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.
Nominator's rationale: delete. Apparently someone else has already emptied these categories. As I would hope and presume that the original contents is still contained in Category:22nd-century BC people I see no harm in deleting these empty categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Category:22nd-century BC deaths, per Peterkingiron's recommendation. A century category is useful, at the very least. Whoever emptied the other categories outside of the CfD process pre-epted this discussion and there must surely be several articles that can be added to the century category. Sionk (talk) 06:26, 19 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/delete per nom. – FayenaticLondon 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge the first three categories per WP:SMALLCAT, each of the three categories contains one article. After merging, all other categories become empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is an appropriate solution. How far back we need century-deaths categories ought to be a discussion for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 18 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:delete. No objection to a replacement container category as suggested below; per most others in Category:Modern history by country, this should be "Modern history of Hungary". – FayenaticLondon 17:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked that they are all in 20th century in Hungary already. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 18 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:kept. It initially seemed like the oppositions of Peterkingiron and Sionk were in part due to a misunderstanding but while everyone here supports centuries categorization, Peterkingiron, Sionk and John Pack Lambert all do indicate support for keeping a separate birth category, even if duplicative. No opinion on pruning as that's not an issue for CFD (splitting could be done as a separate discussion but it wasn't done here). Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT. For the above ancient periods it's not possible or meaningful to categorize births more accurately than by century or by millennium, but this implies that the "births" categories will eventually contain the same biographies as the "people" categories of the same period. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All It looks like most of these royal biographies (and they are mostly that) show the year their rule began and ended, the latter coinciding with their death. There are a few rulers from these periods with exact birth dates, like Hatshepsut, but they are the rare exception so it doesn't look like a good point of categorization. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is going too far. Precise birth dates may be uncertain, but in many cases we will know approximately. I accept that they may duplicate the people tree, but I would prefer to see efforty being put innot eliminating miniscuole annual categories before we start thinking what century categories we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Peterkingiron's arguments. Though individual years (or decades) would be far too precise, century categories are a sensible way of grouping births in the BC period. Sionk (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid a misunderstanding, the nomination does not suggest that century categories aren't a sensible of grouping births. The rationale is WP:OVERLAPCAT, as it seems pretty obvious that "people" century categories and "birth" century categories will ultimately largely overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PruneCategory:3rd-millennium BC births, making it a container category; we should simply remove from it any articles that are in any more specific category within Category:3rd-millennium BC people, and only then move any remaining pages up into Category:3rd-millennium BC people. Keep the others; where birth dates are approximately known, and especially if they fell in a different century from death, it may be of some small navigational value to categorise by century of birth. – FayenaticLondon 17:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this is the very least what needs to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A large portion of people born in any given century will only be notable in the following.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 17 May 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.
