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 proposed, with the exception of Category:80s establishments in England. That one will be merged to Category:1st-century establishments in Roman Britain instead of Category:1st-century establishments in England (which will be deleted). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Category:666 establishments by country and Category:720s establishments by country were not emptied by this process, so I declined to delete them at this time (see Le Deluge's comment). -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:80s establishments in England to Category:1st-century establishments in England, Category:80s establishments in Europe, and Category:80s in England
• Propose merging Category:450s establishments in England to Category:5th-century establishments in England, Category:450s establishments in Europe, and Category:450s in England
• Propose merging Category:527 establishments in England to Category:6th-century establishments in England, Category:527 establishments in Europe, and Category:527 in England
• Propose merging Category:630s establishments in England to Category:7th-century establishments in England, Category:630s establishments in Europe, and Category:630s in England
• Propose merging Category:640 establishments in England to Category:7th-century establishments in England, Category:640 establishments in Europe, and Category:640 in England
• Propose merging Category:666 establishments in England to Category:7th-century establishments in England, Category:666 establishments in Europe, and Category:666 in England
• Propose merging Category:675 establishments in England to Category:7th-century establishments in England, Category:675 establishments in Europe, and Category:675 in England
• Propose merging Category:670s establishments in England to Category:7th-century establishments in England, Category:670s establishments in Europe, and Category:670s in England
• Propose merging Category:685 establishments in England to Category:7th-century establishments in England, Category:685 establishments in Europe, and Category:685 in England
• Propose merging Category:680s establishments in England to Category:7th-century establishments in England, Category:680s establishments in Europe, and Category:680s in England
• Propose merging Category:697 establishments in England to Category:7th-century establishments in England, Category:697 establishments in Europe, and Category:697 in England
• Propose merging Category:690s establishments in England to Category:7th-century establishments in England, Category:690s establishments in Europe, and Category:690s in England
• Propose merging Category:726 establishments in England to Category:8th-century establishments in England, Category:726 establishments in Europe, and Category:726 in England
• Propose merging Category:888 establishments in England to Category:9th-century establishments in England, Category:888 establishments in Europe, and Category:888 in England
• Propose merging Category:890 establishments in England to Category:9th-century establishments in England, Category:890 establishments in Europe, and Category:890 in England
• Propose merging Category:930 establishments in England to Category:10th-century establishments in England, Category:930 establishments in Europe, and Category:930 in England
• Propose merging Category:970s establishments in England to Category:10th-century establishments in England, Category:970s establishments in Europe, and Category:970s in England
• Propose deleting Category:527 establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:520s establishments in England
• Propose deleting Category:640 establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:640s establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:640s establishments in England
• Propose deleting Category:666 establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:660s establishments in England
• Propose deleting Category:675 establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:685 establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:720s establishments in England
• Propose deleting Category:726 establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:720s establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:888 establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:880s establishments in England
• Propose deleting Category:890 establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:890s establishments by country
• Propose deleting Category:890s establishments in England
• Propose deleting Category:930s establishments in England

