< June 10	June 12 >

June 11

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Kingdoms

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: keep. MER-C 12:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Kingdoms

Nominator's rationale: Overlaps completely with Category:Current monarchies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no overlap at all. Category:British monarchy is in Category:Current monarchies, Category:United Kingdom is in Category:Kingdoms. 78.144.46.220 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply A circular argument. The only reason that the UK is in Kingdoms is because somebody (who knows????) removed the re-direct from Monarchies. The reason that the re-direct was there was of course because of the perfect overlap. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should not be restricted to current anything, since there's nothing in the category name showing temporal restrictions. However, we have Category:Empires and Category:Emirates, existing under Category:Monarchies, so I don't see why we wouldn't have a Kingdoms category. Not all monarchies are kingdoms, since they don't all have kings. Monaco is a monarchy and a principality, and has a ruling prince, not a king or queen; Japan is a monarchy, but it has an emperor, not a king. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You have a good point about "current". The rule is that there should be a category for "Former Foo" as a child of "Foo". This means that there should be no such cat as "Current Foo" since all current entities are assumed to be part of Foo. So in fact Category:Current monarchies should be deleted. 20:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep. There is no overlap at all. Category:Current monarchies is about those who rule a Kingdom. Category:Kingdoms is about the areas that are ruled by them. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That's not my understanding. A monarch is a person. The state ruled by the monarch is variously called the realm or principality or arch-duchy. The polity of that state is a monarchy. So "monarchies" refers to states whose polity is that of a monarchy, not the person of the monarch him/herself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sibling of empires and principalities. It seems like Current monarchies deserves a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marcocapelle. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 13 June 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:10th-century establishments in Ceylon

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 11:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:10th-century establishments in Ceylon to Category:10th-century establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:940s establishments in Ceylon to Category:940s establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:948 establishments in Ceylon to Category:948 establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:990s establishments in Ceylon to Category:990s establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:993 establishments in Ceylon to Category:993 establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:11th-century establishments in Ceylon to Category:11th-century establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1010s establishments in Ceylon to Category:1010s establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1017 establishments in Ceylon to Category:1017 establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:12th-century establishments in Ceylon to Category:12th-century establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:13th-century establishments in Ceylon to Category:13th-century establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1200s establishments in Ceylon to Category:1200s establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1210s establishments in Ceylon to Category:1210s establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1215 establishments in Ceylon to Category:1215 establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1220s establishments in Ceylon to Category:1220s establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1220 establishments in Ceylon to Category:1220 establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:14th-century establishments in Ceylon to Category:14th-century establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1340s establishments in Ceylon to Category:1340s establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1345 establishments in Ceylon to Category:1345 establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:15th-century establishments in Ceylon to Category:15th-century establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1410s establishments in Ceylon to Category:1410s establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1412 establishments in Ceylon to Category:1412 establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1460s establishments in Ceylon to Category:1460s establishments in Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:1469 establishments in Ceylon to Category:1469 establishments in Sri Lanka

Nominator's rationale: We should move these to Sri Lanka as the main name. The name Ceylon (disambiguation) referring to Sri Lanka starts at 1505 for Portuguese Ceylon, 1656 for Dutch Ceylon, 1815 for British Ceylon and 1948 for the Dominion of Ceylon. Sri Lanka is probably best as the historical name. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, while there have been various kingdoms in the history of Sri Lanka that all had different names, it is probably a lot clearer to most Wikipedia readers and editors to use the name of Sri Lanka throughout the entire history of the island. Marcocapelle 12:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Support -- This is probably the best solution, but the various different politcal controls do not require separate parents. All should be in a Sri Lanka parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The name Sri Lanka was developed in the 20th-century. To impose it on the past like this is anachronistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Kingdom of Kandy article refers to the place as "the island of Lanka". I could support Category:1412 establishments on the island of Lanka etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The same would apply for using the name Ceylon, however much more out of place. Ceylon was only officially used from 1815-1972, a mere 157 years in the long history of the country. Portuguese Ceylon and Dutch Ceylon were also short lived territories of much smaller status of that of British Ceylon. The country is no longer known by that name.
Support Sri Lanka is the name of the country now and should be the ultimate parent category, as it refers to the island and the country's history. When talking about the history of Sri Lanka it is recognised that it is referring to the whole history of the island. The name Ceylon should be avoided as it the European's name for Sri Lanka and their territories at the time, except when using it in that context. By the way, I think there are more to add to this list.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1815 establishments in Ceylon

The result of the discussion was: keep "Ceylon" for categories from 1815 to 1972. I have now parented the Ceylon categories within the Sri Lanka hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1815 establishments in Ceylon to Category:1815 establishments in British Ceylon

Nominator's rationale: The category covering the 1815-1948 time period is British Ceylon (and the Dominion of Ceylon for 1948-1972). We need to distinguish between the British colonization and Portuguese Ceylon and Dutch Ceylon and Vannimai amongst others. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt rename to Category:1815 establishments in Sri Lanka, while there have been various kingdoms and various foreign occupations in the history of Sri Lanka that all had different names, it is probably a lot clearer to most Wikipedia readers and editors to use the name of Sri Lanka throughout the entire history of the island. Marcocapelle 12:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Both articles (British Ceylon itself and Newstead Girls College) relate to the British colonization. I'd be fine with Sri Lanka as a parent category/remainder category for the non-European stuff in Sri Lanka. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The spelling Ceylon covers Portuguese, British and the Dominion phases: we could not have rival categories, such as Portugal in 1850 or British in 1750. There is thus no need for a national qualifier. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no need to differentiate the different regimes, because they existed at different times, and these categories are already time specific.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the alternative rename won't get consensus, I would rather keep the current name of Category:1815 establishments in Ceylon per PKI and JPL. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Sri Lanka. The name Ceylon is ambiguous, it could mean British Ceylon, Dutch or Portuguese Ceylon, the Dominion of Ceylon or Sri Lanka, (as per Ceylon or current product branding (Ceylon tea)). Sri Lanka is the name of the country now and should be the ultimate parent category, as it refers to the island and the country's history. For years from 1815-1948 short descriptions can be written distinguishing the British Ceylon period and other details.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following should all be renamed:

Category:Murdered ice hockey players

The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 17:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Murdered ice hockey players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a trivial intersection. With the exception of Alcide Laurin, none of the deaths of the people currently so categorized was ice hockey-related, and Laurin's death was ruled not to have been murder. Huon (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should we also delete/upmerge the other subcats in Category:Murdered sportspeople? Neutrality^talk 02:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment shouldn't that category be scoped as Category:Sports-related murders instead of "murdered sportspeople" ? -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The murders were only sports-related if the motivation or venue of the murder was sports-related. An athlete can be murdered and the murder can have nothing to do with sports. Softlavender (talk)
    - Comment But as the nominator states, that's a trivial intersection, and not defining. Thus rescoping the category would present relevance. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note: In theory the articles should stay in Category:Murdered sportspeople as they still meet the (implied) inclusion criteria for that category, but IMO that category (and its other subcats) should be deleted or have tighter inclusion criteria. (I assume the articles are already in subcats of Category:Ice hockey players). DexDor^(talk) 05:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Murdered sportspeople. If this target would also need to be deleted, it can only be done with a separate CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]