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 all. Timrollpickering 21:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Alternate history novels set in Ancient Rome
• Category:Capital punishment in Ancient Rome
• Category:Cities in Ancient Egypt
• Category:Constitutions of Ancient Rome
• Category:Cultural depictions of Ancient Greek people
• Category:Death in Ancient Rome
• Category:Executed Ancient Egyptian people
• Category:Executed Ancient Greek people
• Category:Family in Ancient Rome
• Category:Festivals in Ancient Egypt
• Category:Films based on Ancient Greek plays
• Category:Films based on works by Ancient Greek writers
• Category:Foreign relations of Ancient Rome
• Category:Heirs to the Ancient Egyptian throne
• Category:Hyksos Cities in Ancient Egypt
• Category:Industry in Ancient Rome
• Category:Lists of office-holders in Ancient Rome
• Category:Maps of Ancient Rome
• Category:Museums of Ancient Rome by country
• Category:Museums of Ancient Rome in France
• Category:Museums of Ancient Rome in Germany
• Category:Museums of Ancient Rome in Italy
• Category:Museums of Ancient Rome in the United Kingdom
• Category:Museums of Ancient Rome in Wales
• Category:Museums of Ancient Rome
• Category:Novels set in Ancient Rome
• Category:Organizations based in Ancient Rome
• Category:People executed by Ancient Rome
• Category:Prosopography of Ancient Rome
• Category:Religious leaders of Ancient Rome
• Category:Stock characters in Ancient Greek comedy
• Category:Wars involving Ancient Rome
• Category:Works by Ancient Greek writers

In all cases, I'm proposing that we rename these categories to use "ancient" instead of "Ancient". Also, "Category:Hyksos Cities in Ancient Egypt" should become "Category:Hyksos cities in ancient Egypt"; I can't see a reason to capitalise "Cities". This is building on past discussions of "Ancient Greek" categories (test nomination and further nomination), in which it was held that "ancient" is more appropriate than "Ancient" for categories referring to the culture in general. I've skipped a few "Ancient Greek" and one "Ancient Egyptian" categories that refer to the language, given the comments in the previous discussion about "Ancient Greek" being appropriate for the language. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ancient Egypt and ancient Greece. However I am a bit hesitant about Ancient Rome: changing it to "ancient Rome" may suggest the ancient city of Rome, rather than the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcocapelle, please note that I've cut out a lot of entries (I accidentally nominated several category redirects), and please see the newly added Hyksos comment. Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I can't see any need to capitalize "ancient" (or "cities" in the Hyksos example). Could "ancient Rome" be ambiguous? Perhaps, but it's widely used this way, and I doubt there's much risk of surprise or confusion if someone's first thought on seeing the title is that it refers to the city alone. Just as importantly, I doubt whether or not "ancient" is capitalized makes any difference to this ambiguity; if you read it ambiguously when it's not capitalized, you probably will when it is. P Aculeius (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding Category:Hyksos Cities in Ancient Egypt. I removed Leontopolis from this category, it was probably confused with Leontopolis (Heliopolis); and I also removed Xois from the category as it apparently existed already before the Hyksos arrived in Egypt. Decapitalizing "Cities" to "cities" is perfectly fine of course, but I wonder if the category should remain at all, with its small size. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all per precedent cited. I wouldn't be too concerned about Category:Ancient city of Rome - it's very poorly populated so not a realistic threat to confusion with the civilisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all per precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 21:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Entering Heaven alive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Seriously? This is way to ridiculous to be on Wikipedia regentspark (comment) 13:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, in what sense is this category different from sibling categories in Category:Recurring elements in folklore? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, seems like a good category. Bod (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The concept is well defined (it's not hard to decide whether an article belongs), it's neutral (nobody disputes the idea that the ascension of Jesus is related to the concept of entering heaven alive), and the name matches the concept quite fine; and "too ridiculous" also isn't a reason to delete a category. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it was something like Category:Folklore about entering Heaven alive it might seem a bit less silly. Bod (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most categories are named after the main article. And in this case, the article on the motif is named Entering Heaven alive. Dimadick (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the creator of the category. It is a wide-spead folkloric motif, in several religions of Asia and Europe. Dimadick (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename Folklore is too broad, I propose something along the lines of Ascension motif, or Ascension mythology. Regardless, the capitals in the name should go per MOS:CAPS#Religion.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good idea. Perhaps Category:Ascension would be sufficient. It would probably be helpful to start an RM for article Entering Heaven alive in parallel, so that article name and category name are kept aligned. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, please. The current wording "Entering Heaven Alive" is idiotic (what? who? enters heaven alive). Even "Mythological characters said to enter heaven alive" would be a better, and clearer, bet. --regentspark (comment) 17:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done: started the RM. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just fail to see User:RegentsPark's problem with the current name. For the moment, it matches the main article, and is neutral. Ascension has too specific a meaning (which why Mary has an "Assumption" in Catholicism), and is too closely associated with Christianity. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unchanged as per Johnbod. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but purge. 1 Thessalonians mentions the return of Christ and Christians being caught up to meet him in the air, but the book is not just about that. Muslims claim that Mohammed entered heaven from the Dome of the Rock, but that was the venue for this (and perhaps only in dream). The Dome did not enter heaven itself. However, Enoch, Elijah, and Jesus all ascended to heaven alive. "Translation" refers to a saint's death. I will not enter into discussion of Mary save to say that I do not believe the Catholic teaching on this, any more than I believe Muslim or Greek teachings on this. However the beliefs exist and many hold (or held) them, so that the category must exist. I would not oppose a rename, but any name chosen may adversely affect the breadth of the category, due to the nuances in the concept. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the RM has been closed as don't move. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2018 (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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering 11:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ottoman period in Syria to Category:Ottoman Syria

Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Ottoman Syria. Moreover, the current category name wrongly suggests that the category is limited to the area of the current republic of Syria while in fact the Ottoman province of Syria is intended as the scope of the category - covering the entire Levant. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the category was originally named Category:Ottoman Syria and merely by accident included in a broader rename nomination to "period in". Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename; you make a solid argument, and I suppose that the first rename wouldn't have happened had you mounted this argument as a reason to pull this category out of the batch nomination. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. To match the main article. This is the parent category for the Syria Vilayet, the Aleppo Vilayet, and the Beirut Vilayet. Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also for several other categories - the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, the Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate, etc.GreyShark (dibra) 09:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The whole broader rename nomination is flawed in terms of anachronism.GreyShark (dibra) 09:21, 3 September 2018 (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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering 11:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Symbolyc One (S1) to Category:Songs written by Symbolyc One

Nominator's rationale: C2D. Richhoncho (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2018 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tyrees A. Lamptey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Single article category -- for an article at AFD. Calton | Talk 10:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - regardless of afd. Oculi (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just one entry....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:24, 3 September 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gosanke to Category:Tokugawa clan

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, this extra category layer (with only 3 subcats) is unhelpful for easy navigation, also considering that the parent Category:Tokugawa clan has very few subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - serves no purpose. Oculi (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Unnecesary category layer within the wider clan. Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People born at sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, this concerns an interesting detail of a biography but not a defining characteristic. A list is more suitable in cases like this and in fact there is already a List of people born at sea. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; every biography should have a category for "Born in place X" or "Place of birth unknown", and deleting this category would make it look like all the articles about born-at-sea people were lacking a birthplace category. Meanwhile, how is birth at sea any less defining than birth in a specific city? Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the arguments of Nyttend. The "interesting details" are usually the defining ones. Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an ordinary place of birth category. Similarly "died at sea", which is used on UK death certificates. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2018 (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:Mito-Tokugawa family. Timrollpickering 21:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mito branch to Category:Mito-Tokugawa clan

Nominator's rationale: The title of the category in Japanese Wikipedia is 水戸徳川氏, or Mito-Tokugawa-shi, meaning Mito-Tokugawa clan. 24.105.170.133 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - article is Mito branch. Oculi (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not any more, it isn't. --Calton | Talk 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support More accurate AND more descriptive. --Calton | Talk 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Mito-Tokugawa family in accordance with the most recent article move, or merge to Category:Tokugawa clan since it is a pretty small category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Mito-Tokugawa family in accordance with the most recent article move. Oculi (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Mito-Tokugawa family in accordance with the most recent article move. Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2018 (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:Owari-Tokugawa family. Timrollpickering 21:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Owari branch to Category:Owari-Tokugawa clan

Nominator's rationale: The title of the category in Japanese Wikipedia is 尾張徳川氏, or Owari-Tokugawa-shi, meaning Owari-Tokugawa clan. 24.105.170.133 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - article is Owari branch. Oculi (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not any more, it isn't. --Calton | Talk 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support More accurate AND more descriptive. --Calton | Talk 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Owari-Tokugawa family in accordance with the most recent article move, or merge to Category:Tokugawa clan since it is a pretty small category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Owari-Tokugawa family in accordance with the most recent article move. Oculi (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Owari-Tokugawa family in accordance with the most recent article move. Dimadick (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2018 (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. WP:SMALLCAT concern not properly addressed. ℯxplicit 04:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Wilmerding, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Small one county community with just two entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - just added another article to the category. There is certainly room for this category to grow so WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, still only 3 articles currently, and there is no concrete indication that this category will contain many more articles any time soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2018 (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 to Category:Basketball at the European Youth Summer Olympic Festival. ℯxplicit 04:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Basketball at the European Youth Olympic Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Merge into Category:Basketball at the European Youth Summer Olympic Festival Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if I understand correctly, European Youth Olympic Days was the old name of the event and European Youth Summer Olympic Festival is the new name. @Pelmeen10: as the nominator you should provide a clear rationale for your proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. But you're correct. European Youth Olympic Days are now called European Youth Olympic Festival. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, same organization and only the name changed in the course of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2018 (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. ℯxplicit 04:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Sugar substitutes to Category:Sugar substitutes and Category:Sweeteners

Nominator's rationale: There is a fundamental problem here. The article on sugar substitutes uses that name even though many sweeteners are high in sugar and thus are replacing just "table sugar", while others are 0 calorie sweeteners or very low in sugar and some are naturally occurring while others are artificial. Syrup is not even mentioned in the main article, but yet it is a sweetener. Bod (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, Sweeteners is a redirect to Sugar substitutes. If there is a need for a fix it should be implemented in article space first. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, somewhat agree with @Marcocapelle: but it doesn't have to preclude splitting the categories. Bodhi Peace (talk • contribs)

• It doesn't have to preclude, but it may. Because it remains to be seen whether there is going to be consensus in article space about this issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've started the Sweetener article and adjusted the sugar substitute article to say that sugar substitutes are one type of sweetener. Bod (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, that was deleted. New draft here: Draft:Sweetener. It was deleted for no cites. Bod (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Previous talk here: Category_talk:Sugar_substitutes#Why this category needs bifurcation Bod (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2018 (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.