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. – FayenaticLondon 15:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 00:00, 22 August 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 20 August 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Ricky81682: Isn't Puerto Rico still arguably "colonial" under the American administration? RevelationDirect (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would prefer that or "Spanish Puerto Rico". I just noticed that there is also Category:Colonial Puerto Rico (by which they mean Spanish administration) so maybe other people don't find it so ambiguous.RevelationDirect (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the title of the territory was not Colonial Puerto Rico, just make each category a subcatgeory of the corresponding Spanish Empire category. Tim! (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Quite silly and sets a bad precedent. What are you gonna call the categories before 1498? Category:1480s in Borikén? That was Puerto Rico's name before the arrival of Spaniards. So no, leave it as it is, everyone knows what we are referring to. This overcomplicates things. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We generally try to make the categories reflect the entity at that time. The point is, there's some random stuff at Category:Colonial Puerto Rico so someone browsing that category wouldn't see these. At that time, Puerto Rico existed under the Captaincy General of Puerto Rico under the Spanish Empire. That's why there's things like Category:Colonial Argentina, Category:Colonial Brazil, Category:Colonial Paraguay and even Colonial categories for each of the US states. It separates them into different structures which people do find useful and we generally respect that it was a different entity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Whatever may have been its government arrangements, there was only one Puerto Rico, so that there is no need to change the present format. We only need a disambiguator or other qualification to a name when there is a significant difference. Puerto Rico went from being a Spanish colony to an American one in 1897, but this did not make the island bigger or smaller, not did its name change. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 5 August 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. MER-C 12:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem a useful category as it is only based on a local study. Is also not consistent with other similar categories. I suggest that scope should be changed to include notable items only and the category be renamed either "Heritage listed buildings in Ipswich" or "Ipswich Local Heritage Register". ELEKHHT 12:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as creator)The category isn't currently needed and can go as I didn't proceed with that project (overtaken by another project). However, I note that the choice of name was quite deliberate because the Ipswich City Council have not yet formally established their local heritage register (I believe that this study is identifying the candidates for the local heritage register); therefore the category name of Ipswich Local Heritage Register or similar would be misrepresenting the situation so I chose the name that reflected the status accorded to the list by the council which was "heritage citations". Kerry (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Than definitely not the second alternative (stroked out). "Category:Heritage listed buildings in Ipswich" could include all buildings that are on the Queensland Heritage Register located in Ipswich, and when a local heritage register is established, than that could be added as a subcategory. --ELEKHHT 00:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Why is the place where this is not called Ipswich, Queensland, rather than City of Ipswich, which sound like the name of a ship of railway engine. Support deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 5 August 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only user in the category hasn't edited since April 2010. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:17, 2 August 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:Paraná Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology[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. MER-C 12:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no objection to recreating later if/when more content is created on English Wikipedia. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these other related single-member categories, too. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:34, 6 August 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.
