Category:Illinois State Park Lodges and Cabins Multiple Property Submission
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:46, 14 November 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:Historic and Architectural Resources of Route 66 Through Illinois
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:46, 14 November 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:Civil War Era National Cemeteries Multiple Property Submission
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename or upmerge to
Category:Cemeteries in Illinois. This was only parented to the NRHP tree. Upmerge may be better if era is considered as ambiguous. Also there does not appear to be a main article for this MPS which some wold consider a reason for deletion. If a main article is created there would be reason to retain the current name.Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:54, 28 October 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:Garrison Keillor
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only five entries (other than the main) and one subcat. and these are all pretty well inter-linked. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 19:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
So what's the proposal?
BPK (
talk) 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Deletion. For some reason Twinkle doesn't put a bold 'delete' when you CfD using the xfd tab - that's tripped me up once or twice. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 04:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Okay. Well then, while I don't have a huge amount of emotion invested in the category, put me down as a Keep.
BPK (
talk) 05:51, 30 October 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:Nemetschek products
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:46, 14 November 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:Round Barns in Illinois Multiple Property Submission
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:Delete. The proper name for this according to the article is
Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources which is an MPS. The list of barns is included in the article. So is being part of this TR defining? By deleting the category and keeping the list, navigation is not harmed and we avoid a category like
Category:Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources or maybe more correctly,
Category:Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources Multiple Property Submission. Several other TR and MPSs have also added templates for navigation. Any of these barns that are notable on their own have their own article. While a few may be notable only because they are in the TR, they probably should not have an article, just a section in the TR article. So in the end, being part of MPS is not defining for these articles.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:49, 28 October 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:Grade I listed gates
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: Category tree is currently being renamed to "...in the United Kingdom", but it was pointed out that this one includes England and Wales only. I'd suggest just "...in England and Wales", then, but that leaves out the question of those "...in Scotland"; ergo, proposing to split this into two and remove the ambiguity in the title.
The BushrangerOne ping only 17:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I did not nominate the categories at this level since I believed that Grade I for listings was unique to the UK. I noticed that a few of the categories did have a child category for Scotland. So this type of request would match other parts of the tree. However after splitting, would we need to create
Category:Grade I listed gates in the United Kingdom as the parent or simply keep
Category:Grade I listed gates as the parent?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, that would work. Whatever changes happen here may need to be made in the rest of the tree. Those probably can be speedies.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comments: - Re Scotland and Northern Ireland listed buildings, they are Grades A, B, C etc; Grades I, II, II* only apply to England and Wales. And the buildings by function (eg castles) in Scotland are not seperated into categories by grade. And the Listed buildings in Northern Ireland are by grade only, there are no categories for say listed castles in Northern Ireland. So for castles
Category:Listed castles in the United Kingdom contains England and Wales (by grade) and Scotland (by country). But seperating all of the Grades I, II, II* buildings by function (there are 31 different categories by function) into separate categories for England and Wales would be a massive job. Why not leave as is?
Hugo999 (
talk) 02:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Would allowing only 1 level of category below something like
Category:Listed castles in the United Kingdom be the best option? Then it would be simply to delete the intermediate ones and upmerge the bottom level. So in this example we would
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:Pocketknives
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: This appears to be the more broadly accepted nomenclature globally; additionally, this gives parity with the main article
pocket knife.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 11:44, 28 October 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:Navbox (navigational) templates
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.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 07:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Here are some figures to help the discussion along:
Category name ending in
Count
navigational boxes
1672
navbox templates
367
navigation templates
72
navigational templates
11
navboxes
14
Seems like a good idea to standardise on one form of name for these. --
WOSlinker (
talk) 12:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I didn't know the disparity was so high. Somebody please close this so we can take care of those outliers.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 04:31, 11 November 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.
Populated places in Alaska
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 a strong argument for removing the "City and" in the Juneau category to match the other Borough categories, though. Maybe that should be nominated again.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Propose renamingCategory:Populated places in Juneau City and Borough, Alaska to
Category:Neighborhoods in Juneau, Alaska Nominator's rationale: Anchorage and Juneau are unified municipalities (the local term for
consolidated city-county). Since Anchorage and Juneau are both cities covering a vast geographic area, the articles in these categories have slowly been renamed from following article conventions for communities, to follow conventions for neighborhoods, even though some of these places have distinct community identities of their own. Requesting renaming of categories to facilitate the renaming of remaining articles to follow this convention.
RadioKAOS (
talk) 08:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
keep as is Both this and the above are subcats of
Category:Populated places in Alaska by borough and this change would break the naming pattern found there. The articles represent a mix of neighborhoods and populated places large enough to be cities on their own if they were not part of their current city-borough. Instead, just create subcats for the actual neighborhoods within the collection of populated places in the borough, leaving the non-neighborhoods directly in these present categories.
