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. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 07:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Oxymorons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Right now the category only contains the article oxymoron. It could be filled with articles that people often say are oxymorons, like military intelligence, civil war, power ballad, wise men, Muslim atheist, etc., but such a categorization scheme would be (1) opinion-based and subjective (not everyone would agree that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron), and (2) more of a type of categorization by shared name feature than a useful system of categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - same rationale as the recent cfd on Double entendres (and what about Category:Puns?). Occuli ( talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• keep. Since Good Ol’factory himself admits that it could be filled, it has a future in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. That there will be discussion about some of the additions to this category before consensus will be reached is not a reason to delete it, and has nothing to do with the question at all. Debresser ( talk) 22:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Any category can be populated; the question is whether or not it's valid or useful to do so. The rest of my nominating statement makes it clear that I believe any addition to the category would be (1) entirely opinion-based and subjective and (2) a type of categorization by shared name. So I would disagree that the issue has nothing to do with the question at all. As an example exercise, can anyone name one article that would, without dispute, fit into this category (other than oxymoron)? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as inappropriate, shared name categorisation (what? no Tall Dwarfs?) Grutness... wha? 00:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • May as well make Category:Anarchist organizations a subcategory ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Terminate with extreme prejudice - This one betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of categories. They're not mere lists of words, they're lists of articles. It doesn't matter in the least whether we have a list of oxymorons (or any other sort of word) that we all agree on -- it still would not serve any useful function as a category. Period - end of story. Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 10:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• This last user has a point. Debresser ( talk) 13:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Hey, welcome aboard! :) You're allowed to change your !vote - you can just strike-thru the word "keep" in your comment above, or even the whole comment if you like -- your call. Cgingold ( talk) 13:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• ThatI didn't want to do, because I still think that point holds true. Debresser ( talk) 13:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete one article and little that could be NPOV oxymorons Military intelligence? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Could be interesting, but too many potential problems.-- King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:38, 26 February 2009 (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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• I propose to delete all the categories in the box above. (Warning: long list!) All of these are empty, all of them contain a {{ category redirect}}, and none of them have any significant incoming links. Each one is in the form Category:FOO navbox templates or Category:FOO navigational boxes, and each one redirects to Category:FOO templates (with a few exceptions where the target categories have been renamed for other reasons since the redirect was first created). These all are the result of category renaming that was done last year by User:Sardanaphalus, which reorganized the naming of large numbers of these template categories. These categories are so specialized that I don't see the redirects as being of any use in navigation, and having them in existence is potentially misleading to users who are trying to figure out in which category a new template should be placed. (And if anyone is wondering whether I am planning to nominate all 5,000+ category redirects for deletion in separate batches, the answer is "no"; this is probably the last one for the foreseeable future.) -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 19:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• I second. Debresser ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Ahem the reason none of them have any significant incoming links, as I understand it is that some WP:BOT patrols pages like this and moves any incoming members, however these seem worthy of deletion, provided no history is lost (GFDL reasons). Rich Farmbrough, 18:18 27 February 2009 (UTC).
  • Actually, you're mixing up two different things. (1) Yes, all these categories are empty. If anyone did put an article in them, the bot would have moved them out, but my logs indicate that no articles have been found in any of them in months. (2) When I said "incoming links," I mean Special:Whatlinkshere links, which are different from category members. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• I say delete.-- duo ( talk) 22:36, 3 March 2009 (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 (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Uncategorized pages needing expert attention ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete We allready have Category:Uncategorized articles needing expert attention and that is where all articles are, while this category is empty. Debresser ( talk) 19:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support hard to imagine a page that's not an article that needs expert attention, but my imagination may be limited. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support - I can think of many - templates and portals for starters. But we can re-create if needed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:34 27 February 2009 (UTC).
• speedy deletion It's been empty for a week now. I seem to remember that is a reason for speedy deletion. Debresser ( talk) 23:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per Debresser. - Drilnoth ( talk) 01:24, 1 March 2009 (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. Erik9 ( talk) 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Albums with alternate track listings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Non-defining characteristic/over-cat. Are any of these albums known for having a different track listing, rather than anything else about them? Lugnuts ( talk) 18:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete and Listify - certainly not the sort of thing that warrants categorization. I think this would be more useful to readers as a list. Cgingold ( talk) 10:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete – perhaps I lack curiosity but a 'list of albums with alternate track listings' sounds like a contender for the dullest list on wikipedia. (I seem to recall 'A short history of concrete' winning an award for the least gripping title of the year in the 90s sometime.) Occuli ( talk) 10:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I can't say I'd find it very interesting myself. I think you'd probably have to be a serious audiophile to really groove on a list of alternate tracks. Cgingold ( talk) 10:49, 25 February 2009 (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/Merge per Good Ol’factory's suggestion leaving the Super Bowl separate (as only one was in favor of upmerging it). -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting/merging these

