Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 27

August 27

Category:Susquehanna Crusaders football players

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. ℯ xplicit 04:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Susquehanna Crusaders football players to Category:Susquehanna River Hawks football players
Propose renaming Category:Susquehanna Crusaders baseball players to Category:Susquehanna River Hawks baseball players
Propose renaming Category:Susquehanna Crusaders football coaches to Category:Susquehanna River Hawks football coaches
Propose renaming Category:Susquehanna Crusaders baseball coaches to Category:Susquehanna River Hawks baseball coaches
Propose renaming Category:Susquehanna Crusaders football to Category:Susquehanna River Hawks football
Propose renaming Category:Susquehanna Crusaders baseball to Category:Susquehanna River Hawks baseball
Propose renaming Category:Susquehanna Crusaders athletic directors to Category:Susquehanna River Hawks athletic directors
Propose renaming Category:Susquehanna Crusaders to Category:Susquehanna River Hawks

Nominator's rationale: Mascot changed from Crusaders to River Hawks in 2016, see link Billcasey905 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took the liberty to merge these 8 nominations into one. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per additional source. Should be a non-controversial move for all. — Wylie pedia 21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support all - should be non-controversial. Rikster2 (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as proposed. Categories should reflect the current name. The change of name is described in Susquehanna University#Athletics. There don't appear to be any individual articles per team. Cravin Chillies 08:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per one team, one category guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2017 (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.

Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 Nepal

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: reverse merge. If these lists are ever made into proper articles then the category should be moved to the talk page, but (to keep navigation simple for now) that can wait until then. – Fayenatic London 06:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 Nepal to Category:Wiki Loves Earth, Nepal

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge into parent category, which is empty currently. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-proposal. I would do it the other way around. There is a higher tier Category:Wiki Loves Earth‎ under Category:Wiki Loves X. Category:Wiki Loves Earth‎ has two subcats, Wiki Loves Earth 2014 Ghana‎ and Wiki Loves Earth, Nepal‎. For consistency with the Ghanaian category, I propose merging Category:Wiki Loves Earth, Nepal into Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 Nepal and moving that into Category:Wiki Loves Earth‎. Cravin Chillies 08:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the entries are not related to a particular year. But whatever they should end up in mainspace anyway and then a proper category will be there anyway. Agathoclea (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 in Nepal (to align with the main page, Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 in Nepal), or to Category:Wiki Loves Earth in Nepal if the year does not matter. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two categories under whatever name. I really can't see the difference in scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2017 (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.

Category:Byzantine Latin inscriptions

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 30. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Byzantine Latin inscriptions to Category:Latin inscriptions

Nominator's rationale: merge, the category suggests some use of Latin in the Byzantine Empire but that gives a wrong impression. All three inscriptions in this category are from the time that the Byzantine Empire was merely the eastern half of the Roman Empire (4th/5th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Byzantine Latin somewhat differed from Western Roman and of course Byzantium and Western Rome turned separated by mid 4th century CE.GreyShark (dibra) 11:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By what sources does a Byzantine Latin dialect exist? By what sources are these inscriptions written in this dialect? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By Nicolas Oikonomidès - Byzantine Lead Seals, who clearly says that between 5th to 7th centuries, Byzaintine inscriptions were a unique form of Latin with Greek case endings, which was quite distinct from standard Latin.GreyShark (dibra) 13:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this also apply to the 4th/5th century inscriptions that are in this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. I do not believe there was any substantial difference in Latin speech or script. If there was, verification is necessary and I don't see any such verification in the relevant articles. Cravin Chillies 08:18, 31 August 2017 (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.

Category:Byzantine Latin language

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:

Relisted at CfD 2017 Sep 30. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Byzantine Latin language to Category:Latin language and Category:Byzantine Empire

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, too little content to keep this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Byzantine dialect of Latin differed from Western Roman Latin.GreyShark (dibra) 11:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an argument against WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query Is the Byzantine Latin language a real thing? Wouldn't every part of the empire speak Latin slightly differently? Does that make each of them a dialect or a distinct language? Are there sources saying that this is a thing? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By Nicolas Oikonomidès - Byzantine Lead Seals, between 5th to 7th centuries, Byzaintine inscriptions were a unique form of Latin with Greek case endings, which was quite distinct from standard Latin (meaning Vulgar Latin and Late Latin for the time).GreyShark (dibra) 13:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. I daresay there were Latin dialects just as there are English dialects, but would anyone seriously create Category:Yorkshire English language or Category:Manx English language? In any event, I do not believe there was any substantial difference in Latin speech or script. If there was, verification is necessary. Cravin Chillies 08:15, 31 August 2017 (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.

Category:Bochy family

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) 15:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Only two entries. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- too little content for a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we plan on creating a category for every family on List of second-generation Major League Baseball players. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now With no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree entirely with Muboshgu above that a category like this is impractical and, furthermore, of no real use for navigation purposes. If it is desired to mention the relationship between the two people, then do so via a sentence in each article. Cravin Chillies 08:09, 31 August 2017 (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.

Category:Boxing fights

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. ℯ xplicit 04:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Boxing fights to Category:Boxing matches

Nominator's rationale: Per parent cat. Category:Sports matches and a common name for this phenomenon. Subcats include: Category:Boxing fights involving Muhammad Ali‎, Category:Boxing fights involving Oscar De La Hoya‎, Category:International Boxing Federation heavyweight championship fights‎, Category:Boxing fights involving Floyd Mayweather Jr.‎, Category:Boxing fights involving Manny Pacquiao‎, Category:Boxing fights involving Mike Tyson‎, Category:World Boxing Association heavyweight championship fights‎, Category:World Boxing Council heavyweight championship fights‎―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed and extend to all subcats which include "boxing fights" in the title. "Boxing fight" is not common parlance; "boxing match" is. You don't say "football kickings" instead of "football matches". Cravin Chillies 08:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:03, 5 September 2017 (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.