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.
Agreed. The issue was regarding claims to what isn't even a predecessor state (see Kievan Rus' article where consensus stands that there were no successor states (razed is razed), but only states that were successful in surviving and fighting over lands well after the fact of the razing of Kievan Rus'. Contemporary Eastern Slavic countries that didn't exist in that era, therefore no one nation-state is in a position to argue that they were 'their' princes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per clarification offered by Iryna Harpy. Current name is clearly ahistorical. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Having established a precedent we should apply it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 25 November 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:Generals of the Army of Congress Poland[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 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 If we kept it we would need to rename to "People of Kingdom of Poland", but it seems to me we so not need it at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:12, 26 November 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:Spanish symbols by autonomous community[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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 20:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, too few autonomous communities here (just one). If not merged (the reasoning may be that regional symbols aren't national symbols) then delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 21 November 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) 18:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This group has a population of ONE and it doesn't seem like the label is particularly active. There is already a category for artists which has a decent number of members. Rayman60 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a small category which is currently of no use for navigation. – FayenaticLondon 20:04, 8 December 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.
Nominator's rationale: I don't know what the best alternative name for this would be, but there's an ambiguity problem here. The category is meant for articles related to the actor model concept in computer science, but I just had to remove severalWP:BLPs of people who are actors and models in the occupational senses of the terms. Usage notes, as we already know, are rarely effective in controlling for incorrect application of categories, since people frequently just apply the categories they think should pertain and then hit save without actually checking the category first to see if they're doing it wrong. So this should be renamed to something that makes its computer science provenance clearer, and is unlikely to accidentally rope in "actor/models" of the human variety. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REname somehow to keep the acting profession out of it. It is sometimes necessary to have disambiguators on categories where the article needs none. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with (computer science) in parentheses. I have to say I wish that category edit histories should the addition and subtraction of articles from the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:00, 5 December 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:Unassessed-Class Wikipedia 1.0 Arts articles[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:merge, leaving a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one Unassessed-Class Wikipedia 1.0 Arts articles so I think it should be moved and a soft redirect created. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; it now only contains a sub-category, and AFAIK the relevant templates should not populate both categories. "Unassessed-class" is rarely used in category names – see Category:Unassessed-Class articles where most of the subcats are "Unassessed Foo articles" rather than "Unassessed-class...". For some reason WP India seems to use the long form to hold articles but the short form for container categories.
Question: is there any template that populates this category directly? Ricky81682: can you remember what was in here when you made the nomination? The target category used to display {{Allincluded}} but I removed that as it was no longer true; it holds only sub-cats, and their member pages are not now also in the parent. I suspect that templates have been changed so that the nominated category is no longer populated. It may help to keep the old one as a redirect; if any template happens to re-populate it, this may flag up that the template needs updating. – FayenaticLondon 20:34, 8 December 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.
