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. Timrollpickering 11:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished during the Medieval Spain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article, and we do not have any other medieval categories like this. The article is already in Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain and in Category:Buildings and structures demolished in the 14th century, that should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, although there are others - I've added Medina Azahara. Not a great concept - most things are like the Roman villa of Can Llauder - "The villa was used until the Middle Ages when it fell into disrepair and ruin." Can we also correct the English in Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished during the Habsburg Spain, and if kept of this (no "the"). All these created by a blocked user. There's a tag on the parent cat that seems to lead nowhere too. Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: well spotted; I have summarily moved that one to Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished during Habsburg Spain (WP:IAR). – Fayenatic London 12:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In neither article do I see any statement about destruction or demolition: they may well merely have been left to decay. Furthermore, at the time this was part of Andalusia, not Spain, which did not become a single entity until the marriage of the CAtholic Monarchs in the 1490s. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?? end of the Medina Azahara article "People rose in revolt in Córdoba, while Sanchelo was busy in his expedition against Alfonso V in December 1009. Since Sanchelo was absent and there was nothing else in sight toward which to vent their anger, the people looted the palace built by Al-Mansur for four days. when they were through with the looting and plundering the palace, they put it to flames, and in no time the beautiful Az-Zahira was reduced to ashes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)

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:Medieval Persia. Timrollpickering 17:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Medieval Iran ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant per Category:Medieval Persia and the one article in this category is not really about Iran (the capital of the Umayyad Caliphate was in Damascus and Harran). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Category:Medieval Persia. – Fayenatic London 08:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect -- we do not need both. We categorise according to contemporary, not current polities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - that is actually the only instance where we can categorize according to current polities, and we also have Category:Medieval Syria, Category:Medieval Iraq, Category:Medieval Lebanon, etc - states, which clearly had not existed prior to 20th century. For medieval period in Syria for example we categorize per contemporary entity century (such as Category:12th century in the Ayyubid Sultanate), but can use also Category:Medieval Syria for areas covering modern Ba'athist Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 20:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nominator) I wouldn't oppose a reverse merge. But we certainly shouldn't keep the two categories in parallel. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Category:Medieval Persia. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 2 July 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) 05:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish-related controversies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a very vague category and open to abuse. What counts as 'Jewish-related'? How are we to determine that the controversy is as a result of Jewishness? Bangalamania (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If necessary, Merge to the huge Category:Judaism-related controversies. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and not merge not sure that everything related to ethnic Jews relates to Judaism, a religion. The first article in that I perused was about whether after WWII, baptized Jewish children should or should not be reunited with family members who survived the Holocaust or remain with the families who sheltered them during the war. Not about Judaism, but about Christianity and ethnic Jews. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 27 June 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 delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia articles needing time reference citations from March 2018 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty maintenance category that has been tagged for speedy deletion for almost 4 months ago but hasn't been deleted. The last revision shows the speedy deletion template here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:18, 24 June 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 with no prejudice against renominating as part of a broader nomination. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Computer companies to Category:Information technology companies

Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous. Sensible split is between Software companies‎ and hardware companies. Rathfelder (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question aren't software companies and hardware companies (in the nominated category) much closer related to each other than to e.g. business intelligence companies and telecommunication companies (which are in the parent category)? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as half-baked. The nominated category also contains hierarchies of Category:Computer companies by country, Category:Computer companies by year of establishment/ disestablishment. Maybe the ones by country should be merged to Category:Information technology companies by country, and the estab ones renamed to Information technology, but it would be more helpful to see a full proposal than a single category merge. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per the comments by Fayenatic. Not a well formed proposal Hmains (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Apart from the USA the contents of the Category:Computer companies by country are negligible - less than a tenth of the equivalent in Category:Information technology companies, but some are from countries where there may not be enough entries to justify subdivision. Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 29 June 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 delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field from August 2007 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty maintenance category that has been tagged for speedy deletion 26 days ago but hasn't been deleted. The last revision shows the speedy deletion template here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:26, 24 June 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: relisted, see here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Glass makers and brands to Category:Glass industry

Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. contents are all subcategorised in Category:Glassmaking companies, Category:Glass makers and Category:Glass trademarks and brands Rathfelder (talk) 11:48, 24 June 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:Trachiniformes. Timrollpickering 17:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Trachinoidei to Category:Trachniformes

Nominator's rationale: Nelson's 5th edition of Fishes of the World raises the suborder Trachinoidei to the order Trachniformes.Quetzal1964 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, @Quetzal1964: you had forgotten to tag the category page, I have done that now. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per more recent taxonomy. Plantdrew (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Modified support. Quetzal1964, it looks like the actual order is named Trachiniformes, not Trachniformes, did you make a typo? If you mean Trachiniformes, then yes, I support - per recent taxonomy, all of the subcats are now in the Trachiniformes order, so it makes sense to move the category to Trachiniformes.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SkyGazer 512 Yes I made a typo! Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, LOL. In that case, support. :)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:22, 6 July 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. Timrollpickering 13:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Railway stations served by Virgin Trains East Coast to Category:Railway stations served by London North Eastern Railway – C2D London North Eastern Railway has today superseded Virgin Trains East Coast as operator of the InterCity East Coast franchise as described in the relevant articles. There has been no change in the stations served. Ks46it (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Franchise has been taken by London North Eastern Railway and so the category should be this. I will go through the pages with AWB and change the categories once the move has been approved. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 24 June 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.