February 18
Ruthenian people by occupation
- 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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 23:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, no less than six categories for currently only three articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Theses are classic examples of WP:SMALLCAT and have little to no potential to include more than one or two articles. Support merge/delete per nominator. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:11, 18 February 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.
Category:9th-century Ukrainian princes
- 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 per nomination for now. Pinging @Marcocapelle: for follow-up, to include the Ukrainian parent. – Fayenatic London
- Propose renaming Category:9th-century Ukrainian princes to Category:9th-century princes in Rus'
- Nominator's rationale: rename to align with its siblings in Category:Princes in Rus' and to avoid anachronism. A speedy rename was opposed because the category also parents to Category:9th-century Ukrainian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - to Category:9th-century princes in Kievan Rus' and to Category:9th-century Kievan Rus' poeple accordingly.GreyShark (dibra) 07:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection per se, but this may be better done in conjunction with the 10th to 13th century sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer, please ping me when closing, then I'll go forward with a fresh nomination for all century categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename We should follow the precendent on referring to this polity as Rus' and not take any specific side on which modern nations can claim some sort of connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 26 March 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.