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. All of these categories have 5 articles or less and most have only 1 article. Before the 2nd millennium, there's just not going to be enough known establishments to justify by year categories. Merging up to the century categories make this tree much easier to navigate. ~ Rob^Talk 23:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mostly Support/Alternate Merge for 80s The 80s category should go to Category:1st-century establishments in Roman Britain. Support the rest. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and I'm fine with the alternative for the 80s. With the latter alternative, Category:1st-century establishments in England will become empty and can be deleted as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all England categories prior to 10th century into Europe categories due to anachronism, with the exception of 80s to merge into category:80s establishments in the Roman Empire.GreyShark (dibra) 18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the variations suggested on 80s. England was not united until the 10th century, under the successors of Alfred the Great. GreyShark's objection might be met by making British Isles (or Great Britain) a target. I think there is scope for several more of these to be populated better, for example the bishoprics of Lichfield, Worcester, and Hereford were all established in the 680s. On the other hand, modern scholarship is dubious of precise dates of the foundations of kingdoms as given in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which is more likely to be referring to when a certain person became king. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I don't disagree with your arguments, the suggested renames would also expand the geographic scope. Categories with the scope of Great Britain would also cover events in areas of Wales and Scotland. Categories with the scope of the British Islands would also cover events in areas of Ireland, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, and numerous minor islands. The relevant article does not give an exact number of islands in the Isles, but estimates that this archipelago includes more than 6,000 islands, covering an area of 315,159 square kilometers (121,684 square miles). It may not sound that large, but this area is slightly larger than the current size of Poland (312,679 square kilometers), and slightly smaller than the current size of Norway (323,802 square kilometers). This may require the reorganization of several related categories. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge we do not have enough establishments for any one place before 1000 to justify splitting to the country level. Also support alternative name for 80s. England is not the right name at that point. No reason to distinguish England and Wales at that point either. In fact I am less than convinced there is good reason to subdivide the Roman Empire at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An editor working on Chinese provinces left a bunch of cats as red links which came across my radar via WP:DBR so I created before seeing this CfD. I've created them but not most of the parent ones yet, I guess the same logic would apply :
• Category:583 establishments in China
• Category:585 establishments in China
• Category:589 establishments in China
• Category:605 establishments in China
• Category:621 establishments in China
• Category:623 establishments in China
• Category:631 establishments in China
• Category:634 establishments in China
• Category:662 establishments in China
• Category:666 establishments in China
• Category:725 establishments in China
• Category:980 establishments in China
• Category:985 establishments in China
• Category:988 establishments in China
• Category:997 establishments in China
• Category:998 establishments in China

As far as the naming of the England categories goes, I'd make my usual request for category names to favour "predictability" over historical purity, look at it more top-down than bottom-up. Le Deluge (talk) 04:01, 1 September 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) 05:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:CommonsHelper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Contains one obsolete page. — Music1201 ^talk 22:54, 23 June 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People from Puerto Rico to Category:Puerto Rican people (over redirect)

Nominator's rationale: I propose reversing a merge which took place in 2012, for a few reasons:

(1) "FOOian people" is the standard format for subcategories of Category:People by nationality. Despite the fact that Puerto Ricans are American citizens today, "Puerto Rican" is clearly a nationality. This is true both historically and presently.

(2) The category is acting in a way that all nationality categories do on WP: it is not only categorizing people who are "from" the place, it is categorizing people who are "of" the place and may not have ever been to the place (eg, Category:People of Puerto Rican descent). "Puerto Rican people" is broad enough and helpfully ambiguous enough to capture both, whereas "People from Puerto Rico" is too narrowly specific. I know such a concept might be anathema to some users who like categories to be razor precise, but honestly—sometimes ambiguity in categories that hold a lot of content is quite helpful.

(3) This is not a situation as with Category:People from Northern Ireland or Category:People from Georgia (country), where the subcategories fairly consistently follow the "FOOs from Puerto Rico" format. The subcategories generally use "Puerto Rican FOOs" in the category situations where the standard nationality format applies. Some attempts to convert the subcategories to the "FOOs from Puerto Rico" format have failed: eg, here. In fact, on this very page we have a nomination that is proposing we delete a "FOOs from Puerto Rico" in favor of a pre-existing "Puerto Rican FOOs": #Category:Sportspeople_from_Puerto_Rico.

(4) In the 2012 discussion, Category:People from Puerto Rico was tagged for merging, but Category:Puerto Rican people was not. It was therefore deleted and the contents merged without notification being placed on it, despite the fact that it had existed since 2004 and had been edited 84 times. Category:People from Puerto Rico has only existed since 2012. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "Puerto Rican" is clearly a nationality, even if it is currently a non-sovereign nation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• REname per nom. Puerto Rican is an acceptable demonym. Northern Ireland and Georgia (country) are exceptions, in that there is no satisfactory demonym. WE seem to flip to and fro on this issue. Can we get a standard set out somewhere on this issue? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The target makes it too unclear whether it covers people from Puerto Rico or people of Puerto Rican descent in the mainland US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert: the category is currently categorizing both, so that's probably a welcome ambiguity in this case. It's the same situation for all nationality categories—many people of a particular nationality have never set foot in the country of their nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your views on nationality are not as generally supported as you think. Beyond this, the current name puts it in line with other sub-units of the United States, which is a reasonable way to do so. I would oppose categorizing as an American a person who had never been in the United States. Raul Labrador's children should not be categorized as Puerto Rican.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnpacklambert: I have written nothing about how generally supported my views on nationality are. ?? Where do you get this stuff? (You can oppose categorizing people of a particular nationality who have never been to the place as that nationality, but it's very commonly done within Wikipedia. One doesn't need to be living in a place to be a national of the place.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States but also an equivalent as another nation in North America. This situation differs, for example, from Bavaria which is under Germany but not its equivalent in Europe. Hence the correct categories would be Puerto Rican People but People from Bavaria. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 6 July 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: keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Photographs of the United States to Category:Photographs

