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.
Keep/Delete/Upmerge Keep parent category for the two American articles and the twoone Filipino ones I added and there may be some room for growth based on
List of schools for the deaf. Delete the UK category which is effectively empty. Upmerge the American category per smalllcat.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment for the both Filipino articles it is a bit questionable if they belong in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
delete I don't know if this is a defining trait, but the categories are way too small to be useful.
Dimadick (
talk) 08:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep This is a very defining trait for both of the American institutions. This is part of a general practice of categorize institutions of higher learning with specific ethnic or language focus as having such. The American institutions included are defined by this trait.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep US category which has two legitimate articles, but it should be
Category:Universities and colleges for the deaf in the United States, as the college is not itself deaf. Delete the rest: The one Phillipines institution appears to have a department training teachers for the deaf: that is a performance-type category: we do not categorise a university according to whether it has a chemistry department. University of Bristol (the only UK item) is not a deaf institution: most of its students hear normally. There are (or have been) deaf colleges in UK, but they are training colleges (or schools) not degree-awarding institutions.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:58, 9 September 2015 (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:Deaf lists
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:Upmerge/delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, there's actually only one list in this category. Please note that the entire contents of the nominated category is already in the parent category, so an upmerge and a delete is practically speaking the same in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support the subcategories are especially baffling.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support The contents are not actually lists.
Dimadick (
talk) 08:53, 2 September 2015 (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:Scottish auto racing teams
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: There's not enough distinctly Scottish, as opposed to simply British, motor racing teams to warrant a category.
QueenCake (
talk) 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Question shouldn't it be merged to all three parent categories?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks, this seems very reasonable.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to all 3 parent categories per Marcocapelle.
DH85868993 (
talk) 11:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to all 3 parent categories per Marcocapelle.
Dimadick (
talk) 08:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge somehow. The one team identified itself as Scottish, but it was not necessarily representing Scotland. A category with one article is pretty useless, so that merger is the right solution.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:01, 9 September 2015 (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:Humangeographic territorial entities
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.
That's a different kind of question, not really related to
WP:SMALLCAT. I would say that it has to do with human geography in so far that it describes where humans are absent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If that were a rationale, then every place where humans are present has something to do with humans and this category could encompass every populated and unpopulated place on earth rendering it meaningless.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as meaningless per my comment above.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
At least the two of us have consensus on the fact that this category does not need to stay.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Apart from main articles and one list there is virtually no content. They are much better included in a wider category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:03, 9 September 2015 (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:County Commissioners in York County, Maine
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:upmerge to both parents.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. Also upmerge into other appropriate categories.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 15:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to both parents per nom. kennethaw88 •
talk 01:20, 3 September 2015 (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:Mozart in fiction
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:Closed by nominator and moved to article talk page. --
The Evil IP address (
talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment in general the right order is first to have the article renamed, then to have the category name renamed in order to follow the new article name.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Though in this case it's also about merging two categories. --
The Evil IP address (
talk) 09:50, 29 August 2015 (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:User page
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. It's not actually being used as a category, but just an extra user page link for one user. kennethaw88 •
talk 01:27, 3 September 2015 (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:Born
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 – no valid contents. (Its sole contents were 2 user pages, which I have removed from category space.)
Oculi (
talk) 08:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not a valid category. kennethaw88 •
talk 01:21, 3 September 2015 (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:Brunch foods
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 – same case as the
deletion of Category:Breakfast foods, except that this is even more culturally subjective, since brunch is less common across cultures. Not clear, though, on what's being called for with regard to
List of brunch foods. By upmerge to
Category:Brunch, do you mean to recategorize the list under that parent category, or do you mean merge the list into the category, adding every item on the list to the category, and then deleting the list?
Ibadibam (
talk) 21:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete cold pizza would qualify in most college dorms...
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-defining trait. And I agree that pizza is probably covered by the criteria.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Anything I eat at brunch is a brunch food, and I could eat anything for brunch. Absolutely pointless category (and descriptiom, come to that).
Emeraude (
talk) 14:14, 3 September 2015 (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:Dry places in New Jersey
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. There's no clear consensus regarding renaming the category either so that may require a WP:RM discussion.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 08:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Was CfDed
in June; CfD was closed as no consensus, but the closer had a desire for a rename or split of the current title. pbp 04:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose The fact that these places are dry is a strong defining characteristic and some of these places are cities or townships. But many are boroughs (e.g.,
Elmer, New Jersey and
Far Hills, New Jersey) and there is an unincorporated place within a township that is dry (
Ocean Grove, New Jersey). I'm not sure how we could handle all of these scenarios nor why we would want to split them up by type of government.
