Propose Deleting Category:Pancreatic cancer survivors‎
• Propose Deleting Category:Prostate cancer survivors‎
• Propose Deleting Category:Skin cancer survivors‎‎
• Propose Deleting Category:Testicular cancer survivors
• Propose Deleting Category:Thyroid cancer survivors

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT and WP:NONDEFINING

We have a categories for people who died from all of these types of cancers so these are the equivalent categories for people that did not die. Part of the problem here is that cancer survivors will eventually die of something, and there's an above average chance that it will be cancer which creates a maintenance issue. These odds vary a lot by cancer type: prostate cancer has a 99% five year survival rate while pancreatic cancer is only 6%. The biggest problem is that Wikipedia is not a medical history of every diseases or ailment (even serious ones) notable people contract in their lives. The category headers encourage only adding articles where this was defining and, while this is often personally defining for people I know, I don't think it's defining from an encyclopedic standpoint. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Background We recently deleted other disease survivor categories here, here and right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. They all die in the end. Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We aren't any more notable for not dying of a disease. Aside from the ones mentioned by BrownHairedGirl and RevelationDirect, we also have Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_9#Category:People_with_coronavirus_disease_2019. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: If there is a consensus to do so, I would favor deleting many of the cause of death categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If a disease does not actually kill someone the definingness of it is not enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & precedent. It's hard to define surviving a disease. We also deleted People with cancer which was where articles were kept until the person either survived 5 years or died and then their article would "move on" to either the deaths from cancer categories or these categories. Of course, that left the messy situation if one survived 4 years with cancer and got hit by a bus...they did survive cancer? Due to the inherent uncertainty, particularly when cancers recur, it's best to delete these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Locations near Mount Everest

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)

I can't accuse this category of false advertising: all these mountain peaks are indeed near Mount Everest but they're also in Category:Mountains of the Himalayas. But what qualifies as "near" is subjective and we already have overlapping non-subective categories: Category:Mountains of the Province No. 1 for the Nepalese side of the border and Category:Mountains of Tibet for the Chinese controlled side. In the articles space, we already have List of Himalayan peaks and passes for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no standard defitnition of "near" and any definition we imposed would be arbitrary. Categories need clear definitions, and this is the very definition of lacking one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ukrainian military formationstoCategory:Military units and formations of Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: Newly-created duplicate of extensive hierarchy at Category:Military units and formations of Ukraine Le Deluge (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming either:

• Option A (use endash)
  • REDIRECT Category:Travancore-CochintoCategory:Travancore–Cochin (over redirect)
  • REDIRECT Category:Members of the Travancore-Cochin Legislative AssemblytoCategory:Members of the Travancore–Cochin Legislative Assembly–
  • REDIRECT Category:Political parties in Travancore-CochintoCategory:Political parties in Travancore–Cochin

• Option B (use hyphen)
  • REDIRECT Category:1950s establishments in Travancore–CochintoCategory:1950s establishments in Travancore-Cochin
  • REDIRECT Category:1950s in Travancore–CochintoCategory:1950s in Travancore-Cochin
  • REDIRECT Category:1953 establishments in Travancore–CochintoCategory:1953 establishments in Travancore-Cochin
  • REDIRECT Category:20th century in Travancore–CochintoCategory:20th century in Travancore-Cochin
  • REDIRECT Category:20th-century establishments in Travancore–CochintoCategory:20th-century establishments in Travancore-Cochin
  • REDIRECT Category:Centuries in Travancore–CochintoCategory:Centuries in Travancore-Cochin
  • REDIRECT Category:Decades in Travancore–CochintoCategory:Decades in Travancore-Cochin
  • REDIRECT Category:Establishments in Travancore–CochintoCategory:Establishments in Travancore-Cochin
  • REDIRECT Category:Establishments in Travancore–Cochin by centurytoCategory:Establishments in Travancore-Cochin by century
  • REDIRECT Category:Establishments in Travancore–Cochin by decadetoCategory:Establishments in Travancore-Cochin by decade
  • REDIRECT Category:Establishments in Travancore–Cochin by yeartoCategory:Establishments in Travancore-Cochin by year

Nominator's rationale: to standardise on either a hyphen or an endash for spelling the Indian state of Travancore–Cochin (1949–1956). I have no preference, and would be happy to standardise on either form.

I created the establishments categories, using the endash per the head article Travancore–Cochin. I then noticed that the parent Category:Travancore-Cochin uses a hyphen.

To standardise the names, I considered speedily renaming the parent per WP:C2D, but it was ineligible for C2D because the head article's move to an endash had not been discussed. Category names usually follow article names, but there was no consensus on the article name, so I opened an RM discussion at Talk:Travancore–Cochin#Requested_move_12_March_2021, in the hope of finding a consensus one way or the other. But consensus there was none ... so I bring this to a full CFD discussion.

As above, I really have no preference either way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A (use endash) Follow the article is the usual route. Oculi (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:KhaganatestoCategory:Khanates

Nominator's rationale: merge, both categories use Khanate as the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. Several other languages' Wikipedias also have both, and it may be helpful to keep the redirect here. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]