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: Non-defining category and falls under WP:PERFCAT. None of the individuals included in the cat are notable for having died in a car crash.
This nomination applies to all sub-categories as well; I believe they also should also be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-defining? Really? Diana, Princess of Wales? Marc Bolan? There may be one or two entries that aren't notable, but that's down to discussions on those articles. This is a well-defined category tree for a notable aspect relating to the individuals within it. Speaking of category trees, you would need to tag ALL of the sub-cats too. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 07:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep very defining for the person who died. Hmains (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how one dies is one of the basic biographical details all decent biographies should have. Categorizing on it is a no brainer. One could just as easily argue that one's year of birth is non-defining: Really, is being born on 31 Dec 1995 really so different than being born on 1 Jan 1996? and if the clock on the maternity room wall is off by a bit the whole biography and life changes - butterfly effect like? and what about the folks whose birth year are matters of disagreement among sources (Nancy Reagan, e.g.) and Category:Birth year missing - should we delete them all because their lives would be different if we knew the right year or based an article upon no year at all? hogwash. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with it being a "no brainer" - There are hundreds of things that should (where known) be in all decent biographies (fathers occupation, number of siblings/wives/children, any long term medical conditions, hobbies, religion ...), but are not usually appropriate for categorization. Note: yob/yod categories are not normal categories - e.g. they are not broken down into subcategories when they get large and they exist as much, if not more, for administrative purposes re BLPs etc as for navigation. DexDor(talk) 21:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- I still do not see this as being defining. Diana could have died from choking on a piece of food, and it would still be news. I did a spot check, and it does not convince me. If this were a defining characteristics, then then leads of the article would state: "X was so and so, who died in a car accident". I don't see that having died in a car crash is defining -- this is just bad luck & can happen to anyone. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS -- Wow, Wikipedia does have a Category:Deaths from choking, which includes Attila. I don't believe that the documentation was that great back then for us to know for sure how he died. The article itself is not very sure :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are not certain how Attila died, because the primary sources are contradictory on the subject. However the traditional version of his death is still the one told by Priscus, that Attila "suffered a severe nosebleed and choked to death in a stupor". In this case, choking on his own blood. The traditional account is questioned because Marcellinus Comes claimed that Attila was assassinated and Medieval legends of Attila's assassination do appear in the Völsunga saga and the Poetic Edda. Modern historian Michael A. Babcock has produced a theory that Priscus' story was just a "cover story" and that Attila's assassination was orchestrated by emperor Marcian, one of Attila's enemies. And by the way, Priscus actually worked for Marcian and served as his magister officiorum. Telling a story where you exonerate your employer of assassinating his enemies may render your testament questionable. Dimadick (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with some prominent deaths in the 5th century, the problem is not that we do not have sources, but that the sources disagree. We know that emperor Petronius Maximus died a violent death, but one account has him killed by an angry mob while another mentions a singular assassin. We know that emperor Avitus died while facing deposition, but one account mentions a sudden death while trying to flee his enemies, while another has him captured by his enemies and starved to death, and a third one claims that Avitus was strangulated. We have two different accounts on how emperor Libius Severus died, with one claiming that he died of natural causes and another claiming that he was poisoned by the man who placed him on the throne. We know that emperor Anthemius was deposed and executed by decapitation, but we have two different accounts about who killed him (either Ricimer or Gundobad, Ricimer's nephew). We are relatively certain that emperor Julius Nepos was assassinated but we actually have very little information about the assassination and who was behind it. One account blames two officials called Viator and Ovida for orchestrating the death, while another implies a wider conspiracy that may have involved a former emperor and the local Christian clergy. Welcome to the wonders of ancient historiography, where the sources and their motives are often suspect. Dimadick (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep The Manner of one's death is far more defining to a biography than trivial mentions of his/her job, religion, or reputation. Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2017 (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 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:rename. – FayenaticLondon 20:27, 30 May 2017 (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:rename. – FayenaticLondon 20:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion -- This needs to be implemented more widely, eg Ottoman refers to the dynasty, rather than their subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2017 (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. There is insufficient support to take any action with the nominated categories. The proposed alternatives will require a separate nomination. ℯxplicit 01:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, it's odd to have a modern country parent category of an ancient region/province while the ancient territory was a lot bigger (e.g. it included Thessaly). In theory this can be solved by swapping the parent-child relationship of the categories (as already happened with the Roman categories) but I think merging them is a better way out, since it'll be too difficult to distinct the modern and ancient categories anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove them somewhow -- These are very odd (and anachronistic) categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: I have no problem with the alternative name but that's about category that isn't nominated here. Do you agree with the proposed merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I withdraw my ALT. I'm wondering if there is a substantial difference between the Kingdom of Macedonia and the Ancient-era region. But that's for another forum. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that outcome, which avoids defining a historic subject by anachronistic boundaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if names such as Ancient history of the Republic of Macedonia, Medieval history of the Republic of Macedonia, along with a category description text which clarifies that the category is for the ancient history of the current territory might work. Tim! (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand I doubt whether it's meaningful or feasible to split ancient or medieval Macedonia articles by the current republic's borders. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2017 (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. ℯxplicit 01:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- We categorise players by club and nationality, not by competition. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2017 (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 members of the category have all been removed as this network has gone silent. Raymie (t • c) 03:18, 17 May 2017 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 17#Category:Article namespace templates. ℯxplicit 01:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
