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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: There is no lead article Folk Christianity and no header in the category, therefore the purpose of the category is unclear and the category has become a mix of completely unrelated topics such as: the Shroud of Turin, Marian apparitions, Santa Claus, Voudou deities and the German word for blessing in a superstition context. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, someone has purged it and the current contents make sense: redirect to the relevant section is folk religion, article on folk Catholicism, Segen, + categories for folk saints (consider split or renaming to Folk Christian saints), Christian relics and Marian apparitions. – Fayenatic London 17:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair enough, in that case I suppose the category can be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 17 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: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: As an article it's fine to have Northern Europe in Wikipedia. But in my honest opinion, the article is not significant enough to build a category tree on. Basically this category tree is just a copy of a part of Category:Countries in Europe. This same reasoning applies of course also to the other four European regions, I've just taken this one as an example. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a perfectly reasonable topic to categorise by as this is a distinct region on geographic and cultural reasons. The validity and usefulness of categories including Category:Archaeological cultures of Northern Europe, Category:Hanseatic League and Category:Flora of Northern Europe undermine the notion that Northern Europe is not a defining characteristic or a useful topic for navigation. SFB 18:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on these child categories, one by one:
  1. Category:Flora of Northern Europe is completely split by country so that merely confirms that Category:Northern Europe does't add anything to Category:Countries in Europe.
  2. Category:Hanseatic League: Germany and the Netherlands (not part of Northern Europe) played a major role in the League while the British Isles (part of Northern Europe) did not.
  3. Category:Archaeological cultures of Northern Europe: Funnelbeaker culture is the same countries as Hanseatic League, while Nordic Bronze Age refers to Scandinavia only. Of course the point is, once a region is defined as a category in Wikipedia, one can put anything of that region in that category. I mean, if Northern Europe would have been defined differently as Finland + Estonia + Russia, one could just as well classify archeological cultures of those countries into the category.

Generally it should be clear from the article that current Northern Europe merely exists by its (arbitrarily) defined list of countries, and the only thing that all these countries consistently have in common is that the average yearly temperature is lower than in the rest of Europe and that the countries developed later in history than countries in other parts of Europe.

The question is also - which is not clear from the article Northern Europe - who is responsible for this defining this list of countries and what was the motivation to group European countries this way and not in any other way. Once again, the article is not significant enough to justify a categorization like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose simply using this one as an example, as one argument's going to be that it fits into a larger scheme within Category:Regions of Europe. If you feel this applies to other European regional categories, then they should be nominated or the process is procedurally flawed, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I wasn't aware of this procedure. I thought it would make the discussion easier if we'd focus on one category first. What do you suggest, should I post a CfD for the other categories after all or is it now too late for that anyway? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose categories are structure, the structure is what adds value. Categories are designed to provide navigation for the reader. This does that. No valid reason for deletion is presented here. Hmains (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVE are applicable here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I do not think we have any robust definition of where northern Europe ends. The category thus raises a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, it is subjective as to where Europe ends and Asia begins (Category:Armenia anyone?). Our category structure is built on such POVs, not troubled by them. SFB 08:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I'm glad, cats like these exist. It is very natural (and good) to break down Category:Europe into regions, and this is one of the cats needed for that. -- CN1 (talk) 22:34, 15 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category with only one member. Safiel (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nomination and this also counts for the categories below. It would be nice if there were a tool that automatically lists all categories that have contained less than two entries for a certain amount of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are two entries no, but although the Ropers were a notable family (Margaret and her husband), this was only for their lifetime and as a part of the More family. No opinion on notability of category.
• Delete The Roper family is not a defining characteristic, nor much of a notable topic at that. SFB 18:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A category to deal with one married couple, however distinguished is unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not need a category for two people who were married to each other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 14 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 16:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category has only one member. Safiel (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The family include the Barons Colepeper and the Barons Culpeper, and the mother of a queen (Joyce Culpepper), her daughter (Queen Catherine Howard) was very associated with her Culpepper side and her distant cousin and lover, Thomas Culpepper) was a close friend of Henry VIII and executed for adultery with the queen.
• Keep Defining characteristic. The family and its role in the English aristocracy is distinguished. SFB 18:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that this is being used for a single family: it looks like a surname category, which is not allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 12 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: no consensus, discounting the nominator's original rationale which no longer applies. – Fayenatic London 16:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category has only one member. Safiel (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many members now, including Barons Clifton and Clifton baronets. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is being used as another surname category, including unrelated people as the proveious contribtion makes clear. The usual measn of navigation to a particular baronet is via an article on the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 12 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: no consensus, discounting the nominator's original rationale which no longer applies. – Fayenatic London 16:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category has only one member. Safiel (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick look found many members, including the Barons Brereton, the family were influential in Wales. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is being used as a surname category, whiuch we do not allow. The groom may be an ancestor of the barons, in which case the best course is to include a mention of him in the article on the title. The otehr person appears to be wholly unrelated. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 12 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category with only one member. Safiel (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Family is not a defining characteristic. Such is the non-definingness of this family, the placement of Egeon Askew within this family is entirely unclear. SFB 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after listifying -- Now has three members of whom 2 are related. This is not enough for a family category. There is a tendency to create such categories, where it is really for "people with the surname Askew", which WP does not allow. Listify as Askew (surname). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not clear that all three people come from same family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 14 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: add criteria, purge if necessary, and create sub-cat Category:Cancelled dams, rather than "Unbuilt dams", as "Cancelled..." is the naming format by type of structure within Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose discussing purpose and need for Category:Dam controversies