• Category:Sports lore (delete)
• Category:American football lore to Category:American football
• Category:National Football League lore to Category:National Football League
• Category:Super Bowl lore to Category:Super Bowl
• Category:Baseball lore to Category:Baseball
• Category:College basketball lore to Category:College basketball
• Category:Basketball lore to Category:Basketball
• Category:Boxing lore to Category:Boxing
• Category:Ice hockey lore to Category:Ice hockey
• Category:NASCAR lore to Category:NASCAR
• Category:Professional wrestling lore to Category:Professional wrestling

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Merger criteria for inclusion subjective, violates WP:POV Mayumashu ( talk) 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: While I support the general thrust of this nomination, I noticed after looking at a few that there are problems with the tagging. For example, Category:Professional wrestling lore is tagged for renaming instead of merging. And the links for this CFD aren't properly anchored to this section heading -- they all need a piped parameter at the end for "Category:Sports lore and subcategories". So I'm withholding my endorsement until all such problems are taken care of. Also, it would be a good idea to provide a link to the CFD for NBA lore. Cgingold ( talk) 19:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

the wrestling lore cat page tag now correct. I haven t figured out the piping bit yet - may try more later Mayumashu ( talk) 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete POV, subjective, OR, per my comments in the prior CFD. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep all What guidline(s) in WP:POV are being referred to? After looking at WP:POV, this nom looks like yet a another case of an important set of Wiki guidelines being cited flagrantly, superficially and perhaps antithetically.... The second item in the nom, Category:American football lore, has over 140 items in all. Nominations make as much sense as deleting popular tv shows or best-selling record albums; in other words, they make no sense at all. -- Mr Accountable ( talk) 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

'Assuming the obvious' and 'local bias' (ie. personal bias). What makes one event from the history of an item 'sports lore' and not another? One's opinion. And just because a lot of people agree that a certain item should belong or that a particular page listed has a lot of items does not remove the POV nature of these lists. Mayumashu ( talk) 17:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The problem is the word 'lore' and its connotation of 'legendary'. Folklore is different because events and people there may or may not have existed (and therefore the word 'legend' assumes its primary meaning. Here, attributing legendary status on an actual event or person is simply to give one's opinion. Perhaps there should be a Category:Sport(s) history to collect notable occurrences in the history of sport(s)? Mayumashu ( talk) 17:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

If you would have looked, you would have found that we already have Category:History of sports, with subcategories like Category:History of American football and Category:History of boxing. Also, as noted above, this nomination was poorly done. None of the links on the links on the nominated categories point to the right section on this page, and some of the categories were never nominated in the first place. - Eureka Lott 18:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I wasn t sure if, say, 'history of boxing' and 'boxing history' are the same thing, but they are, arent they. I would support a merger into the 'History of (sport)' pages. Mayumashu ( talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• NOTE: Links on nominated categories now fixed. -- Kbdank71 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Rename - merge all "lore" categories to a corresponding "history" category. If no such category exists, rename these to the preferred history of sports name format. "Lore" is subjective; "history" is not. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge/rename per Otto. I think he's on the right track here. These really just need to be merged to the applicable "history" categories. If none yet exists, they can be renamed to that. So that would leave us with:
  • Category:Sports lore to Category:History of sports
  • Category:American football lore to Category:History of American football
  • Category:National Football League lore to Category:History of the National Football League (or just to the more general Category:History of American football.)
  • Category:Super Bowl lore to Category:History of the National Football League (I don't think we need a separate category for Super Bowl history.)
  • Category:Baseball lore to Category:History of baseball
  • Category:Basketball lore to Category:History of basketball
  • Category:College basketball lore to Category:History of college basketball (or just to the more general Category:History of basketball.)
  • Category:Boxing lore to Category:History of boxing
  • Category:Ice hockey lore to Category:History of ice hockey
  • Category:NASCAR lore to Category:History of NASCAR
  • Category:Professional wrestling lore to Category:History of professional wrestling (or similar category names for the ones that don't exist yet). — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename in the manner that Otto and Good Ol'factory suggest. "Lore" is high-falutin'; "history" is falutin'-free. (Though I have no objection to "HIstory of the Super Bowl"; it's a mightily historical thing.)-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (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. WP:SNOW Rich Farmbrough, 15:51 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Category:Japanese probes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Japanese space probes for clarity, consistent with other sub-cats of Category:Unmanned spacecraft, all of which include a reference to "space". Cgingold ( talk) 15:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• 'Rename per nom. Pavel Vozenilek ( talk) 18:17, 23 February 2009 (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:  Relisted at 2009 MAR 10. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Los Angeles to Category:Basketball players from California AND Category:People from Los Angeles, California

