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 18:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge, agree w/precedent. Neutralitytalk 03:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per precedents in many previous discussions. Oculi (talk) 12:15, 21 June 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:no consensus to delete. Some favored replacing "Spanish" with "Iberian", but there's not enough of a clear consensus here for that action.Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ahistorical categorization with a potential for misleading readers: the Iberian peninsula is not coterminous with modern Spain, and one should be wary of referring to Roman or Visigoth Hispania as "Spain" pure and simple when the context is not otherwise clarified; most importantly, it is a very dubious concept to have "Spanish people" in the 5th and 6th centuries or to have the Gothic kings called "Spanish monarchs"... Constantine ✍ 10:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. Please verify the 6th-century Spanish people (the nomination now contains this category three times). Also please check whether or not merging to Category:Visigothic Hispania might be needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, sorry, my mistake. Fixed now. Constantine ✍ 12:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Category:6th-century Iberian monarchs etc, since this covers what is now Spain and Portugal. I do not think it is useful to amend them to match Category:Visigothic Hispania, but that should perhaps be a parent. Indeed I doubt we should have "Spanish" categories before 1492, the personal union of Aragon and Castile and the final conquest of Andalus. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a bad idea, but the problem with "Iberian" is that it could equally refer to the monarchs of Caucasian Iberia for this timeframe. I would support a pruning of our "Spanish" categories though, which seem to include even people from al-Andalus as "Spanish" people. Constantine ✍ 20:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The use of "Spanish" prior to 1500 is anachronistic, and I may be allowing it earlier than reasonable. The personal union of Aragon and Castille did not create a Spanish nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In that case I suggest that 5th and 6th century English, French and Italian people are deleted as well, because none of these modern nations (or their medieval predecessors) had been established yet. In that case, Spanish, English, French and Italian should be interpreted as a geographic term and therefore dealt in the same manner. --Gligan (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead nominating these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would probably support all of those moves. Charlemagne was not French but Frankish for example, and he is later than what we are dealing with here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So we should delete/rename all German and Italian categories before the 19th century, when those countries were unified? Hugo999 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hugo999 Sure, we need to avoid anachronism. This is the ongoing editorial tendency, in order to prevent edit-warring (Sudan/South Sudan, Iraqi Kurdistan/Iraq, Morocco/Western Sahara, etc.) and crazy rename procedures if new states arise or existing ones disappear (which happens every now and then).GreyShark (dibra) 10:08, 13 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:Netherlands Antilles articles correct after Dissolution[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 12:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a more than four years old hidden category with no clear purpose. I'm guessing this is related to the Netherlands Antilles dissolution. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, defunct maintenance category. Neutralitytalk 03:09, 15 June 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.
Upmerge/delete, agree w/precedent. Neutralitytalk 03:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge etc per nom. A subcontinent is sufficient to categorise taxa. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per precedents in many previous discussions. Oculi (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge although I think we should use the term West Asia and not the Eurocentric Middle East.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:32, 9 July 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. MER-C 12:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per precedents in many previous discussions. Oculi (talk) 12:16, 21 June 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. – FayenaticLondon 18:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete. In previous nominations, Greek colonies in a current country have been renamed to Greek colonies in a contemporary region. We can now also remove the parent category of the no-longer-existing country subcats. Its only content concerns Libya, but this is also in Category:Greek colonies by region. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion of ahistoric, anachronistic parent Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Greek colonies by region. Libya was (I think) a Greek region with that name (also called Pentopolis - meaning 5 cities) in what is now Cyrenica (east Libya). The use of regions will be much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, merging and deleting is the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 22 June 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:Military installations by date of establishment[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.
Oppose a wholesale change. The 1724 category is misconceived: a regiment conducted exercises on a heath. It was not a camp (or barracks) and hence not certainly completed in 1724, probably not even started then. The 1748 item may be a foudnation date not completion. The 1904 item was built 1904-09; 1904 is a foundation date, not completion. I have not checked further, but suspect that the whole nom is misconceived. Merge all annual categories to decades: many will still not be populated well, also merging to an annual Buildings and structures category by country if necessary. Category:Organizations by year of establishment is clearly inapproipriate for what is essentially a complex of buildings. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is. Establishment is a firm start date; continued building may go on for a long time so 'completion date' may be totally arbitrary and meaningless to the purpose of this categorization. Hmains (talk) 04:50, 26 June 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.