Hmains (
talk) 18:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I wasn't the one who started the article renaming, but it appears to follow a rationale of these places being part of a community and not a community by themselves. Looking at the total sum of articles to which that applies, it's a half-finished job at present. Articles of places in both Anchorage and Juneau are currently found in
Category:Neighborhoods in Alaska, which would become a nearly empty category were you to move those articles to existing categories. This is becoming somewhat tricky upon further digging. Alaska Statutes are vague on exactly how unified municipalities are classified, though they generally favor the idea that they are boroughs. The municipalities themselves are generally structured more like cities than boroughs, however. The suggestion that notions of municipal structure in Alaska on Wikipedia appear to come strictly from U.S. Census Bureau data, while ignoring data on the
Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development website, leads me to believe that further confusion would ensue trying to figure out this difference. My suggestion is that a "community" could be defined as a place which has its own post office and zip code(s).
Additional comment on related side issue The main category for Juneau is
Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska. Within that category tree, about half of the subcategories are of the form "Category:XXX in Juneau City and Borough, Alaska", whereas the other half are of the form "Category:XXX in Juneau, Alaska". Is this something which should be addressed?
RadioKAOS (
talk) 21:21, 28 October 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:Romanian political prisoners and detainees
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) 02:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The parent
Category:Political prisoners was deleted
here and then again two years later
here, as were all of the by-nationality subcategories. This particular nationality was not one of the original subcategories deleted, and it has just recently been created. It should be deleted for the same reasons of POV and OR concerns that were extensively discussed in the discussions linked to above as well as the deletion discussions and DRV discussions
here,
here, and
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:07, 28 October 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:Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari
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:split. Several articles in here apply to only one of the pair. There are only three articles in the works category, and double-categorizing them doesn't seem like a problem to me.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Split into the respective subcats.--there is no need for a merged parent cat. Also, the works subcat should be split as well. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:33, 28 October 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:Wicked
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 02:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename per main article
Curb Chain (
talk) 02:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom - speedy C2D doesn't apply here due to the two-day restriction (which is IMHO silly, but that's the way it is...) - 19:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
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:American children's television networks
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 per the subcategories of
Category:Children's television networks. There's a variance between "networks" and "channels" in the Children's categories which should probably be sorted out.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I understand Occuli's "because" statement above far better than I understand Jj98's.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:01, 8 November 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:Illinois State Park Lodges and Cabins Multiple Property Submission
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:46, 14 November 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:Historic and Architectural Resources of Route 66 Through Illinois
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:46, 14 November 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:Civil War Era National Cemeteries Multiple Property Submission
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename or upmerge to
Category:Cemeteries in Illinois. This was only parented to the NRHP tree. Upmerge may be better if era is considered as ambiguous. Also there does not appear to be a main article for this MPS which some wold consider a reason for deletion. If a main article is created there would be reason to retain the current name.Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:54, 28 October 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:Garrison Keillor
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only five entries (other than the main) and one subcat. and these are all pretty well inter-linked. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 19:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
So what's the proposal?
BPK (
talk) 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Deletion. For some reason Twinkle doesn't put a bold 'delete' when you CfD using the xfd tab - that's tripped me up once or twice. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 04:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Okay. Well then, while I don't have a huge amount of emotion invested in the category, put me down as a Keep.
BPK (
talk) 05:51, 30 October 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:Nemetschek products
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.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:46, 14 November 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:Round Barns in Illinois Multiple Property Submission
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:Delete. The proper name for this according to the article is
Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources which is an MPS. The list of barns is included in the article. So is being part of this TR defining? By deleting the category and keeping the list, navigation is not harmed and we avoid a category like
Category:Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources or maybe more correctly,
Category:Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources Multiple Property Submission. Several other TR and MPSs have also added templates for navigation. Any of these barns that are notable on their own have their own article. While a few may be notable only because they are in the TR, they probably should not have an article, just a section in the TR article. So in the end, being part of MPS is not defining for these articles.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:49, 28 October 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:Grade I listed gates
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: Category tree is currently being renamed to "...in the United Kingdom", but it was pointed out that this one includes England and Wales only. I'd suggest just "...in England and Wales", then, but that leaves out the question of those "...in Scotland"; ergo, proposing to split this into two and remove the ambiguity in the title.
