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: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, all three categories are about electors of the Palatinate. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In principle Merge but purge -- the target should be limited to the head of the family with the title Elector. We are going to need a category for other members of the family, such as Prince Maurice and Prince Rupert of the Rhine (Ruprecht), which are currently in one of the categories, as is one of a juvenile branch who was Duke of Simmern, but apparently left no male heir, so that his duchy reverted to the senior branch. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep As the last comment shows, they are not the same thing. But we don't need 2 categories for electors. Peterkingiron, why do we need to do anythingmore, and de-categorize the non-Elector princes? Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need a category for members of the family who were not electors. German princely states were in principle divisible between sons, but the office of Elector was not. We need a category for other members of the princely family, unless we have one already. It could be that Category:Counts Palatine of the Rhine and/or Category:House of Palatinate-Simmern are adequately covering this; if so, we probably need no more. Category:House of Wittelsbach is much too large and needs containerising. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw merging Category:Princes of the Palatinate per discussion above. Earlier I imagined the creator of the categories had in mind that the electorate was a kind of principality, so that princes = electors, but now I understand that princes = relatives of electors. I'm not withdrawing the other merge, as pointed out above we only need two categories, not three. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 22 September 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: delete, not a defining characteristic. Also there is no article about it, try this: Imperial Valley. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The contents appear mostly to be Swiss cantons, presumably ones that rebelled against the Hapsburgs. The inclusion criteria are unclear. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, ones that were parts of the HRE, I think. The Swiss do do valleys as political units, see Talschaft. The term is used in history books - see here (ignoring the ones about California). Currently, our coverage is at Old Swiss Confederacy and Growth of the Old Swiss Confederacy I'm loath to support when the nom doesn't pretend to know anything about the subject. As many foreigners have found, the best thing is usually to leave Swiss politics to the Swiss. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 21 September 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: delete, the name of the category suggests it is about history, but the content is just current German cities. (Note: we do have real history categories about the Palatinate, see nomination below.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I considered listifying but there seems to be a navbox already. Mangoe (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Populated places in the Electoral Palatinate. This is a legitimate means of categorising them, unless it would in fact be a duplicate of some other category, based on present or later geographic status. There possibly ought to be separate categories for the Rhenish Palatinate and the Upper Palatinate, two portions of then elector's territory some distance from each other. Note: "palatinate" alone is ambiguous: Lancashire and Cheshire were counties palatinate in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in this earlier discussion it was thought to be undesirable to fill up a history category with current geographic items. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 20 September 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:History of the Electoral Palatinate[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.
Nominator's rationale: rename, as this category has some broader content, it also contains articles of small spin-off states of the Electoral Palatinate, as well as the history of the Palatinate after the Electoral Palatinate ceased to exist. Articles that are really about the history of the Electoral Palatinate itself are better off in Category:Electoral Palatinate. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Palatinate (by itself is ambiguous: the English counties of Cheshire and Lancashire were (or are) counties palatinate, which had different administrative arrangements from the rest of England. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 20 September 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.
Rename to match the parent category. Though I am not sure if a category by gender and genre of writing is really useful. Why not Women science fiction writers, for example? Dimadick (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the parent category. --Lenticel(talk) 01:42, 22 September 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; could be re-created if there are articles to add beyond just the heads of state. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per actual content, it's pretty useless to create a "People of War" category for just the heads of state of the war parties involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (at creator, I think). It certainly has scope for expansion, but I'm not sure that's actually grounds for deletion - it fits within the well-established category tree of Category:People by war. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The usual practice is to have a template to name the participants in a war. The wars in question were three rebellions in the period 1465-8. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No conceptual problem with the category but having some heads of state that are not defined by the conflict doesn't aid navigation. No objection to recreating. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:15, 21 September 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 19:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's rationale: category:JogiAsad is used for the purpose of collecting all my userpage's subpages into a one place.Jogi 007 (talk) 05:42, 19 September 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.
Military bases and facilities to installations 2[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.
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the name of the main article, Surface science. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom; the cat actually gives the main article name. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
rename to match parent article --Lenticel(talk) 01:41, 22 September 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.