Nominator's rationale: At first, this seems natural. But in fact, the scope is so large ("photographs of people, places and things located in the United States") that the link between these images becomes really tenuous. What do More Demi Moore and Lunch atop a Skyscraper have in common? And is Untitled 153 really a photograph of the United States? The photographer is American but there's no way to verify that the subject is American. Instead, I suggest upmerging most and using other existing categories to properly classify the rest of them. Note that the parent Category:Photographs is still of reasonable size. The ones which are about photographs that are significant in the history of photography in the US can also go to the parent category Category:Photography in the United States. Some are about people (not photographs) and can go, or already are, in Category:Subjects of iconic photographs. Pichpich (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What do Lunch atop a Skyscraper, A Great Day in Harlem (photograph), Raising the Flag at Ground Zero, and Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park have in common? All of these are photographs depicting people, places and things in the United States. They all were even taken in New York City, so yet another valid intersection would be Category:Photographs of New York City.
  So keep as a valid intersection, no WP:SMALLCAT, just a good category. Purge whatever may not belong here or is unsourced to be taken in the U.S. (such as Untitled 153, possibly even More Demi Moore). --PanchoS (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- US is clearly a common characteristic of these items. If the target gets enough content, it too can be split by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 26 June 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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dudley Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: With the content being only a single album and two image files, an eponymous category is unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. Neither aids nor adds to navigation. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for Now With no objection to recreating later if more direct content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, i found some more articles which can be categorized under his name, and created a new category, for his soundtracks. if my additions are considered appropriate, then this is a keeper now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the soundtracks (as there are no actual articles about the music or the soundtracks to the respective films), they seem to be appropriate and I'm willing to withdraw the nomination or let it pass as keep. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed! RevelationDirect (talk) 10:20, 28 June 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Works in the philosophy of economics to Category:Works about philosophy of economics
• Propose renaming Category:Works in the philosophy of mathematics to Category:Works about philosophy of mathematics added 24 June
• Propose renaming Category:Works in the philosophy of physics to Category:Works about philosophy of physics added 24 June
• Propose renaming Category:Works in the philosophy of psychology to Category:Works about philosophy of psychology added 24 June
• Propose renaming Category:Works in the philosophy of social science to Category:Works about philosophy of social sciences added 24 June

Nominator's rationale: rename because "Works about ..." is the more conventional type of name in the tree of Category:Works. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support part of a pattern of category names by Stefanomione as works in foo that can be attributed, as much as anything, to his terrible command of English. X about y is indeed the standard, more easily comprehensible structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support more or less per convention. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, upon suggestion of Stefaniome himself, I added four more categories in this nomination. Mind the plural -s in the last category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus christ, I didn't notice that he has started trying to shape the Cfd discussion, this time by leaving instructions on the user talk pages of cooperative editors and requesting that Cfd notices be left on his user talk page so he can keep a record of what's happening to "his" categories. This is a most unwelcome development. Most unwelcome. I will no longer notify him with automated messages when and if I do nominate one of "his" categories -- and would strongly urge other editors not to, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. It's everyone's own responsibility (in this case my responsibility) to judge the merits of an other editor's suggestion. In this case the suggestion made perfect sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It did make sense. But he will inevitably use this interaction with editors to begin to make the case that his ban should be removed, because he has mended his ways, learnt, made so many wonderful suggestions, etc. He will cite you and others as exemplary examples of this newfound cooperation. I assure you, this is coming, sooner or later. It's not a question of if, only when. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- adding categories a day later, when there has not been much discussion seems to me acceptable, and saves the need to have follow up ones. In all cases, the suggested name is much more satisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 26 June 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: split Category:Greco-Roman Egypt. It appears it'll have to be done manually, so I'm going to list it at WP:CFDWM if someone wants to put in the work. Category:Greco-Roman Egypt in art and culture will be renamed as proposed. Finally, there's no consensus on the third one. There's been some good discussion, but it doesn't appear that a name has been settled upon. Perhaps a focused nomination involving just that category and options could yield a consensus? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose splitting Category:Greco-Roman Egypt split to Category:Ptolemaic Kingdom and Category:Roman Egypt
• Propose renaming Category:Greco-Roman Egypt in art and culture to Category:Ptolemaic Kingdom in popular culture
• Propose renaming Category:Greco-Roman Near East in popular culture to Category:Ancient Israel and Judah in popular culture

