Category:The Rosenwald School Building Fund and Associated Buildings MPS
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. No prejudice against a deletion nomination for this and other categories later on.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand abbreviation. Since there are only 3 articles and no main article, Delete is also a valid option.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment As the creator of this category I have no problem with spelling out Multiple Property Submission (MPS), but it should be
Category:The Rosenwald School Building Fund and Associated Buildings Multiple Property Submission (it should not end in "s", as it is singular rather than plural)(corrected by nominator). I entitled the category in this manner (I do know that general naming conventions state to avoid abbreviations unless it is the official or generally used name) because the National Register of Historic Places officially lists it as The Rosenwald School Building Fund and Associated Buildings MPS. All of their official multiple property and thematic resource listings can be found
here (they all use MPS or TR, including this one). This category's defining characteristic is that it covers all Rosenwald schools in Alabama that are listed on the NRHP, so I oppose deletion. If you check the
parent category you'll find that about half of the categories at the state and national levels use the official MPS or TR (Thematic Resource) abbreviation while the others spell it out. I don't recall there ever being any discussion specific to this at
WP:NRHP or elsewhere, so there doesn't appear to be any previous consensus on which to use.
Altairisfar (
talk) 01:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Let's see how this goes. The other ones are probably going to need individual nominations since deletion is going to be an option. The buildings are notable on their own and not because they are part of this MPS. So being included in the MPS is not defining. That means the guidelines don't support creation of the category. Using a template for cross article navigation seems to be the preferred method of navigation in cases like this.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:58, 9 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:Spindle albums
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) 09:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: redlink band —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Unnecessary category.
Orderinchaos 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – per emptiness of category.
Occuli (
talk) 23:24, 10 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:Spindle songs
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) 09:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Redlink band —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 21:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Unnecessary category.
Orderinchaos 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – per emptiness of category.
Occuli (
talk) 23:26, 10 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:NFL GameDay games
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 contains only a single page, about the series. Individual sections in the article are very short and unlikely to split.
Reach Out to the Truth 19:14, 8 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:Holocaust in art and literature
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The nominated category has relatively few subcats and quite a lot of articles, while the proposed target -- its parent category -- has many subcats but few articles. I don't see anything in the nominated category that couldn't fit in the target cat, and indeed, there's quite a bit of duplication already. And of course, "Works about foo" is a well-established naming convention, whereas "Foo in art and literature" is not. Indeed, the other parent for the nominated cat is "Fiction by topic", which is only half-right: visual art is not fiction. Anyway, I think the proposal would offer readers a simpler way to find content. Does anyone feel this proposed merge would harm rather than help navigation? This is obviously an important and sensitive subject area and I appreciate the need for great care, but I feel this merge is relatively non-controversial.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge I too see no benefit in the additional level of categorization. Since the parent cat is reasonably small, it's much easier for readers to browse a category with the larger scope (especially since the scope of "art and literature" is not entirely obvious)
Pichpich (
talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge to the more common style.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:25, 10 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:Fire departments of 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.
Nominator's rationale: - Rename - No such entities exist - this an external non-Australian attribution - all Australian bodies are english usage ' Fire Brigades' or 'Fire Services' - a much more suitable and understandable category name would be 'Fire and Rescue Services of Australia'
SatuSuro 12:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and
WP:ENGVAR (since Australia doesn't use the name "fire department"s).
Bidgee (
talk) 12:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Australia does not have "fire departments".
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support - I agree, the term "Fire departments" isn't generally used in Australia. Fire and Rescue Services of Australia is a better descriptor. -
Bilby (
talk) 22:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support - no disagreement with the rationale. --
Maias (
talk) 02:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support: WA uses "Fire and Emergency Services", other states use similar terms, none use "Fire Department"
IgnorantArmies 05:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Just a comment, NSW, NT and Queensland use "Fire and Rescue", ACT uses "Fire Brigade", Tasmania and SA use "Fire Service" and WA uses "Fire and Emergency Services", so there is a bit of variance between the states. Perhaps
Category:Fire services of Australia?
IgnorantArmies 05:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Reply - It is clear that Fire Department is not supported so far in this CFR - as for the rename - ( perhaps the above comment should be repeated at the Australian noticeboard to double check ? ) - I was not suggesting the rename should 'fit exactly' into any particular corresponding state service title - but surely it allows in the words used accommodation of variants - I stay with the one I suggested (Fire and rescue services) because of that and do not support 'Fire services'
SatuSuro 11:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
While a few use/used "Fire Brigade" or others just use "Fire and Rescue" they're all services provided by the state/territory. "Fire and Rescue" is a good name for the category since all of the fire services in Australia also do non-fire related rescues.
Bidgee (
talk) 11:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support per
WP:ENGVAR and others above. The term "Fire and Rescue" covers the scope of what all of these departments do.
Orderinchaos 16:29, 10 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:IRAS
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename as this appears to be the standard form used in
Category:Astronomical catalogues. (This probably qualifies for speedy renaming but technically IRAS currently is not in the Astronomical catalogues category.)
Pichpich (
talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment though not everything in the category are from the IRAS catalogue (notably, the comets and asteroids aren't, AFAIK).
70.24.247.61 (
talk) 09:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support astronomical objects discovered, surveyed or catalogued by IRAS.