Alansohn (
talk) 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alternative rename of
Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey. It doesn't require an unnecessary splitting and the term jurisdiction is general enough to cover all different kinds of territories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment if this isn't delete, it must be renamed since it isn't about arid places in New Jersey, places suffering from drought, places without watersources, etc. --
67.70.32.190 (
talk) 07:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply
It's part of a larger "dry" tree, although
dry county is probably clearer, at least to American readers.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply
It's probably a good idea to nominate the entire tree for a rename in a different nomination. While 'dry' may be clear to Americans it is less so to an international audience.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename. I do have to admit I actually think "cities" and "townships" make it more clear this is about alcohol regulation. With dry counties being mentioned at times in country music, I think it is well known to the majority of Americans. Still, I do agree that it is too ambiguous of a category name. I also still think it should be listified instead of being in categories. I do think we should rename, but that should be done for the whole tree, not just New Jersey.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Some years ago there was a mass rename of categories for cities, towns, villages, etc to "populated places", because of difficulties in determining robustly which class of settlement places belonged to. We should not allow that principle to be reversed for one US State. The fact that this is about alcohol prohibition, not aridness, can be covered in a headnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
oppose any split and renaming.JackTheVicar (
talk) 00:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey. I closed the previous discussion and simply commented that I thought that the current name was ambiguous since on its face it suggests that we are categorizing arid places in NJ. I wasn't suggesting that the category be split. I think
Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey is clear, since it uses a legal term for "place" and so implies that "dry" is being used in the legal sense.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose splitting/Support Rename
Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey. I see no need for this to be based by the type of jurisdiction. Besides the various in-between places mentioned, it increases overall upkeep of the category.
Avicennasis @ 07:02, 2 Tishrei 5776 / 07:02, 15 September 2015 (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:Underground rapid transit in Australia
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.
Question@
Mqst: Was there anything in this category prior to nomination?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
(Repeat question With the right username) @
Mqst north: Was there anything in this category prior to nomination?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Marcocapelle:. The category looks to have been empty when Mqst nominated it for deletion or at least if it was emptied Mqst wasn't the one to do it. I looked at their recent edit history.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Whatever the history of this category, I can only find a proposal for a subway in Australia (
Sydney Metro (2008 proposal)), not any actual subways.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:53, 31 August 2015 (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.
Keep/Delete/Upmerge Keep parent category for the two American articles and the twoone Filipino ones I added and there may be some room for growth based on
List of schools for the deaf. Delete the UK category which is effectively empty. Upmerge the American category per smalllcat.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment for the both Filipino articles it is a bit questionable if they belong in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
delete I don't know if this is a defining trait, but the categories are way too small to be useful.
Dimadick (
talk) 08:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep This is a very defining trait for both of the American institutions. This is part of a general practice of categorize institutions of higher learning with specific ethnic or language focus as having such. The American institutions included are defined by this trait.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep US category which has two legitimate articles, but it should be
Category:Universities and colleges for the deaf in the United States, as the college is not itself deaf. Delete the rest: The one Phillipines institution appears to have a department training teachers for the deaf: that is a performance-type category: we do not categorise a university according to whether it has a chemistry department. University of Bristol (the only UK item) is not a deaf institution: most of its students hear normally. There are (or have been) deaf colleges in UK, but they are training colleges (or schools) not degree-awarding institutions.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:58, 9 September 2015 (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:Deaf lists
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:Upmerge/delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, there's actually only one list in this category. Please note that the entire contents of the nominated category is already in the parent category, so an upmerge and a delete is practically speaking the same in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support the subcategories are especially baffling.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support The contents are not actually lists.
Dimadick (
talk) 08:53, 2 September 2015 (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:Scottish auto racing teams
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: There's not enough distinctly Scottish, as opposed to simply British, motor racing teams to warrant a category.
QueenCake (
talk) 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Question shouldn't it be merged to all three parent categories?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks, this seems very reasonable.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to all 3 parent categories per Marcocapelle.
DH85868993 (
talk) 11:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to all 3 parent categories per Marcocapelle.
Dimadick (
talk) 08:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge somehow. The one team identified itself as Scottish, but it was not necessarily representing Scotland. A category with one article is pretty useless, so that merger is the right solution.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:01, 9 September 2015 (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:Humangeographic territorial entities
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.