Nominator's rationale: split/rename as a follow-up of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_26#Category:Greco-Roman_world. In practice the content of "Greco-Roman world" and of "classical antiquity" was overlapping too much, and the preference in the discussion was to phase out "Greco-Roman". The renames as proposed for the second and third category seem to narrow the scope significantly, but this is actually per current content. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial Support first 2. ALT for the third to Category:Late Antiquity Levant in popular culture. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be okay with Levant instead of Israel and Judah, but wonder about "late". Just Category:Ancient Levant in popular culture would probably be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Late Antiquity seems entirely inappropriate here. The term is mostly used for a period lasting from the 3rd century (either starting with the Crisis of the Third Century or with the Tetrarchy) to the Early Muslim conquests in the 7th century, with some sources extending it further. The contents of Category:Greco-Roman Near East in popular culture so far only cover the period from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD, which predate Late Antiquity by centuries. As for "Ancient Levant", our main article on the subject is called History of the ancient Levant and covers everything from the Stone Age and the paleolithic findings in Mount Carmel to the Early Muslim conquests. The scope seems to be much larges by this definition. Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that the scope changes, but at least "Ancient Levant" is much more appropriate here than "Greco-Roman". I'd be open to any further suggestions though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename to Category:Ancient Israel and Judah in popular culture. The article History of ancient Israel and Judah covers mostly the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) which ended in 720 BC and the Kingdom of Judah which ended in 586 BC. While the category Category:Greco-Roman Near East in popular culture covers the Maccabees (which ruled from 164 to 63 BC), the reign of Herod the Great in the Herodian kingdom (from 37 to 4 BC), the life and depictions of Jesus in Judea (Roman province) (roughly 4 BC to AD 30), and works based on the New Testament (which covers events from the late 1st century BC to the reign of Domitian in the late 1st century AD). The rename changes the scope entirely and introduces an anachronism of several centuries. It also removes the connection of the Maccabees to the Hellenistic period and its politics (they started out as as an independence movement within the Seleucid Empire), the connection of Herod to Rome as a client king of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the fact that the setting for most of the stories in the New Testament is the Roman Empire. Dimadick (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the first two per Laurel Lodged; oppose Ancient Israel and Judah rename (incorrect) and oppose Levant (non-state). The correct target for third rename should be relevant political entities in the classical Levant -Category:Hasmonean Kingdom in popular culture, category:Herodian Kingdom in popular culture and Category:Roman Syria in popular culture.GreyShark (dibra) 18:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For the third one, there's too little content to make a split in three categories. Either we should find a category name that adequately pinpoints the narrower geographic commonality of the content or otherwise we'd better upmerge this category to Category:Ancient Near East in popular culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there is "too little content" at this point; however the content is potentially large - I can already begin populating some of those categories.GreyShark (dibra) 12:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There should also be of course Category:Roman Judea in popular culture to reflect early Christian categories.GreyShark (dibra) 12:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support First two. Late Antique refers to post-400 AD or thereabouts, which is certainly inappropriate. The last is difficult: it is all about Judah/Judaea in the post-exilic/new testament period, but at times Galilee was not part of Judaea. Possibly we can settle on Judaea, with a headnote indicating a slightly broader scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you mean Judea the geographical area or Judea (6-135) the Roman province with Caesarea Maritima as a capital? The first is the ancient Greek and Roman name for the southern part of Palestine, the other a province of the Roman Empire established by Augustus and abolished by Hadrian following the Bar Kokhba revolt. The area was then merged into Syria Palaestina. A category on Judea the area could probably cover events and depictions from the relatively long history of the area. A category on the province would only cover events and depictions from the 1st and 2nd centuries, and serve as a subcategory for Category:Roman Empire in art and culture. Dimadick (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds reasonable enough, it should refer to Judea the geographical area then, because much of the content of this category is pre-Roman province. The category name becoming Category:Ancient Judea in popular culture in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT 2 for # 3 What about Classical antiquity Levant in popular culture? It gives room for transjordanian depictions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah quite similar to Category:Ancient Levant in popular culture what I proposed earlier, adding "classical" to it. Earlier on, User:Greyshark09 objected because Levant has never been a state but at the very least there is a Category:Ancient Levant to which it can be parented. Besides the current name Greco-Roman Near East isn't a state either. Basically I'd be fine with every solution (1) that narrows down Near East to a smaller area and (2) that removes "Greco-Roman" (because the latter is pretty irrelevant here). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually "Greco-Roman" is relevant here because the eras and events mentioned are part of the Hellenistic and Roman eras and states, which generally cover a wider geographical and cultural scope than the city of Rome and modern Greece. It is not the only relevant term given the current contents. The main concern here however should be to define what is the geographic and chronological scope of the category. The term "Near East" has varying definitions and the relevant article points that the term has been applied to areas currently controlled by Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, the Palestinian territories, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The term "Levant" generally covers areas of the eastern Mediterranean Sea (to the east of the Italian Peninsula), but the exact definition can vary. The relevant article points that a narrow definition of the term includes areas currently controlled by Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the State of Palestine, Syria, and Turkey. While a wider definition also includes areas controlled by Egypt, Greece, and Libya. And the related term Levantines has traditionally been used for an ethnic group of the Levant which adheres to the Latin Church and whose ancestry is mostly Italian and French. It probably is already widely known, but it should be mentioned that both the Neat East and the Levant have a long history of human habitation and have went through numerous political, cultural, and military changes over the millennia. At least some highlights of this history have inspired modern works of fiction. Dimadick (talk) 21:31, 27 June 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: renamed as originally proposed. It seems that both the category and article could use some work, but I'm not seeing any volunteers... -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Greco-Roman relations to Category:Greco-Roman relations in classical antiquity

