Category:City and town halls 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:No consensus for this proposal. There's a lot of different suggestions flying around; a new nomination with specifics at the outset may be helpful. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As currently titled, it does not match the parent and excludes village halls. This was included in a multipart rename request a while ago that resulted in no consensus to move any of the categories. So I'm bring this one back for a discussion on it's merits. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't renaming it so make it also a place to collect county governments? 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a county government is local government (as opposed to national government), whatever the article might say? Occuli (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I don't myself see any objection to including county government seats, as a subcat perhaps. Occuli (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename This category name is proper for its content and thus serves the purpose of categories: navigation. The Category:Local government buildings in the United States which I just created is the parent category and, of course, includes more than just city and town halls. By the way, the category structure makes clear the distinction between county government and local government as the distinction is maintained in the real world. Hmains (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy if we called it Category:City halls in the United States and left it at that. It's simple, understandable, and the details can be covered in the category description. However, I expect that won't satisfy everyone. - Eureka Lott 13:36, 20 May 2011 (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:speedy merge per speedy criterion C2A. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Speedy merge Capitalization is the sole distinction between the two categories. Pichpich (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't there a CSD for this? 65.95.13.213 (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2011 (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:Rename. Only contains a city hall. Dual named categories and not favored when the distinction between the two entities is clear. Renaming to the plural of 'Rathaus' is also an option. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – there are potentially quite a few of these: see de:Kategorie:Rathaus in Österreich. According to Rathaus the plural is Rathäuser. But why not choose 'Seats of local government in Austria', per one parent, and per the above US discussion? Occuli (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion was based on the fact that it only has cities at the present time and Category:Rathäuser in Austria could be the preferred local use over city and town halls. I have no objection to using Category:Seats of local government in Austria if that is where consensus is. If we approve seats here and in the discussion above, we probably need to nominate most of the remaining siblings for uniformity. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Most of the subcategories (15) are “City and town halls in …” and the category should be named to cover future not just existing articles eg one about a town hall in Austria. The existing categories Category:City halls in Australia , Category:City halls in Belgium and Category:Town halls in the Czech Republic should be renamed to “City and town halls” also as the categories for Australia and Belgium both include town halls and the Czech Republic a city hall. Also some town halls eg Sydney Town Hall and Auckland Town Hall are actually in cities (and are now mainly auditoriums, with most of the city administration elsewhere) Hugo999 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2011 (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 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:Tall buildings and structures in London[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:merge/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Tall is ambiguous so it is not an appropriate objective inclusion criteria for a category. If anyone wants to confirm that all of the articles have an appropriate London buildings and structures category that these buildings are also in, then Delete is an acceptable conclusion. There is already List of tallest buildings and structures in London which provides adequate navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Tall is subjective. If it were defined it would just be arbitrary and so violate other category rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2011 (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: I think the "Akranes" part of the category name is unnecessary. ÍA is short for Íþróttabandalag Akraness (note that "Akraness" is the adjectival form of "Akranes") so the place name is effectively being repeated. Category:ÍA players would be a good enough name, as then the category would match the parent article's name. BigDom 18:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Occuli's suggestion. In general abreviations should be avoided in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2011 (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:Articles with Alice and Bob explanations[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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorizing articles on the basis of what sort of explanatory text they use is beyond trivial. If I wanted to be cheeky I could suggest that the category entails original research since many of the articles do not explicitly contain reference either to Alice or Bob. Harley Hudson (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I just happened on that category and was looking for its purpose. I don't see that it is a useful classification for a reader, although it made me smile. It was hidden a while ago, but it's not used as a cleanup category. Without any apparent purpose, I agree that it should be deleted. Amalthea 14:08, 26 May 2011 (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 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 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: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article summarizes the "question" - most individual articles don't. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The category is about things related to the question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2011 (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:Bradford Durfee College of Technology[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: Only one article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2011 (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, category has grown since nomination and is part of a recognised scheme. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now has two articles in the cat and two populated sub-categories that are only likely to grow with time. This is part of the normal university category tree system used at wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2011 (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 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, category has grown since nomination and is part of a recognised scheme. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are now 3 articles in this category and an additional 3 in the one sub-category. This category may well grow in the near future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are now two sub-categories which are populated with articles. This should be kept as a normal part of the university category tree system.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2011 (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: Too few articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2011 (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.