That's a different kind of question, not really related to
WP:SMALLCAT. I would say that it has to do with human geography in so far that it describes where humans are absent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If that were a rationale, then every place where humans are present has something to do with humans and this category could encompass every populated and unpopulated place on earth rendering it meaningless.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as meaningless per my comment above.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
At least the two of us have consensus on the fact that this category does not need to stay.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Apart from main articles and one list there is virtually no content. They are much better included in a wider category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:03, 9 September 2015 (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:County Commissioners in York County, Maine
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:upmerge to both parents.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. Also upmerge into other appropriate categories.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 15:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to both parents per nom. kennethaw88 •
talk 01:20, 3 September 2015 (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:Mozart in fiction
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:Closed by nominator and moved to article talk page. --
The Evil IP address (
talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment in general the right order is first to have the article renamed, then to have the category name renamed in order to follow the new article name.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Though in this case it's also about merging two categories. --
The Evil IP address (
talk) 09:50, 29 August 2015 (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:User page
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. It's not actually being used as a category, but just an extra user page link for one user. kennethaw88 •
talk 01:27, 3 September 2015 (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:Born
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 – no valid contents. (Its sole contents were 2 user pages, which I have removed from category space.)
Oculi (
talk) 08:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not a valid category. kennethaw88 •
talk 01:21, 3 September 2015 (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:Brunch foods
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 – same case as the
deletion of Category:Breakfast foods, except that this is even more culturally subjective, since brunch is less common across cultures. Not clear, though, on what's being called for with regard to
List of brunch foods. By upmerge to
Category:Brunch, do you mean to recategorize the list under that parent category, or do you mean merge the list into the category, adding every item on the list to the category, and then deleting the list?
Ibadibam (
talk) 21:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete cold pizza would qualify in most college dorms...
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-defining trait. And I agree that pizza is probably covered by the criteria.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Anything I eat at brunch is a brunch food, and I could eat anything for brunch. Absolutely pointless category (and descriptiom, come to that).
Emeraude (
talk) 14:14, 3 September 2015 (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:Dry places in New Jersey
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. There's no clear consensus regarding renaming the category either so that may require a WP:RM discussion.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 08:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Was CfDed
in June; CfD was closed as no consensus, but the closer had a desire for a rename or split of the current title. pbp 04:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose The fact that these places are dry is a strong defining characteristic and some of these places are cities or townships. But many are boroughs (e.g.,
Elmer, New Jersey and
Far Hills, New Jersey) and there is an unincorporated place within a township that is dry (
Ocean Grove, New Jersey). I'm not sure how we could handle all of these scenarios nor why we would want to split them up by type of government.
Alansohn (
talk) 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alternative rename of
Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey. It doesn't require an unnecessary splitting and the term jurisdiction is general enough to cover all different kinds of territories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment if this isn't delete, it must be renamed since it isn't about arid places in New Jersey, places suffering from drought, places without watersources, etc. --
67.70.32.190 (
talk) 07:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply
It's part of a larger "dry" tree, although
dry county is probably clearer, at least to American readers.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply
It's probably a good idea to nominate the entire tree for a rename in a different nomination. While 'dry' may be clear to Americans it is less so to an international audience.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename. I do have to admit I actually think "cities" and "townships" make it more clear this is about alcohol regulation. With dry counties being mentioned at times in country music, I think it is well known to the majority of Americans. Still, I do agree that it is too ambiguous of a category name. I also still think it should be listified instead of being in categories. I do think we should rename, but that should be done for the whole tree, not just New Jersey.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Some years ago there was a mass rename of categories for cities, towns, villages, etc to "populated places", because of difficulties in determining robustly which class of settlement places belonged to. We should not allow that principle to be reversed for one US State. The fact that this is about alcohol prohibition, not aridness, can be covered in a headnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
oppose any split and renaming.JackTheVicar (
talk) 00:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey. I closed the previous discussion and simply commented that I thought that the current name was ambiguous since on its face it suggests that we are categorizing arid places in NJ. I wasn't suggesting that the category be split. I think
Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey is clear, since it uses a legal term for "place" and so implies that "dry" is being used in the legal sense.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose splitting/Support Rename
Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey. I see no need for this to be based by the type of jurisdiction. Besides the various in-between places mentioned, it increases overall upkeep of the category.
Avicennasis @ 07:02, 2 Tishrei 5776 / 07:02, 15 September 2015 (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:Underground rapid transit in Australia
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.
Question@
Mqst: Was there anything in this category prior to nomination?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
(Repeat question With the right username) @
Mqst north: Was there anything in this category prior to nomination?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Marcocapelle:. The category looks to have been empty when Mqst nominated it for deletion or at least if it was emptied Mqst wasn't the one to do it. I looked at their recent edit history.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Whatever the history of this category, I can only find a proposal for a subway in Australia (
Sydney Metro (2008 proposal)), not any actual subways.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:53, 31 August 2015 (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.