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 12:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is but one page in this category. It is unlikely this category will ever contain more than a handful of pages. Also overcategorization: cemeteries in Virginia and a few of its principal cities are all we need IMO. pbp 23:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A town of 7,000 seems unlikely to ever to reach 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge no need for this one article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the Stonewall Jackson Memorial Cemetery there is the Evergreen Cemetery in Lexington[1] and the "Original African-American Cemetery"[2] (which has received significant coverage[3]. There is a private cemetary, Rockbridge Memorial Gardens[4]. Arguably, Lee Chapel, where Robert E. Lee is entombed could also be included in this category. And Six of the 10 cadets killed at New Market are buried at VMI, which also had a historic cemetery.[5]--Jahaza (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Find A Grave lists EIGHT additional cemeteries beyond those I have described above.[6]--Jahaza (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice to recreating the category if multiple of the beforementioned cemeteries are getting their own WP article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. It does not have a large enough set of contents to justify keeping the category. This can be revisted if more articles are created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2016 (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) 11:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Pilot Butte (a town of about 2000 people) doesn't have a WikiProject. DexDor(talk) 21:54, 4 January 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. Number57 10:47, 5 January 2016 (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:Grade I listed buildings in Glamorgan[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. MER-C 03:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rather anachronistic, considering Glamorgan hasn't existed for over 40 years. We don't have any other categories in this tree for historical super-counties such as Dyfed ...or Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and West Glamorgan for that matter. For consistency and clarity the contents (modern county boroughs and unitary authorities) need upmerging to the general Wales parent category. Sionk (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These are useful navigational categories as a tree, but they're rooted in the current county structure (i.e. what's going to be on a tourist's map today) and so we shouldn't base them on the pre-1973 counties.
Note that there don't seem to be any pages within these cats, merely a handful of sub cats. These should be relocated to the appropriate modern county (and are probably already there), rather than to the too-general "Wales". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subcats are the current counties or county-equivalents (see Local government in Wales#Principal areas of Wales) so upmerge all per nom to "... in Wales" is correct. I have added the parent category Listed buildings in Glamorgan to the nomination, but there are some other subcategories of Glamorgan that need attention too. The buildings shouldn't be in an intermediate subcategory for the historic county of Glamorgan but should reflect modern administrative districts directly. BencherliteTalk 20:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Ham II (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2016 (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:Carniolan people of Slovene descent[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:delete. MER-C 03:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT, since Carniola was an ethnic Slovene country. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carniola doesn't exist any more and trying to divine descent of its people when Carniola pre-dated Slovenia is anachronistic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially as bad as Category:Russian people of Russian descent, which we do not have for the same reasons. The descent categories cover ancestral link in some way, and there is no consensus on what the minimum ancestral link is. I knew someone who was the child of emigrants to Canada from Argentina, but his grandparents came to Argentina from the Soviet Union. However I think anyone who was familiar with his family would have considered him to be "of Argentine descent".John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Historically one might have this as "Slovene people of Carniola", but in a Slovene majority area, this would be a pointless category. If kept, it would need to be limited to the period when Carniola was a province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but I do not think it worth having at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2016 (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. MER-C 11:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as anachronistic. The museums have been established in late 20th-century Yugoslavia (Slovenia) long after Carniola ceased to exist (it lost its independence in the Late Middle Ages, while the Duchy was formally disestablished in 1918). The articles are in Category:Museums in Slovenia already, so no need to upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2016 (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. MER-C 03:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the 19th-century Carniolan lawyers who are in the child category had to cope with Austrian-Hungarian law rather than Carniolan law, after Carniola had been part of Austria(-Hungary) for many centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't actually have an article Carniolan law so (a) cannot tell if any existed or (b) it was notable or just rubber-stamping whatever came out of Vienna. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If someone is able to write an article that demonstrates from reliable sources that there was distinct law in Carniola, then we might have a case to recreate this category. However there has never been a decision that all potential parent categories need to be created. There are two lines of thought on categories. One is that we should only have categories that either have contents or group like things together. The other is that we need every step up the category tree to link every category to all its potential parents. In general I think the former one makes more sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- unless someone will provide us with a main article, quite rapidly. If is possible to have different law operating in different parts of an Empire. English and Scottish law remain distinct. Quebec (I think) uses French-derived law, rather than English Common Law (etc). However, without a main article, we cannot be sure that something similar applies here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2016 (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:Female winners of the Croix de Guerre[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:rename. MER-C 03:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For conformity to existing categs in this area. 86.161.146.60 (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I created the category, but now I see the wisdom of this alternative wording. Do it! Pete unseth (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, and WP:C2E, see above. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match sister cats --Lenticel(talk) 01:22, 7 January 2016 (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. MER-C 03:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The university changed its name in 2011. All articles have since been renamed, with the category tree remaining. Not sure if this would count as WP:C2D. Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely a speedy candidate per C2D. – PeeJay 17:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the name changes. Unlike other universities, this has simply been a name change and not a merger of separate colleges with their own histories. Sionk (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Even if this were a merger, some of the categories would need to be merged too. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Ham II (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems to me that this is overly narrow. I don't see a compelling reason to separate these films out from the parent category -- and this is the only subcategory for a specific country. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Overly narrow subcategory. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 4 January 2016 (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.