Nominator's rationale: rename to make the category name less ambiguous. By the way, in contrast to the nomination just above, the category name obviously can't go without the use of "Greco-Roman". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support To reduce ambiguity. Note however that the main article on the topic is called Greco-Roman relations and should probably also be renamed. By the way, the perspective of the article is rather poor because it covers a complex topic by name-dropping Cato the Elder and Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, ignoring the wars and alliances of Rome with the various Hellenistic kingdoms (Pyrrhic War, First Macedonian War, Second Macedonian War, War against Nabis, Roman–Seleucid War, Aetolian War, Third Macedonian War, Fourth Macedonian War, Achaean War, First Mithridatic War, Second Mithridatic War, Third Mithridatic War, Final War of the Roman Republic), and barely saying anything about Roman Greece. Not even a single reference to Hadrian and his building projects in Athens. Aren't they in the scope of the topic? Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've boldly moved the article and left a note in the talk page referring to this discussion, in order to have the content of the article expanded. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Category:Greek influence in the Roman world? The present title suggests diplomatic relations and their reverse (war), but that is not what the category is about. The article may also need renaming and the category purging. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If we adopt Category:Greek influence in the Roman world, then I agree that we should then move the article again and in category space we should probably remove Category:Roman Greece and maybe even Category:Magna Graecia as a child category. But on the other hand, User:Dimadick rather prefers to keep the Roman-Greek wars and the Roman influence in Greece included. The question is: what should the article be about, hence what should the category be about? and it seems there is no right or wrong here. I'd prefer the original nomination as being more inclusive, but admit that is a subjective choice. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 27 June 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: keep both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Consider merging Category:Water transport with Category:Shipping to ???

