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. MER-C 10:37, 15 December 2019 (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. MER-C 07:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just one river and one reservoir. Wikipedia does not have any standard scheme of categorizing water bodies by their "hydrological system", and with just two entries total this one is not large or important enough to warrant special treatment. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2019 (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. MER-C 07:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly-created, common syllables are not WP:DEFINING. Le Deluge (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I am the creator of this category and I have no objection to it being deleted. I created it on request at WP:AFCRD, perhaps too quickly. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:53, 9 December 2019 (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: A more fitting name for the category, as "Caesar emperors" sounds more like Caesars who later became emperors. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 06:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, but suggest that "Tetrarchic Caesars" would be preferable to the macaronic "Tetrarchic Caesares". The English plural of "Caesar" is "Caesars", even when referring specifically to Roman emperors and their heirs. Not all Latin words have regular English plurals, and sometimes the Latin and English plurals are used interchangeably, but this isn't one of those cases, IMO, and the proposal isn't to rename the category "Caesares Tetrarchici", which I think would be the correct Latin. At any rate the current title is absurd, and nobody who isn't a specialist in this period would know what it referred to without reading the article—I had no idea until I saw this CfD! As an alternative, it could also be "Caesars of (or under, or during) the Tetrarchy", which would actually be clearer, IMO. What do you think of "Caesars of the Tetrarchy", @Iazyges:?
Comment, quite a few Caesars in this category were not of the Tetrarchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the category per descriptors on the page are Tetrachic Caesars, and Caesars has its own category, so I'll remove the non-tetrarchic ones. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 07:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support last two suggestions, whi8ch fit the situation well. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2019 (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.