Nominator's rationale: discussion and possible action. I'm bringing this here for a discussion on what to do with this category. The current introduction says, Dam Controversies - can be about dams that were proposed, but never completed; or dams that were created despite objections. That is really ambiguous and the first part is assumes all dams that are not built are the result if objections rather then technical issues. Also note that the main article, which probably creates the real inclusion criteria, is Environmental impact of reservoirs. I'd argue that every dam built had objections, so every dam should be in the list. My first thought would be to limit inclusion here to articles about dam controversies and change the heading to indicate this. A cleanup of the contents would be needed. I guess a rename could work, but any I think of have pretty much the same inclusion criteria issues as the current category. Note that for items in the first part of the introduction, the name for that category would be Category:Unbuilt dams per our current naming consensus. So creating that category probably should be done no matter what the outcome of this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly state in the header that only articles are permitted in this category that have a controversy as their main topic - preferably with 'controversy' in the article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support creation of "Unbuilt dams", maintenance of this category for articles on controversies (not dams), and sorting of built dams into some other higher category. SFB 18:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Split -- Category:Unbuilt dams is certainly needed. That leaves us with dams that were built despite objections and issues over dam safety etc. which seems to be what the main article is about. Many dams will have generated controversy over whehter they should be built; possibly most large ones. However the level of controversy before a dam article can go into this ncategory would seem to be a POV issue. Where there is an article specifically about the campaign against it, we might have an "Anti-dam campaigns" category, but such articles are liable to be merged back to the article on the dam, but that I think it better to purge the category of such articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have overseen the population of this category, in a way. As correctly noted above, just about every proposed, existing or under construction dam has opposition. Criteria for inclusion in this category has generally been dams of international controversy such as Belo Monte Dam, Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam or Three Gorges Dam. Dams of local and national controversy generally are not included. If the controversy is notable, ie a major international organization opposes it, it is the subject of national/regional politics, and/or the controversy is heavily reported in reliable sources it should make the list.

I noticed the category was removed from many dam articles because the article is 'primarily about the dam'. The problem with this is that many notable dam controversies probably won't ever have their own split controversy article for a number of reasons to include POV and editorial 'man-power'. The category should apply to regular dam articles too; just as we describe a dam by type, we can describe a dam by whether is is very controversial or not. It is a disservice to readers when they can't navigate through dam controversies efficiently.

On the category for "Unbuilt dams", there is Category:Proposed dams which fits the bill. Although there are a lot of articles for proposed dams now, I believe they should only be created when the dam's construction has been suspended or stopped and/or when the dam is of great controversy and worth a scholarly article.

Lastly, I would appreciate it if notices for dam-related CfDs could be posted on the WP:DAMS and WP:ENERGY talk pages. Most users don't watch categories and I just came of vacation and appeared to have missed at least one other CfD.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - for a while the Franklin Dam article about the controversy in Tasmania was being edited as if it was a dam that had been completed, it was never built. I support any clarification or action that can separate or elaboprate about the problem of planned unbuilt/planned built and controversy. However that may occur, so as to clarify the picture - the nominator and discussers all have good points, one only hope that this has something that clarifies rather than obtusifies. As for cfd items being notified to relevant projects - that has been an issue for 5 years now...nothing has happened satusuro 00:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Articles in this category should have reliable sources describing their subjects (whether individual dams, incidents or phenomena) as controversies or controversial, per fundamental policy. Vegaswikian shouldn't be going around mass removing dam articles from the cat while this is still ongoing, either. bridies (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Support creation of Category:Unbuilt dams as a subcategory of Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures. We probably need also category:Dams by status with subcategories Category:Unbuilt dams, category: Dams under construction, and Category:Proposed dams‎. Category:Dam controversies should be probably kept but it certainly needs more precise guidelines, something in line with what was said by User:NortyNort. Beagel (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support User:Beagel's proposal with the criteria that an 'unbuilt dam' be one that's construction has been cancelled, permanently halted or 'shelved'.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the criteria for Dam controversies within the category page.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Was there ever a dam built that did not face opposition by someone? Seems non-defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - yes, worldwide and historically dams have been built that never attracted any controversy or public concern satusuro 03:45, 20 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

• Category:Scottish Premier League football squad templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Scottish Division One football squad templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Scottish Division Two football squad templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Scottish Division Three football squad templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The Scottish Premier League no longer exists, as it was merged in 2013 with the Scottish Football League (which controlled Divisions One, Two and Three) to form the Scottish Professional Football League. These categories are redundant and Category:Scottish football squad navigational boxes serves the same function. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 12:12, 11 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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed renaming Category:6th-century Persian people to Category:6th-century Iranian people.

