Category:Susquehanna Crusaders football players[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:rename. ℯxplicit 04:57, 6 September 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. CravinChillies 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 06:26, 3 October 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]
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.
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: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. CravinChillies 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.
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.
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. CravinChillies 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.
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.
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. CravinChillies 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.
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. ℯxplicit 04:57, 6 September 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". CravinChillies 08:05, 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 30. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)