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 label used in Jadwiga's coronation is an interesting, but for all practical purposes Jadwiga was a Queen regnant, and should be categorised as such. Per WP:CAT, en.wp categories are about navigation ... and this single-item category impedes navigation. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Jadwiga's case is certainly an interesting one, and deserving of a note in King (which I have added). Mary, Queen of Hungary was also crowned as a king. It's hardly worth a category of two that will likely never be enlargeable though. Grutness...wha?00:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The distinction between a queen regnant and a "woman who has been crowned king" hinges less on any defining difference of substance and more on a deficiency of language or translation. It's true that there may have been some sources in the past which called a woman "king" because the language or legal and constitutional conventions of their time didn't allow the concept of a queen being the monarch in her own right rather than the mere spouse or consort of a male monarch, but in actual practice the only substantive distinction between a queen regnant and a female "king" is in the word used, not in what the roles actually entail. Even Jadwiga's article explicitly states that she was given the title king in order to emphasize that she was a queen regnant rather than a queen consort, because she was engaged to be married and people might thus have mistakenly perceived her husband as the real monarch instead of her — so even she doesn't prove the existence of a distinction between queens regnant and female kings. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Promotional (in fact if not in intent) category about a Wikipedia article that is a nine-word stub (which, by the way, should be AfDed). Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Promotional (in fact if not in intent) category about a Wikipedia article that is a nine-word stub (which, by the way, should be AfDed). Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Promotional (in fact if not in intent) category about a Wikipedia article that is a nine-word stub (which, by the way, should be AfDed). Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Promotional (in fact if not in intent) category about a Wikipedia article that is a nine-word stub (which, by the way, should be AfDed). Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This and merge in the partners and associates. As long as we have articles on all of them we need a category for them. It may well be an ADVERT, and if all the people are in fact NN, so that it has no population or only a main article, it can be deleted then. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2018 (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.