Nominator's rationale: Consistent naming with Category:5th-century Iranian people and earlier; consistent with Category:8th-century Iranian people and later. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Names are broadly interchangeable and Iran was present as a nation at that time. SFB 13:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support this renaming, since many of these "Persians" were not actually of Persian origin, but of Iranian Parthian and Iranian Daylamite origin (the list goes on). By the way, using them interchangeable is very incorrect. Furthermore, the Persians were only a minority in Iran back then and lived among their fellow Iranian kinsmen, and still do today. Source: The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: The Islamic Near East from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose changing from nationality to an unprovable ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The domains of the Sasanians was known as Iran (Ērān, and also as Ērānshahr, meaning Iranian land or Iranian country), not as "Persia", a word which is horribly incorrect and have been wrongly used in the west. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the commonly used English-language term for the place, regardless of what the local rulers called it. WP:USEENGLISH. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Westerners also used to categorise Native Americans as Indians. There is not reason why we should not use technically correct phrasings, especially as it is internationally unambiguous what "Iran" means. SFB 18:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If so, then we would need to remove the majority of articles from this category (which is unneeded), because they are simply not of Persian origin (the source i showed doesn't call these other Iranian groups as "Persian" either, nor do many other sources). --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In my honest opinion, the content of Iranian peoples should be leading for the discussion of Iranian versus Persian, as well as the fact that in articles of individual people in this category most often the term Sassanian has been used, while the Sassanian Empire has been defined as the last Iranian empire before the rise of Islam. I must admit that the term Iranian people is slightly ambiguous because it may be bounded either by current borders of Iran or by contemporary borders of various Iranian empires. However, the same problem exists with Persian people as they may be bounded either by the current province of Pars or by contemporary borders of the two Persian empires. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Iranian has consistently been the way the nation has referred to itself. The other possible solution might just be to go to using Sassanian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as "Iranian" refers to the broader group of Iranian peoples, and it is impossible to know whether a specific Sasanian subject was indeed of Persian (Parsi) descent and not Parthian, Tapurian, Median, Soghdian etc. or any combination thereof, who are usually lumped together as "Persians" in the Greek, Arabic and later Iranian sources. Constantine ✍ 13:40, 18 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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed renaming Category:7th-century Persian people to Category:7th-century Iranian people.

Nominator's rationale: Consistent naming with Category:5th-century Iranian people and earlier; consistent with Category:8th-century Iranian people and later. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Names are broadly interchangeable and Iran was present as a nation at that time. SFB 13:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support this renaming, since many of these "Persians" were not actually of Persian origin, but of Iranian Parthian and Iranian Daylamite origin (the list goes on). By the way, using them interchangeable is very incorrect. Furthermore, the Persians were only a minority in Iran back then and lived among their fellow Iranian kinsmen, and still do today. Source: The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: The Islamic Near East from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose changing from nationality to an unprovable ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The domains of the Sasanians was known as Iran (Ērān, and also as Ērānshahr, meaning Iranian land or Iranian country), not as "Persia", a word which is horribly incorrect and have been wrongly used in the west. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the commonly used English-language term for the place, regardless of what the local rulers called it. WP:USEENGLISH. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If so, then we would need to remove the majority of articles from this category (which is unneeded), because they are simply not of Persian origin (the source i showed doesn't call these other Iranian groups as "Persian" either, nor do many other sources). --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Iranian is a nationality category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, same case as the 6th-century category above. Constantine ✍ 13:42, 18 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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Films directed by Yasujiro Ozu to Category:Films directed by Yasujirō Ozu

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The latter is the spelling of the director's name used by the article on him. Gabbe (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and have the original category with a soft redirect to the correct one. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Accents are important in a person's name.Reawaken (talk) 23:22, 13 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:All City Chess Club members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A loosely connected supergroup that released only a single song together five years ago. STATic message me! 07:04, 10 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: rename back to old name. I note that the category was created by user:Omar-toons moving the category page out of process on 8 June. – Fayenatic London 17:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed renaming Category:Moroccan dynasties to Category:Dynasties of Morocco.

Nominator's rationale: The rename would be in line with some other countries in parentCategory:Dynasties by country and - more importantly - with the rename it would deliberately distinguish itself from descent-based dynasties, Category:Arab dynasties and Category:Berber dynasties.

Comment: Dynasties of Morocco currently redirects to Moroccan dynasties, therefore it's not redlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename To make it more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 14 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.