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 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Looks like a subcategory that was missed in a bulk nomination of Category:Music videos by year in 2007. Is there any speedy criteria for this type of thing? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Really quite obvious and the last CfD spells it out. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2014 (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:Historic department store buildings in the United States[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:Keep. As is, this category fits within the current structure. The arguments for merger relate to the larger question regarding Category:Buildings and structures by former use versus Category:Historic buildings and structures in the United States. Rather than merge a single category and create inconsistency, an RfC on the larger question is appropriate. From there, the child categories can be merged/renamed/re-populated as needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Historic is ambiguous and we generally avoid using it. Upmerge to the category where most of these articles probably existed until moved into this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Comment This category is being used to categorize buildings that were constructed as department stores but are no longer used as such, and is part of the larger Category:Historic buildings and structures in the United States tree. Whether or not a building is still used for its original purpose is not ambiguous. Based on the nomination, I'm wondering if using "historical" to mean "former" is confusing though. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will not argue that there is confusion between defunct, former, demolished and so on. The question there is what is the best solution, if any. But that is a different discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which probably also needs to be upmerged as ambiguous. One could argue that most buildings are historic. That's why we tend to limit this to historic registers where someone else is making the case. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most buildings are certainly not 'historic'. Consider the overwhelming number of buildings built in the last 30-40 years. Not historic whatsoever. Just buildings. Hmains (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which still ignores the ambiguous nature of the category. It appears that with the current setup, all you need is to include the word historic in the article, and the category can be added. How is that defining or how is the criteria not ambiguous? If we want to keep it, the rename suggested by RevelationDirect, fixes the ambiguity and would be a preferred option. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename As I re-read my comments, I seem to agree with the nomination more than not. As long as there is no objection to my creation of a Category:Former department stores (or renaming this one with a partial purge), then I'm fine with this one going. Thanks for being patient with me. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Categorization always applies, so the fact something is no longer such is not relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2014 (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:Locations related to Tartu University[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:Merge. Another 'related to' category which is inappropriate. Upmerge to parent since the few I checked belong there. Any that do not can be removed after the merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear case of over-categorization. --Sander Säde 07:01, 19 June 2014 (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:U.S. Congress external link templates[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: The general format for categories I believe is the full "United States", not U.S. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And government isn't generally capitalized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2014 (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.
