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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners to Category:Recipients of the Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In this case the award is not won, but rather received (since it's not an honor to win such kind of awards, unlike Oscar for example). Brandmeister^talk 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I thought there was a consensus to delete all the GR award categories? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the proposer has a point since the nominees who don't get the razzie can be perceived as "winning". @Lugnuts: I would support deletion since a razzie isn't a defining feature of most careers, unless you are Adam Sandler. Betty Logan (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't object deletion either. Brandmeister^talk 09:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also don't see the need for a category, and would support deletion. But if it's renamed, my suggestion would be to follow the article title, and name it Category:Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture winners. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn award cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete afte5r cheking that it does not need listifying. The nom is right. This is a dishonour, not something to rejoice in winning. The artilce indicates that there are (or have been) a number of categories besides films. We might have a category for Golden Raspberry Awards - Worst film, worst actor, etc, but (as usual) the winners should be only in lists. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2014 (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: no consensus (closed to mirror results of related discussion). Suggest a unified nomination if this attempted again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: CfD Ante-Nicene Christian saints, 28 August

• Propose renaming Category:Ante-Nicene Christian female saints to Category:Ancient Christian female saints

Nominator's rationale: This is in order to close the gap with the next category Category:Christian female saints of the Middle Ages‎. Ante-Nicene only goes to 325, while Ancient includes the 4th and 5th century as well and Middle Ages starts with the 6th century (at least it usually does so in by-century categories).

Comment Ancient Christian female saints isn't redlinked, apparently in 2013 there had been a rename in the opposite direction as proposed now. I'm not sure how I can easily find the 2013 CfD discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this discussion? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently we also have Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints and Category:Ante-Nicene Christians. I'll doublecheck this later today.Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the header of Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints says: In some cases, saints from the time of the decline and final collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 may also appear. That seems like an extra reason for the proposed rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. The term "ante-Nicene Fathers" appears a lot in church histories, but "ante-Nicene saint" isn't a commonly used category or phrase. "Ante-Nicene" means pre-325, "ancient" suggests before the fall of Rome in 476. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Clodhopper Deluxe: @Vegaswikian: Would it be a problem if I would move this discussion to CfD Ante-Nicene Christian saints, 28 August in order to keep the discussion centralized? Or shall I better keep this discussion as is, with a 'See also' on top? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. The problem as I recall is that the Nicene beginning was a significant change in the history of Christianity. So for some categories that could be a defining issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is definitely the case. The problem is that the further 'by period' categories (starting with the Middle Ages) are secular periods, while Ante-Nicene period is the only specific Christian period. It should be all Christian periods (if such would exist), or it should be all secular periods, or a Christian period should end at the same point in time as a secular period. Neither of these three is currently the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any reason to treat male saints differently than female saints, at least as far as era names go. So let's keep it all together. The Council of Nicaea was certainly a big deal in church history. It can be viewed as the founding of the Catholic Church. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2014 (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: withdrawn by nominator (see discussion). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Ancient Greeks in Asia to Category:Hellenistic period‎

