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 the Ghent, Bauchi, Ibadan, Ilorin and Onitsha categories. It seems as though burials in Nigeria has been emptied out of process (and the notice removed) and so no consensus there and should be discussed again before deleting. Rename as to Ysselsteyn It was changed here after the main discussion occurred and Sillyfolkboy did support it. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete, following consensus at January 17 to keep such city categories only as containers for multiple sub-cats for burials by place (cemetery, church etc). The ones nominated for deletion here have no such sub-categories for specific locations. – FayenaticLondon 22:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete City limits of burial not defining to individual's life, and per past concensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Burials at Ysselsteyn has a population, data that we would lose by its deletion. Ghent has one member. The Nigerian ones seem to be empty: was that an out-of-process action? It would certainly be better if a specifc cemetery at Ysselsteyn were named: it should be Kept until an appropriate target can be found. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Nigerian ones have been emptied out of process by Special:Contributions/Eruditescholar; however, he has rescued the "by city" one, so I have struck that from the nomination. Ghent should not be kept, unless someone finds multiple notable cemeteries/churches with large enough numbers of people to make it worth creating sub-categories for them. The Ysselsteyn category appears to be all one burial place, and not a city, so I have changed the proposal for this one, following the pattern of names in Category:German War Graves Commission. – FayenaticLondon 08:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per my previous comments, having died in a city or region is not a definitive feature of a person, and I would struggle to see it pass AFD as a list either. SFB 22:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedily deleted. – FayenaticLondon 08:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see how this category could be useful for visitors or editors, even as a category redirect. Delete. - Eureka Lott 20:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. While this could be a speedy to match the article name, it is ambiguous. That would be fixed by a rename to Category:Waldorf Astoria New York (1931) to complement Waldorf–Astoria (New York, 1893).(link fixed since dab page did not display the correct one, but the point may still be valid) Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Nomination withdrawn. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete split merge per WP:NONDEF, hardly any people in this tree are characterized as 'Polish Austro-Hungarians'. Most people in this tree are simply 'Polish' people. That's not too strange also because quite a number of people in this category were born in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy but were adults in Poland. There are some exceptions like being referred 'Polish-Austrian' people. In contrast to a related discussion about Czech Austro-Hungarians which is still open, see here, hardly anyone in the Polish category has been categorized as Category:19th-century Polish people and/or Category:20th-century Polish people yet, so that's why here there is a proposal for a split merge instead of a proposal to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- I supported the Czech nom (for splitting to Bohemia and Moravia). However there was not a single Poland after the partitions of the 18th century. People were either Polish citizens of Prussia, citizens of (Russian) Congress Poland or citizens of certain Austrian (or perhaps Hungarian) provinces such as Galicia. The adjacnet Slovakia was a possession of the Hungarian, rather than Austrian, crown, which may also apply to Galicia. With a potential existence of under 150 years, I do not see the point of a by-century split. According to the article, only a minority of the people were in fact Polish, the exception being Lvov (now Lwiw). I would thefore suggest something like Category:Polish people of Austrian Galicia. Note there is another Galicia, so that it is necessary to avoid ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People of Austrian Galicia, without the ethnic qualifier because it's not verifiable, defining, or historically accurate. People of mixed or undetermined ancestry (or not verifiable through DNA testing or pure female lineage) and are Rom and Jewish people Polish? These clean line categories just don't work, especially trying to pigeonhole people 100 years after the fact. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what to think of it.Oppose rename. If the articles in this category nearly all claim Polish ethnicity or nationality, who are we to decide that these people were not Polish? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would definitely contest that 'Polish' is a matter of OR. Let's check the first five articles:
Roman Abraham, characterised in the article as Polish, born in Austria-Hungary, adult during the Republic of Poland, general in the Polish army.
Ferdynand Arczyński, characterised in the article as Polish, born in Austria-Hungary, adult during the Republic of Poland, in Polish restistance against Germans in WWII.
Adolf Beck (physiologist), characterised in the article as Polish Jew, born and early adult in Austria-Hungary, late adult during the Republic of Poland, member of the Polish Academy of Learning.
Zygmunt Berling, characterised in the article as Polish, born in Austria-Hungary, adult during the Republic of Poland, general in the Polish army.
Leon Biliński, characterised in the article as Polish-Austrian, born and early adult in Austria-Hungary, late adult during the Republic of Poland, minister both in Austria-Hungary and in Poland.
Withdraw this proposal, as I see that this should be evaluated on an atricle-by-article basis. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2015 (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:Lists of current office-holders in Singapore[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. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary over-categorization. Currently it contains one article only, and given its temporal (current) and spatial (small non-federal city-state) scope is unlikely to be useful. ELEKHHT 14:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- The sole content is a list of MPs. That article should become the main article to Category:Singapore MPs 2011-. In UK we have a category for every Parliament, and this is probably appropriate for Singapore and otehr countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current cat, per multiple precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom, without prejudice against recreating the category if individual MPs are getting each their own article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge/rename. MER-C 07:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT and rename according to the merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As current naming is not clear of purpose. SFB 22:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Query Is there sufficient agreement as to the boundaries of the High Middle Ages? It's a term that's relatively common but does everyone agree on the start and end dates? Does it vary by country? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The high and late medieval tree in Wikipedia mostly uses 11th-13th century for high and 14th-15th century for late. But there's no need to follow that strictly for individual countries. A bit of vagueness can also be an advantage sometimes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for Polish categories. There are very clear reasons for dividing the history into the years. They follow the most significant shifts in Polish history. "High middle ages" is very vague and I would not have a clue what period it represents (and I contribute extensively in that area). Renata (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Each country will have different break points in its history. To demand a common boundary is to impose the categoriser's random selection on events. My preference would be to have one "medieval" parent for each country and to merge as much as possible into that. Even defining the boundaries of medieval is not that simple: for the Byzantines, it follows Late Antique and ends in 1453. In England, it followsDark Ages and probably ends in 1485, with the Tudor accession. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course each country has different break points. Still, if 'medieval' is a valid category across countries, why wouldn't 'late medieval' be an equally valid category across countries? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2015 (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.
