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.
Nominator's rationale: Extremely over-specific intersection; unlikely to ever become populated. —swpbT 20:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, presuming no-one has recently emptied the category. The 'historical' bit is subjective and the category is currently empty anyway. The Houses of Iran category tree is small enough to not require further dissipation at the moment.Sionk (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty (speedy?) If it had content I would have said merge to Category:Bushehr County or something related to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 13 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: Extremely over-specific intersection; unlikely to ever become populated. —swpbT 20:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty (speedy?) If it had content I would have said merge to Category:Bushehr County or something related to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 13 November 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.
Category:The X Factor (Australian TV series) judges[edit]
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.
Note I've just added two other categories created by the same user at the same time, relating to the same programme. These should be deleted for the same reason. anemoneprojectors 18:01, 10 November 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.
Category:Environmental issues with population[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Current category name does not very clearly reflect the contents. The proposed name is a variation on the name of the parent Category:Human impact on the environment. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is also an option. I hadn't proposed a merge at the start because the content of the two categories is quite distinct, in the target the focus is on environmental impact while in the nominated category the focus is on human activities. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 13 November 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:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Lost cities and towns, this is moving articles out of that into this new one and I don't think there is sufficient reason to split. Doug Wellertalk 06:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Doug Wellertalk 06:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree and vote to oppose the deletion of this new category (or replace it with a "Major lost cities" category.) The Category:Lost cities and towns is too large and it includes a huge number of obscure, mainly tiny locations in the U.S., "burying" the lost ancient cities of major interest in Archaeology. That's why I have created the new sub-category Category:Ancient lost cities and towns, to be able to distinguish them easily. Seriously, the ancient city of Akkad, former capital of the Akkadian Empire and a "major target" of History, has nothing to do with Ahapchingas, California except for being both lost populated places, with all due respect to the Tongva people. --MaeseLeon (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Ok, I can see a rationale and would support a better defined category. I don't think major would work as I can't see a way of defining major. "Ancient" is better than "major" but I think still too ambiguous. I suggest posting this cfd at wikiproject archaeology to get input from there.Doug Wellertalk 08:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is ambiguous about it? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is the average lay editor going to know which category is appropriate? I think the main article has a different audience than most articles on history or archaeology. And the problem with "Ancient" is there is no clear date. Ancient Vietnam for instance ends in 111 BCE. Doug Wellertalk 09:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue in any case that there were no Native American cities. Doug Wellertalk 14:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if we can come up with a better one. I agree that it's awkwardly named, but useful to distinguish from those currently in Category:Lost cities and towns. Perhaps they could be categorised by era, with these ones being defined under "Antiquity"? ‑‑YodinT 23:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Antiquity is an ambiguous term, it may refer to ancient history in general or it may refer to ancient Greek-Roman history only. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word order is also bad – if we followed the current setup we would end up with, "Medieval lost cities and towns" etc., which just isn't great English; "Lost medieval cities and towns" & "Lost ancient cities and towns" would be better. ‑‑YodinT 11:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion and renaming. Well named, and well defined category, being a recognisable and distinct subcategory of the parent, which is equally well named. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Lost ancient cities and towns and purge, or rather merge to Category:Ancient lost cities and towns, as that exists. Most of the articles that I sampled referred to a place mentioned in Greek or Roman literary sources, but we do not know where they are. That is different from depopulated places and archaeological sites. If there are medieval examples they probably need to go into that. One came from legend and an author's attempt to locate it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I was. How silly! This discussion got off to a wrong start by someone bringing in a Californian depopulated town, which should not be in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly defined category, notable topic, and scope for expansion. This category has merits. Dimadick (talk) 21:39, 1 December 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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. There isn't much that can be said about the Catholic Church in Madeira, so it should be merged to the country. We don't have Catholic Church in Madeira. --Tavix(talk) 00:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as an island belonging to Portugal, rather than part of the main country, it is appropriate to have a separate tree for the island. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support If there was a clear difference with Catholicism on the island, I would support the separate category. (In that case, there would probably be more articles.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category - Part of Portugal, but quite distinct, similar to Catholic Church in the Azores, for example. I've added "Category:Catholic Church in Portugal" to the page so it shows up in the the main Portuguese Catholic category as well. The two should remain separate. Scanlan (talk) 02:48, 29 November 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.
