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, but it sounds like there is support for changes to the "Russian princes" target categories. This can be followed up on in a new nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these categories have the same scope, they contain medieval princes of Kiev, Novgorod, Vladimir etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Russia and WikiProject Middle Ages have been notified of this nomination. Creator of Ruthenian princes categories has been notified of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Categories with Russian princes should be removed as there were no Russian princes per se. Also from the modern point of view, it gives a totally wrong impression. I would like to add a little overview of history. Rus is a transliterate form of Ruthenia adopted in the 20th century, until then in its place was used Ruthenia. Until the 14th century the Kingdom of Russia existed in the West Ukraine and was conquered by the Kingdom of Poland turning it into a Ruthenian Voivodeship. In the 18 century, the Russian Tsar Peter the Great decided to rename his country as the Russian Empire or Russia, while in the West it was known as Muscovy. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically you're saying that it should be a reverse merge, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a good thing to deceive people with such blatant and well-known Ukrainian pseudo-history. Everything you said is wrong, except of that "Rus" in English indeed has been coined in the 20th century.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Любослов Езыкин: May I presume that you are not against merging but that you are in favor of another name of the merged categories? If so, which names would you propose? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not against the merging as it was and I did not propose anything, but I just dislike barefaced lie, so made my comment. If you want my opinion, "Rus' <anything>" in English looks like "Deutsch <anything>". It's a wrong assumption that one cannot use normal well-established English adjectives on the ground that the words like Russian or German (not to mention such as Egyptian or Persian) could signify something more or less different in the past than they signify today. Behind such assumptions is usually no more than nationalistic and xenophobic complexes, prejudices and enmity.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Любослов Езыкин:So do I understand correctly that you support the originally proposed merge direction, instead of a reverse merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I apologize for the slow response. I urge to check the article on Ruthenians rather than Rus' people. As I said before Rus is a transliteration of the Russian adaptation, in other words non-English word. There was no such a word in English vocabulary until the 20th century. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all -- the parent is Category:Princes in Rus' which is mainly a container category and contemporaneously correct. The target for both the Russian and Ruthenian categories should thus be Category:10th-century princes in Rus', etc. This avoids politically contentious issues as to what the targets should be related to Russia, Ruthenia or Ukraine, or any other polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, having a category name C2C to its parent category is the least risky target. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 18 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.
Nominator's rationale: The category name should indicate that it is for templates. The proposed names fit within the grandparent Category:Science citation templates, although the phrase "source templates" is also widely used in that hierarchy. – FayenaticLondon 14:04, 6 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:Templates for linking to a social networking site[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.
The result of the discussion was:merge. MER-C 20:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, rename and delete, it's a complex tree but with entirely homogeneous content, the whole tree contains some 20 establishment articles and nothing else. One category should be enough for this. Alternatively I'd be open to keeping the decade categories however the distribution of articles among the decades is very skewed, almost half of the articles are in the '60s. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support all Wholeheartedly support. Sheer laziness prevented me presenting a similar nomination. Thanks due to nominator. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support generally but I would go further: I would like the target to be "Dutch colonies" not "Dutch colonial empire". New Netherland did not last long enough for any split by period to be needed: I thus do not see the point of a "by period" split. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we please let this get the nod and then have a look at what remains for another day? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 8 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.