Nominator's rationale: Note that this is a tentative nomination only, with the aim of discussing the categorization, to possibly find some consensus how to better organize the content in this area.
Currently neither of the two categories has an eponymous main article. Actually, the "main article" of Category:Water transport is named Ship transport, while the "main article" of Category:Shipping is Freight transport. Quite confusing. If you take a look at the content, then it is quite unclear, on which basis many subcategories are categorized in one or the other tree. Does "shipping" only refer to freight transport, and does or should it cover freight transport both on the water and in the air? I currently have no idea how to improve organization here. Normally we would follow the name of the main articles, but if they only are "best matches" rather than real overview articles on the topic, then we can't. Suggestions are explicitly welcome. PanchoS (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps reverse merge -- It sounds as if neither has a satisfactory main article. The problem is that the barges used on inland waterways are not ships. We might have a split between "sea transport" and "inland water transport". Freight transport should not cover passenger transport. This probably needs more work than I have time for. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose as the nomination is incomplete. The merits or otherwise of a merge cannot be assessed without considering the name of the new category (and how it would be parented). See instructions at WP:CFD. DexDor ^(talk) 21:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to merge, it's perfectly fine to have a freight transport category (by water) as a child category of a general transport category (by water). No objection against a future proposal for renaming, in order to align with article space, but a rename nomination should be done including a number of child categories. No objection to move some content between the two categories if that would make each of the categories more homogeneous in content. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Water transport" is the generic term referring to all water transport, not just shipping (e.g. much inland water transport is done by boats, not ships, and would never be referred to as shipping). That should remain as the top level term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 6 July 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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sportspeople from Puerto Rico to Category:Puerto Rican sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as an obvious duplicate. --PanchoS (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My vote includes a possible reverse-merge depending on the outcome above at #Category:People from Puerto Rico. --PanchoS (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, PanchoS. I too would support a reverse merge if that would match the outcome above. My main concern is that there should be a merge, in whichever direction. I will tag Category:Puerto Rican sportspeople to allow that to happen if that's the outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or reverse merge to match outcome of Category:People from Puerto Rico. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominated. It's a nationality category, and the default form is "FOOian sportspeople". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge The identification as from Puerto Rico is consistent with other sub-units of the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert: Not the ones for non-states: Category:United States Virgin Islands sportspeople, Category:Northern Mariana Islands sportspeople, Category:American Samoan sportspeople, Category:Guam sportspeople. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet it is not Guamaian sportspeople for example, so your argument is weak.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnpacklambert: The issue I'm referring to is the format "FOOian spotspeople"/"FOO sportspeople", not whether it the specific term opted for is FOOian or FOO. "Guam BARs" is the standard for this format, not "BARs from Guam". We could use "Puerto Rico sportspeople", but it makes sense to use "Puerto Rican sportspeople" since "Puerto Rican" is in widespread use and other similar categories use "Puerto Rican". See also Category:American Samoan sportspeople. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Reverse merge as long as consistent with the outcome of the defining people category above. gidonb (talk) 03:38, 6 July 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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:European Union law scholars to Category:European Union scholars

Nominator's rationale: rename, rescope and reparent a too narrow and small category. By widening the scope we can add article Giandomenico Majone, to start with. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Obviously reasonable for a number of reasons. --PanchoS (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Category:European Union law is a substantial topic and well-populated parent category. – Fayenatic London 20:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• European Union is as well a substantial topic and well-populated parent category. A compromise would be to keep this one but create the other one, too. Even if started with just a single subcat and another article, it wouldn't constitute a WP:SMALLCAT, as there's sufficient room for expansion. --PanchoS (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 25 June 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) 05:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Scopus indexed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There is already an extended discussion on this subject here. Category creator posits that because indexing in Scopus makes a journal notable according to WP:NJournals. However, being indexed in a database is not a defining characteristic of a journal. Many journals are included in dozens of databases. That inclusion in some of these databases makes a journal notable is besides the point. We do not categorize celebrities according to the newspapers in which they have been covered, either, even though it is that very coverage that makes them notable. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can you imagine if we categorized every publication by Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature and every other index? Not defining and would result in category clutter. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RK and RD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree this is not a defining characteristic. I also see it as an unlikely way to manually search for journals. --Mark viking (talk) 19:54, 30 June 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) 05:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Divisions and sections of composed works to Category:Components of intellectual works

