Nominator's rationale: while in theory we might split this in Early Modern versus Modern European colonialism, in practice Early Modern and Modern history are lumped together here in one category, which makes the word "modern" in the category name redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
agree -- The main colonial movement is post-1500 (hence "modern"), but Venice had medieval colonies, as did ancient Greek cities. These may need (indeed have) their own categories, which coulkd be subcats to the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a properly named Wikipedian category, membership is time-dependent, unlikely to be populated —swpbT20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion User categories have to be better-thought than that. Categories with one member make no sense. Editors should find better stuff to involve their time. Chris Troutman (talk)20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge back to year). The chance of us getting enough to populate anything more specific than annual categories at that distant period is remote. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge back to year). The chance of us getting enough to populate anything more specific than annual categories at that distant period is remote. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge back to year). The chance of us getting enough to populate anything more specific than annual categories at that distant period is remote. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are more than sufficient community and county categories for the region. We don't need even further breakdown....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?12:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a problem of using various levels of "from" categories for people. In the US, it's almost always State/County/city or town - so that those from a particular city are in that category, which is a sub cat of the county, which is a sub cat of the state. In modern times, people often live in several places and we categorize those of note. In the main this just seems to be a subgrouping of county categories for the counties that comprise Southern California (and including the Greater LA one, which for whatever reason is another subgrouping); why some folks are categorized here seems more because we don't know where more specifically than Southern California someone is from (which begs the question if you have no clue where someone's from, how can a biography be written? But alas, I digress). If this stays I should expect that any geographic area notable enough for its own article will end up having categories like this, whether we want that or not is really what's being discussed with this as a trial balloon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not knowing where exactly people were born or raised is another symptom of a more fundamental problem with all "People from" categories, namely the fact where people are born or raised is hardly ever of encyclopedic value. The key thing is not where people were born or raised, but where they acquired notability. Most biographies who are directly in Category:People from Southern California are here because of birth or being raised and that is not very useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