Nominator's rationale: In contrast to what the category name suggests, this is not a people category. Instead it contains a (seemingly pretty random) number of childcategories and articles with respect to the Hellenistic period. Undoubtedly most of these childcategories and articles are in the tree of Category:Hellenistic period already, but it would be quite some work to sort that out, so for the time being upmerging seems to be the best solution. Editors with less patience will probably recommend deletion of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Even though it falls under Category:Ancient Greeks by region, the category's content is mishmash. There are already Category:Greek people of Asian descent, Category:Greek colonies in Anatolia in Category:Ancient Greek sites in Western Asia. Brandmeister^talk 22:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't upmerge a lot of the subcats and subsubcats, etc., of this are biographies, which are people from somewhere....not always from the Hellenistic period. See, e.g., Category:Antiochian Greeks where the explantion of the category mostly excludes Hellenistic folks being focused on Christians, and most of those folks categorized are well post-Hellenistic period, and entries such as Phanes of Halicarnassus (died 200 years before Alexander, which most agree began the Hellenistic period), in Category:Ancient Halicarnassians, which is sub cat of Category:Ancient Greeks in Caria, sub of Category:Ancient Anatolian Greeks, sub cat of the one proposed to be merged. Since the parenthood of the target is problematic, to upmerge an acceptable category with one that doesn't represent its alleged subcats is an error - the whole cat structure among these will have to be re-done or WP will categorize ancient and recent Greeks in Asia as belonging to the Hellenistic period. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding this out! So the mess is even worse than I had imagined :-( Marcocapelle (talk)) 20:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Category:Ancient Greeks in Asia is in the tree of Category:Ancient Greeks, which is clearly a people category, I would suggest to purge Category:Ancient Greeks in Asia and remove all non-people entries. I would then also suggest to remove Category:Hellenistic period‎ as a parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's sensible. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, then this discussion can be closed with keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- "ancient" would cover anything up to 500 AD (or thereabouts). There were Greek settlements in the west coast of Anatolia well before the Hellenistic period and long after. Conversely, there were Greeks ruling the various successor states to Alexander's Empire. Furthermore the category has places in it belonging to Alexander and successor states. The Turkish population of Greece and the Greek population of Turkey were exchanged in the 1920s. The tree is probably not well-formed. The category needs to be manually emptied by moving articles to more appropriate categories (possibly some of them new ones). When that is done we can look at where to mereg what is left. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2014 (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 to Category:Hellenistic-era people. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Hellenistic individuals to Category:Hellenistic people or Category:Hellenistic-era people

Nominator's rationale: People instead of individuals is the usual naming of persons categories. Possibly add -era in the category name, per Hellenistic period and childcategories like Category:Hellenistic-era philosophers and Category:Hellenistic-era historians but in contrast to childcategories like Category:Hellenistic generals and Category:Hellenistic satraps. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Hellenistic people and child categories with "era" per nom. Brandmeister^talk 22:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer Category:Hellenistic-era people to match the philosophers etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hellenistic-era people, which clarifies the scope (are these people specifically Hellenistic in origin, ethnicity or proponents of Hellenism?). SFB 19:40, 8 September 2014 (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 Vegaswikian (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Battles involving Sussex to Category:Battles involving the Anglo-Saxons‎

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, only one entry in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- Sussex was a small kingdom usually under the domination of neighbours. I doubt that this is a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Battles involving East Anglia to Category:Battles involving the Anglo-Saxons‎

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, only one entry in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- in contrast with my vote on Sussex (above), East Anglia was a sufficiently long-lived kingdom to require a category: it should be possible to populate it better. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingdom of East Anglia mentions several unnamed battles and battles without a link to a WP article. It mentions only one named battle with its own WP article however it seems that East Anglia was only involved in this battle to support one of the main combatants (hardly as defining characteristic for East Anglia). So I guess that this category won't be populated better on a short term. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contents to justify the navigation are non-existent. Categories should not created on the basis that we presume there will be content. SFB 19:43, 8 September 2014 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Battles involving the Buyid dynasty‎ to Category:Military history of the Buyid dynasty‎

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, only one entry in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the one article is already in the potential target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No content justifying navigation. SFB 19:43, 8 September 2014 (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 Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Treaties of the Seleucid Empire‎ to Category:Military history of the Seleucid Empire‎

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, only one entry in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- I suspect that there should be more to populate this with, but I doubt the parent will ever become too big. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2014 (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 Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Ivyland, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Bucks County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 12:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Population of Ivyland is 1000. The county tree is sufficient here. SFB 19:44, 8 September 2014 (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. I looked at the parent categories, and I'm not sure that we need to add anything. If I missed something, just add it. As a result no merge is needed hence the delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one subcategory about pretty much the same thing. - TheChampionMan1234 05:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ROC is being used here as an alternate name for Taiwan. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original purpose was to put stuff related to Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu in this category while stuff in Taiwan island goes in that category. However now that the Wikipedia article on the modern ROC has moved to "Taiwan" it makes sense to remove this category. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Parent. Sometime ago, we decided that the independent polity occupying the island of TAiwan would be known in WP as Taiwan. This category level is thus redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2014 (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.