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Chicago to Category:Basketball players from Illinois AND Category:People from Chicago, Illinois

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Philadelphia to Category:Basketball players from Pennsylvania AND Category:People from Philadelphia

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Baltimore, Maryland to Category:Basketball players from Maryland AND Category:People from Baltimore, Maryland

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from the Bronx to Category:Basketball players from New York AND Category:People from the Bronx

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Manhattan to Category:Basketball players from New York AND Category:People from Manhattan

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Queens to Category:Basketball players from New York AND Category:People from Queens

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Brooklyn to Category:Basketball players from New York AND Category:People from Brooklyn

Propose merging Category:Basketball players from New York City to Category:Basketball players from New York AND Category:People from New York City

Propose merging Category:Professional basketball players from Kentucky to Category:Basketball players from Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Merge per results of this debate, which ruled against separate basketball player categories by city. The last one follows a similar logic, as there are no similar categories with "Professional" at the front. I should say that these are the only categories of their kind in any sport.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep There are ample athletes from these cities to merit categories based on these defining characteristics, ranging from a dozen to several dozen. Merging only loses useful information and harms navigation. Alansohn ( talk) 18:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge - per merge arguments in related cfd of 11 Feb 09 (Dallas). Occuli ( talk) 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• I certainly haven't changed my mind on those NYC borough sub-cats that I pointed out in the other CFD, which clearly need to be dispatched before they spawn the likes of (shudder!) Category:Basketball players from Park Slope and Category:Basketball players from Greenwich Village. But I have mixed feelings about Category:Basketball players from New York City and those for several other large cities, which are quite substantial categories.

So I am neutral on the sub-cats for Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Philadelphia. The others (Baltimore & Kentucky pros) should all be upmerged as proposed -- except that the NYC boroughs should be upmerged to the NYC category if it's kept. Cgingold ( talk) 21:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment If we're going to have categories of the form Booers from Foo, breaking down along geographic subentity lines makes sense to keep the cats managably sized, so keeping cats that have sizeable numbers of articles: Los Angeles, for example, would be appropriate and deleting the small ones or the ones where the state category itself is small seems appropriate. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (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 as nominated. Occuli's point about not including "men's" is valid, but since the creation of a corresponding "women's" category is at least theoretically possible for the future, we don't lose much at this stage by including the "men's", except for consistency with the others. Whether or not these other examples have theoretical "women's" categories may be playing a role in what they are named. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Boston College men's soccer to Category:Boston College Eagles men's soccer

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard for categories involving specific US college sports teams is to include the school nickname. Dale Arnett ( talk) 05:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support nom. (Do we need to include 'men's'? There is as yet no 'women's soccer' category for Boston College although there is wonen's soccer there.) Occuli ( talk) 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support to match standard for other college teams. "men's" should be included, both for consistency with other such categories and to allow for future creation of a category for women's soccer. Alansohn ( talk) 18:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Category:College soccer teams omits 'men's XXX' unless there is also 'women's XXX' (with 1 other exception). Occuli ( talk) 20:01, 23 February 2009 (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, as this was covered by the CFD of 18 October 2008. Nyttend ( talk) 22:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Lists of Registered Historic Places by state to Category:National Register of Historic Places lists by state

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term "Registered Historic Places" is a Wikipedia neologism that needs to be eliminated. Entities that have been called "Registered Historic Places" are more properly titled "properties" or "listings" on the National Register of Historic Places. Most articles and categories that used the term "Registered Historic Places" have been renamed; this one was not proposed for renaming earlier because of lack of consensus (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places) on the new name. The proposed new name is the simplest one identified. Some other possibilities include "Lists by state of properties on the National Register of Historic Places", "Lists of National Register of Historic Places by state", and "Lists by state of National Registered Historic Places." Orlady ( talk) 04:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment – it's not difficult to see why the neologism was coined, as the present name is elegant, clear, succinct and grammatical. The others read like a Google translation from German wikipedia. Occuli ( talk) 11:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It's generally agreed that the official terminology is awkward, but (as I'm sure you are aware) that doesn't give Wikipedia the right to invent and disseminate new terminology. -- Orlady ( talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

