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 per revised. Timrollpickering 15:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other similar geographically organized categories. Mangoe (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed for naming consistency. CravinChillies 19:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename in principle; however, target should be Category:Adobe churches in New Mexico ("churches" not capitalized) — this is a category for church buildings made of adobe, not for churches belonging to a denomination whose name is Adobe Church. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I've altered the nom to match. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support revised nom -- This is correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:43, 3 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.
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 per discussion below. ℯxplicit 03:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They were not successor states so the categories are historically incorrect and misleading. WP:OVERCAT applies. CravinChillies 09:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there are actually a few articles in here about states that may well be characterized as a successor state, most particularly Empire of Nicea and Empire of Trebizond, but not enough to keep as a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are states that emerged from the fragmenting empire. Dimadick (talk) 22:50, 2 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.
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, but without prejudice to renominating under a new/expanded rationale. On a procedural note, WP:OC is a reason for deletion only under one of the specific situations listed on the page. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, speedy keep. As one of the largest energy companies with a number of assets which have their own articles in Wikipedia, it deserves its own category as Engie, Shell, Vattenfall, E.ON etc large energy companies.I understand that the reason for nomination was that the category was underpopulated. It was caused by the fact that Uniper was created last year by demerging from E.ON. However, all articles belonging to this category except the main article of the category, remained in category:E.ON. It is sorted out now. Therefore I would like to ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Beagel (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep If there is a compelling reason to delete the category, I'm willing to consider it. But it's not obvious to me and absolutely no grounding whatsoever in WP:OC or other analysis is provided here. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 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.
Category:Byzantine Empire successor states in the Greek East[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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. ℯxplicit 03:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, these aren't successor states, they are just states in territories that the Byzantine Empire lost in warfare. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are states that emerged from the fragmenting empire. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It is historically wrong to describe these as successor states. WP:OVERCAT applies. CravinChillies 09:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Query I'm not clear about what a successor state is. Where only 1 state succeeds another state in roughly the same territory, it's clear enough. But what about when it's broken into multiple states? If the nominated ones are wrong, then surely Category:States succeeding Austria-Hungary is also wrong, no? Is the whole tree ill-conceived? Would better terminology allow it to be retained (e.g. "States that were originally part of Expire Foo")? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all (including Balkans and Anatolia categories) to Category:Byzantine Empire successor states. In some cases the loss was by rebellion; in others by conquest; in some by fragmentation. I suspect we ought also to have Duchy of Athens and a few more in my target. I would define a successor as occupying part of the territory of the Byzantine Empire, shortly after it ceased to be part of Byzantine Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to Successor state it concerns either a legal successor or the result of a split. Not the result of conquest anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 But didn't all the states quietly slip away while the empire was still nominally extant? So if the test is "shortly after it ceased to be", then you would have to wait for the fall of Constantinople. @CravinChillies: Why is it wrong to say, "It is historically wrong to describe these as successor states"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(wait for the fall of Constantinople) - Quite so. It is reasonable to say that Empire of Nicaea and Empire of Trebizond were successor state after the first fall of Constantinople in 1204. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(quietly slip away) - The cause is warfare, that's not really quiet. Many articles in these categories are better to be characterized as rival states (or neighbouring states, to put it more neutral) than as successor states. @Laurel Lodged:Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only these, but probably all "successor" states categories because of the problems outlined above. Best to listify the states so that their subtleties can be explained. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:17, 7 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.