The BushrangerOne ping only 17:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I did not nominate the categories at this level since I believed that Grade I for listings was unique to the UK. I noticed that a few of the categories did have a child category for Scotland. So this type of request would match other parts of the tree. However after splitting, would we need to create
Category:Grade I listed gates in the United Kingdom as the parent or simply keep
Category:Grade I listed gates as the parent?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, that would work. Whatever changes happen here may need to be made in the rest of the tree. Those probably can be speedies.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comments: - Re Scotland and Northern Ireland listed buildings, they are Grades A, B, C etc; Grades I, II, II* only apply to England and Wales. And the buildings by function (eg castles) in Scotland are not seperated into categories by grade. And the Listed buildings in Northern Ireland are by grade only, there are no categories for say listed castles in Northern Ireland. So for castles
Category:Listed castles in the United Kingdom contains England and Wales (by grade) and Scotland (by country). But seperating all of the Grades I, II, II* buildings by function (there are 31 different categories by function) into separate categories for England and Wales would be a massive job. Why not leave as is?
Hugo999 (
talk) 02:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Would allowing only 1 level of category below something like
Category:Listed castles in the United Kingdom be the best option? Then it would be simply to delete the intermediate ones and upmerge the bottom level. So in this example we would
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:Pocketknives
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: This appears to be the more broadly accepted nomenclature globally; additionally, this gives parity with the main article
pocket knife.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) -
talk 11:44, 28 October 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:Navbox (navigational) templates
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.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 07:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Here are some figures to help the discussion along:
Category name ending in
Count
navigational boxes
1672
navbox templates
367
navigation templates
72
navigational templates
11
navboxes
14
Seems like a good idea to standardise on one form of name for these. --
WOSlinker (
talk) 12:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I didn't know the disparity was so high. Somebody please close this so we can take care of those outliers.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 04:31, 11 November 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.
Populated places in Alaska
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 a strong argument for removing the "City and" in the Juneau category to match the other Borough categories, though. Maybe that should be nominated again.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Propose renamingCategory:Populated places in Juneau City and Borough, Alaska to
Category:Neighborhoods in Juneau, Alaska Nominator's rationale: Anchorage and Juneau are unified municipalities (the local term for
consolidated city-county). Since Anchorage and Juneau are both cities covering a vast geographic area, the articles in these categories have slowly been renamed from following article conventions for communities, to follow conventions for neighborhoods, even though some of these places have distinct community identities of their own. Requesting renaming of categories to facilitate the renaming of remaining articles to follow this convention.
RadioKAOS (
talk) 08:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
keep as is Both this and the above are subcats of
Category:Populated places in Alaska by borough and this change would break the naming pattern found there. The articles represent a mix of neighborhoods and populated places large enough to be cities on their own if they were not part of their current city-borough. Instead, just create subcats for the actual neighborhoods within the collection of populated places in the borough, leaving the non-neighborhoods directly in these present categories.
Hmains (
talk) 18:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I wasn't the one who started the article renaming, but it appears to follow a rationale of these places being part of a community and not a community by themselves. Looking at the total sum of articles to which that applies, it's a half-finished job at present. Articles of places in both Anchorage and Juneau are currently found in
Category:Neighborhoods in Alaska, which would become a nearly empty category were you to move those articles to existing categories. This is becoming somewhat tricky upon further digging. Alaska Statutes are vague on exactly how unified municipalities are classified, though they generally favor the idea that they are boroughs. The municipalities themselves are generally structured more like cities than boroughs, however. The suggestion that notions of municipal structure in Alaska on Wikipedia appear to come strictly from U.S. Census Bureau data, while ignoring data on the
Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development website, leads me to believe that further confusion would ensue trying to figure out this difference. My suggestion is that a "community" could be defined as a place which has its own post office and zip code(s).
Additional comment on related side issue The main category for Juneau is
Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska. Within that category tree, about half of the subcategories are of the form "Category:XXX in Juneau City and Borough, Alaska", whereas the other half are of the form "Category:XXX in Juneau, Alaska". Is this something which should be addressed?
RadioKAOS (
talk) 21:21, 28 October 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:Romanian political prisoners and detainees
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) 02:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The parent
Category:Political prisoners was deleted
here and then again two years later
here, as were all of the by-nationality subcategories. This particular nationality was not one of the original subcategories deleted, and it has just recently been created. It should be deleted for the same reasons of POV and OR concerns that were extensively discussed in the discussions linked to above as well as the deletion discussions and DRV discussions
here,
here, and
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:07, 28 October 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:Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari
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:split. Several articles in here apply to only one of the pair. There are only three articles in the works category, and double-categorizing them doesn't seem like a problem to me.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Split into the respective subcats.--there is no need for a merged parent cat. Also, the works subcat should be split as well. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:33, 28 October 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:Wicked
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.
Jafeluv (
talk) 02:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename per main article
Curb Chain (
talk) 02:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom - speedy C2D doesn't apply here due to the two-day restriction (which is IMHO silly, but that's the way it is...) - 19:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
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:American children's television networks
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 per the subcategories of
Category:Children's television networks. There's a variance between "networks" and "channels" in the Children's categories which should probably be sorted out.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I understand Occuli's "because" statement above far better than I understand Jj98's.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:01, 8 November 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.