In fact a Neologism is a newly coined word. 'Registered historic place' is a graceful English phrase combining 3 long-established words - as far as I know we are free to use such phrases as we see fit, and many category names are formed in this fashion, tho' usually not in title case. Occuli ( talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (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: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Former National Register of Historic Places to Category:Former National Register of Historic Places listings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "National Register of Historic Places" is a singular noun referring to the entire National Register (i.e, the whole list). The current name, however, inappropriate treats it as a plural noun referring collectively to multiple individual properties on the list . The proposed new name would instead use the plural noun "listings," which would be consistent with the current naming of list articles for the National Register (for example, National Register of Historic Places listings in Alabama). Orlady ( talk) 04:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment – this (either option) has all the elegance of a google translation from German to Russian and then to English. Introduce the neologism! Occuli ( talk) 11:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose the articles now categorized there are not "listings"; how about Category:Places formerly on the National Register of Historic Places, which has two "places" but one is in a compound proper noun so perhaps we can live with this mouthful. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately that is not a valid option. Although the name of the register includes the word "places," not all of the entities listed on the National Register of Historic Places are places. For example, the list includes some ships that can, and sometimes do, move from one place to another. Property type (National Register of Historic Places) describes the types of entities that can be listed, including buildings, monuments, statues, sculptures, archeological sites, bridges, airplanes, ships, shipwrecks, and others. There were months of discussion at the NRHP Wikiproject regarding names for articles and categories. The most official term employed for entities on the National Register is "properties," but there were objections to that term because it connotes ownership. The agency in charge of the National Register advised one project participant that "listings" and "entries" are also used in this context, so the word "listings" was adopted as a collective noun referring to entities on the National Register (it does not refer to articles, but rather to the topics of articles). -- Orlady ( talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Shame "entries" was not adopted. A listing can mean either an individual entry or a list of entries. Rich Farmbrough, 15:54 27 February 2009 (UTC).

• Support We need an obvious name; although the way that these sites are named can't be made too obvious, this name is the closest that we can get. Of course the articles aren't listings, but their subjects are: there are objects such as boats and signs on the Register that clearly aren't places, so "Places..." clearly wouldn't work. "Listings" isn't a neologism, because it follows the NRHP pattern: see this week's "National Register of Historic Places Listings" page. For the same reason, "entries" would not be as good, because it's not used by the Register. Nyttend ( talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Shopping malls in Cincinnati, Ohio to Category:Shopping malls in Ohio

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category includes four malls, none of which are within the city limits of Cincinnati. I believe they are all in suburban communities. - Eureka Lott 04:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom.- choster ( talk) 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge then delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:43, 25 February 2009 (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 to Category:National Register of Historic Places images. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 08:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Images of places listed on the United States National Register of Historic Places to Category:National Register of Historic Places images

Nominator's rationale: Proposed name is simpler. More importantly, the existing name is inaccurate and misleading because not (1) everything listed on the NRHP is a "place" (register listings also include ships, airplanes, statues, and other properties that aren't necessarily places) and (2) the official name of the register is the "National Register of Historic Places", not the "United States National Register of Historic Places." Orlady ( talk) 04:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Images of United States National Register of Historic Places listings. The US is needed in there somewhere. Johnbod ( talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As noted in the nom, the official name of the register is the "National Register of Historic Places", not the "United States National Register of Historic Places," and Wikpedians have not identified any other "register" in the world that has the same name, so "United States" is not needed for disambiguation. (Similarly, Wikipedia does not append "in England" to the National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens, nor does it include "United Kingdom" n titles related to Listed buildings.) -- Orlady ( talk) 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep grammatically corect as is. The images are not of "listings" which presumably is some text or proclamation or something but of "places". Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • As noted in the discussion of one of the proposed category moves above, although the name of the register includes the word "places," not all of the entities listed on the National Register of Historic Places are places. Regardless, the proposed new name for this category is deliberately vague: Category:National Register of Historic Places images. In principle, that category could include not just images of entities on the National Register, but also maps or other images related to the National Register. -- Orlady ( talk) 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment You are going to need subcats, as I have taken hundreds of [pictures for such place just for Kentucky and Indiana alone.-- King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Why not put your collection on commons which is better structured for image categories? Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Rename to suggested target As the nominator notes, not all of these are places: as things stand, if File:Skipjack Thomas W. Clyde.jpg were here rather than on Commons, it really wouldn't belong, as it's a picture of a ship rather than a place. Moving to the suggested target would put this category more in line with other NRHP category names: nothing else has "United States" in it, which isn't needed because, as was noted, there's no other NRHP of which we know. As it is, we probably shouldn't have these pictures here, since they belong on Commons, but as long as we have them here, we should have a category for them. Nyttend ( talk) 06:20, 26 February 2009 (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.