Nominator's rationale: I've been very critical of Stefanomione here but in this case I think his somewhat similar Category:Narrative units -- which I've added as a subcat -- is a much better title and concept than this one. Anyway, my suggested rename would have the advantage of fitting it within Category:Components and Category:Intellectual works. But if there's any interest in merging with Stefanomione's, somehow, that'd be fine with me. Or even outright deletion! Most or all intellectual works divisions and sections -- i.e. short poems still have stanzas -- so maybe there's just no need for this category...? Also, as you'll see, the nominated category could use some pruning, I daresay. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The current name suggests part of musical composition, while the actual content seems wider. Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, the "composed" may mislead readers. While a Composition can be any number of things, a "composed work" would make most people think it's Musical composition. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 23 June 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) 06:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Web of Science indexed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Ill-conceived category. The Web of Science is not a database and being indexed in it does not mean much. Instead, WoS is a platform providing access to a number of databases produced by Thomson Reuters. Some of those databases are among the most important ones in academic publishing (for example, the Science Citation Index). Whereas Thomson Reuters maintains a database of journals included in those indexes (see here), there is (of course) no such list for WoS. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not correct the WOS is a combined database, the link you provided states that its 'The Master Journal List includes all journal titles covered in Web of Science'. Further there is specific criteria to be included in the WoS, although probably not as strong as for inclusion in Scopus. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The link to the selection criteria you give starts with "At the center of Web of Science Core Collection are three flagship Citation Indexes". If you use the Master Journal list, you won't find a single journal that lists "Web of Science" as a database that it is listed in. Instead, you will see things like [Current Contents]] or Science Citation Index, all of which are combined in the WoS access platform. Being included in WoS does not necessarily confer notability to a journal and will, for example, not automatically result in it getting an impact factor (only journals included in the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index are included in the Journal Citation Reports). It all depends in which Thomson Reuters database a journal is included. For example, being indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index is not considered to make a journal notable, but will still result in it being included in WoS. Compare it to a journal being included in PubMed. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is notable, either. For that, inclusion in MEDLINE (or its even more selective subset Index Medicus) is needed. After all, OA journals can get rather easily into PubMed by being included in the much less selective PubMed Central. PubMed is not a database proper, but an access platform (or search engine, if you prefer) that gives combined access to multiple databases (MEDLINE, PMC, and IM - and some others, too). --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can you imagine if we categorized every publication by Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature and every other index? Not defining and would result in category clutter. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RK and RD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree this is not a defining characteristic. I also see it as an unlikely way to manually search for journals. --Mark viking (talk) 19:56, 30 June 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 to Category:Distribution (business). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Distribution, retailing, and wholesaling to Category:Distribution (business) and Category:Sales

Nominator's rationale: Category page states that it is named after code L81 of JEL_classification_codes, but L81 is (currently) "Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce". We have an article Distribution (business). so that would be the main topic for what is not covered in Category:Sales. – Fayenatic London 09:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Same idea came to my mind when earlier today I added Category:Wholesaling to Category:Sales. Both target categories would be held together by Category:Trade so we don't need the current intermediate level. --PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Positive about renaming to Category:Distribution (business) but I'm not sure what would go into Category:Sales. Wholesaling should be kept as part of Category:Distribution (business) even if wholesaling is no longer in the top category's name. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Agree with your remarks. Let's just rename it, and then figure out the details. --PanchoS (talk) 17:44, 23 June 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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Mauritania to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. There's only one diocese in Mauritania. MSJapan (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep @MSJapan: We just decided to keep this category 11 days ago. What has changed? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to expand my reasoning (which also applies below), I'm basing my argument on the fact that as Roman Catholicism doesn't seem to have a huge foothold in Africa and isn't likely to expand significantly, the utility of the search is better served by an upmerge in spite of the SMALLCAT exception. It just seems to make more sense to hit dioceses in Africa and get everything than have to drill down an extra level to get to the same point. MSJapan (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Recently discussed with a clear consensus; no new arguments. --PanchoS (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as keep as recently discussed. If the title was "Bishop of Mauretania" I might have agreed, but it is not. I gave detailed reasons last time (q.v.). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep c'mon, we cannot keep wasting time on closed debates so closely after they've been closed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The reasoning behind this nomination is false. "Roman Catholicism does not seem to have a huge foothold in Africa and isn't likely to expand significantly", I call rubbish. There are 35 million Catholics in The Democatic Republic of the Congo alone. In Ivory Coast in the 1980s the population was about 1/8th Christian, by about 2010 about a third of the population was Christian, with between a fifthed and a fourth Catholic. Catholicism has significant numbers of followers in other countries such as Uganda, Nigeria and I could list lots more. The country of Madagascar alone has 21 Catholic diocese. There is no reason to think an undifferentiated Africa makes any sense here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 29 June 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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Djibouti to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. There is only one diocese in Djibouti. It does not need its own category. MSJapan (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The outocme of this nomination should match the one above, whether I agree with that outcome or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Recently discussed with a clear consensus; no new arguments. --PanchoS (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as keep as recently discussed. See Mauretania (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a good case for an exemption. A generalized Africa category is just too big and unruly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 29 June 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/rename as proposed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fireworks festivals in Canada to Category:Fireworks in Canada, also merging the current content to Category:Fireworks festivals in North America and Category:Festivals in Canada
• Propose renaming Category:Fireworks festivals in the United States to Category:Fireworks in the United States, also merging the current content to Category:Fireworks festivals in North America and Category:Festivals in the United States

Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to a previous CfD that succeeded in deleting a number of narrow per-country categories for fireworks festivals. We're usually trying to have broader categories first, before intersecting one concept with the other. Therefore it would be preferable to have a robust set of categories that cover everything about fireworks in a country (festivals, law, companies etc.), before further subdividing. If this approach yields, say, more than five articles for a country like China, a Category:Fireworks in China category could be (re)created. PanchoS (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I'm listed as the original creator here, but that's only because I was the closer of the original discussion, which nominated some categories for deletion, but listed this for simple renaming as it was larger than the deletion candidates — so my action as closer was to rename this as nominated, but to relist the deletion candidates as a consensus had not quite formed on that part of the nomination. However, as the relisted discussion, linked by PanchoS above, achieved a new consensus about how to handle this and the USian sibling, I have no objection to the nomination. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @PanchoS and Bearcat: Category:Fireworks festivals is a subcategory of Category:Fireworks shows but both categories seem to contain the same type of events. Perhaps it's feasible to keep the bigger country categories by merging festivals and shows. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Per the suggestion and based on the small size of the festival cat, I think deleting the whole locale tree for fireworks festivals would be fine, and creating Category:Fireworks by continent and Category:Fireworks by country seems like it might be useful for readers. I think Category:Fireworks events by continent might be useful too, but not as much as the parent. Earflaps (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this still not closed two full months later, when there isn't even a single objection to make consensus even slightly debatable? Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it was relisted because of Marcocapelle's comment that seems to suggest an objection. It's been open for several months because quite frankly, there aren't enough closers handling CFD discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:38, 8 September 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 and delete per nominator, User:BU Rob13 ... who I will volunteer to implement the changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:68 establishments in Croatia to Category:1st-century establishments in Croatia and Category:68 establishments in Europe
• Propose merging Category:983 establishments in Croatia to Category:10th-century establishments in Croatia and Category:983 establishments in Europe
• Propose merging Category:1066 establishments in Croatia to Category:11th-century establishments in Croatia and Category:1066 establishments in Europe

• Propose deleting Category:60s establishments in Croatia
• Propose deleting Category:68 in Croatia
• Propose deleting Category:60s in Croatia

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. With one or two exceptions, these are all 1-article establishments by year categories. Condensing them to centuries is far more useful to our readers. The resulting categories will typically still have less than 5 articles in them, but that's justified by the existing category tree. Deleting resulting empty categories. Scope of this nomination is up to the end of the 18th century. ~ Rob^Talk 01:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mostly Support/Merge 1st Century with Roman Empire According to the Croatia, "The Croats arrived in the area of present-day Croatia during the early part of the 7th century AD". The Roman amphitheatre in the 68 AD/CE category belongs in the Roman Empire. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opposition to this alternative for the one 1st century article. ~ Rob^Talk 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with RevelationDirect's amendment. Reasonable nomination combining WP:SMALLCATs without losing more information than necessary. --PanchoS (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I am willing to accept that there was a polity of Croatia from c.800 to c.1091 (perhaps a little later), ruled by dukes and then kings: see List of rulers of Croatia. That article lists one rather earlier ruler and indicates that it was subsequently part of Hungary. Recent practice is that we categorise by contemporary (not current polity). It then became part of Hungary and later of Austro-Hungarian Empire (or Hapsburg Empire) which should be the merge targets for later periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support early merges. Also delete later categories but make sure to keep articles in appropriate categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 29 June 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.