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. Timrollpickering 11:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there is currently only one article in it, and neither of the parent categories is a suitable merge target for that article. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion per smallcat. This cat is unlikely to grow beyond the one article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2018 (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/delete. Timrollpickering 10:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this is a proposal that aims at significantly reducing the amount of articles that are being categorized anachronistically. "Selectively merge to people of medieval Belgium" means: only merge if the article is not already in some other way in the tree of that category. Since many articles are already in some other way in the tree of Category:People of medieval Belgium - for example in Category:Counts of Namur or in Category:Medieval Flemish artists - this will effectively be a single merge in many cases. The same principle applies to the Netherlands and Switzerland (the latter only until the 13th century, since Switzerland emerged in 1291). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not wholly happy -- I accept that there is no viable option but to merge to HRE, per nom up to 1384 or perhaps 1421, when what became Belgium and United Provinces began to be united under the Dukes of Burgundy as Burgundian Netherlands. From about that point until the Dutch rebelled in the 1560s, there was a unified state, approximately covering what is now Belgium and Netherlands. I would suggest that this could be we could have people of Burgundian Netherlands for 15th and early 16th centuries, moving to Spanish Netherlands in c.1570. However, I do not think we can allow people of medieval Belgium, which is an anachronism. Dutch people should be in Burgundian Netherlands up to c.1570. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Category:People of the Burgundian Netherlands as a subcategory of Category:15th-century Belgian people that should cover the above concerns. Note that part of the southern Netherlands and the larger part of the northern Netherlands did not belong to the Burgundian Netherlands, so there is no equivalence of Belgian and Dutch people with people of the Burgundian Netherlands, just partial overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally support The century categories for Holy Roman women should be tagged "non-diffusing" as most "women by century and nationality" are so that for any century the women also appear in the main "peole" category or another subcategory. Hugo999 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom. Good logic & good work sorting it out. Place Clichy (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose "Anachronism" is better than this. "people of the Holy Roman Empire" is currently a collection of national sub-cats, but excluding many territories like the Italians. The proposal seems to be to just dump them there individually. In itself it is a pretty useless grouping, and not properly populated. Logic is driving these in completely the wrong direction. By this logic, we should lump most historical Irish people in with the English. How do you feel about that, @Laurel Lodged and @Peterkingiron? Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Irish case is different. The island status transcends states and confers a common bond, if not ethnicity. The same could not be said for Belgium or Switzerland: is there such a thing as Belgian ethnicity as opposed to citizenship? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What, you think there's an Irish ethnicity? Just one? If there is the Waloons and Flemish people are certainly ethnicity. Belgium is lucky enough to have 1 1/2 ethnicities, somewhat like Northern Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still not happy -- If we do this, we need to categorise people according to the county or duchy from which they came too, though not split by century: Namur, Holland, Utrecht, Flanders, Liege, etc, so that we do not lose their local connection in a wholly amorphous HRE. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As far as I can tell, most articles are already directed to their county or princely state. Where such categories do not currently exist, they ought to be created. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because I don't see the problem. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Guye: the problem is that the modern state of Belgium did not exist in the 11th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2018 (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: There's no reason to subdivide Category:French classical violinists by gender. The absence of a "French male classical violinists" category means the females are "ghettoized" into a subcategory, a problem which has caused considerable adverse public controversy in some cases. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Splitting women writers out (certainly for fiction) is justified because they write differently from men, each gender tending to write from its own perspective. I am not sure that violinists (or other musicians) perform significantly differently according tom their gender. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and WP:CATGENDER: nothing specific about women pianists and women violonists (unlike writers or politicians). Place Clichy (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2018 (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.