70.24.247.61 (
talk) 09:09, 9 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:Objects discovered in the Two Micron All-Sky Survey
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. If that changes the scope, then it changes it to the one used by all the other catalogue subcategories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename I'm proposing two different tweaks. The first is to use the acronym
2MASS since it's the name of the corresponding article. The second is to use the "Foo objects" form which is most common in
Category:Astronomical catalogues.
Pichpich (
talk) 00:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
As category creator, go for it.
JORGENEV 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment the rename will change the scope, from objects discovered by 2MASS to objects surveyed by 2MASS which may or may not have been discovered by it.
70.24.247.61 (
talk) 09:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Interesting comment. The obvious follow-up questions are "do we want two categories?" and if not "which do we prefer?". I'm tempted to say "no" on the first question but I really don't feel competent to answer the second one.
Pichpich (
talk) 20:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm not a native speaker of English but me think grammar not good with that title.
Pichpich (
talk) 15:27, 14 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:The Rosenwald School Building Fund and Associated Buildings MPS
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. No prejudice against a deletion nomination for this and other categories later on.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand abbreviation. Since there are only 3 articles and no main article, Delete is also a valid option.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment As the creator of this category I have no problem with spelling out Multiple Property Submission (MPS), but it should be
Category:The Rosenwald School Building Fund and Associated Buildings Multiple Property Submission (it should not end in "s", as it is singular rather than plural)(corrected by nominator). I entitled the category in this manner (I do know that general naming conventions state to avoid abbreviations unless it is the official or generally used name) because the National Register of Historic Places officially lists it as The Rosenwald School Building Fund and Associated Buildings MPS. All of their official multiple property and thematic resource listings can be found
here (they all use MPS or TR, including this one). This category's defining characteristic is that it covers all Rosenwald schools in Alabama that are listed on the NRHP, so I oppose deletion. If you check the
parent category you'll find that about half of the categories at the state and national levels use the official MPS or TR (Thematic Resource) abbreviation while the others spell it out. I don't recall there ever being any discussion specific to this at
WP:NRHP or elsewhere, so there doesn't appear to be any previous consensus on which to use.
Altairisfar (
talk) 01:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Let's see how this goes. The other ones are probably going to need individual nominations since deletion is going to be an option. The buildings are notable on their own and not because they are part of this MPS. So being included in the MPS is not defining. That means the guidelines don't support creation of the category. Using a template for cross article navigation seems to be the preferred method of navigation in cases like this.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:58, 9 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:Spindle albums
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) 09:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: redlink band —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Unnecessary category.
Orderinchaos 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – per emptiness of category.
Occuli (
talk) 23:24, 10 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:Spindle songs
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) 09:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Redlink band —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 21:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Unnecessary category.
Orderinchaos 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – per emptiness of category.
Occuli (
talk) 23:26, 10 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:NFL GameDay games
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 contains only a single page, about the series. Individual sections in the article are very short and unlikely to split.
Reach Out to the Truth 19:14, 8 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:Holocaust in art and literature
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The nominated category has relatively few subcats and quite a lot of articles, while the proposed target -- its parent category -- has many subcats but few articles. I don't see anything in the nominated category that couldn't fit in the target cat, and indeed, there's quite a bit of duplication already. And of course, "Works about foo" is a well-established naming convention, whereas "Foo in art and literature" is not. Indeed, the other parent for the nominated cat is "Fiction by topic", which is only half-right: visual art is not fiction. Anyway, I think the proposal would offer readers a simpler way to find content. Does anyone feel this proposed merge would harm rather than help navigation? This is obviously an important and sensitive subject area and I appreciate the need for great care, but I feel this merge is relatively non-controversial.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge I too see no benefit in the additional level of categorization. Since the parent cat is reasonably small, it's much easier for readers to browse a category with the larger scope (especially since the scope of "art and literature" is not entirely obvious)
Pichpich (
talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge to the more common style.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:25, 10 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:Fire departments of 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.
Nominator's rationale: - Rename - No such entities exist - this an external non-Australian attribution - all Australian bodies are english usage ' Fire Brigades' or 'Fire Services' - a much more suitable and understandable category name would be 'Fire and Rescue Services of Australia'
SatuSuro 12:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and
WP:ENGVAR (since Australia doesn't use the name "fire department"s).
Bidgee (
talk) 12:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Australia does not have "fire departments".
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support - I agree, the term "Fire departments" isn't generally used in Australia. Fire and Rescue Services of Australia is a better descriptor. -
Bilby (
talk) 22:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support - no disagreement with the rationale. --
Maias (
talk) 02:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support: WA uses "Fire and Emergency Services", other states use similar terms, none use "Fire Department"
IgnorantArmies 05:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Just a comment, NSW, NT and Queensland use "Fire and Rescue", ACT uses "Fire Brigade", Tasmania and SA use "Fire Service" and WA uses "Fire and Emergency Services", so there is a bit of variance between the states. Perhaps
Category:Fire services of Australia?
IgnorantArmies 05:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Reply - It is clear that Fire Department is not supported so far in this CFR - as for the rename - ( perhaps the above comment should be repeated at the Australian noticeboard to double check ? ) - I was not suggesting the rename should 'fit exactly' into any particular corresponding state service title - but surely it allows in the words used accommodation of variants - I stay with the one I suggested (Fire and rescue services) because of that and do not support 'Fire services'
SatuSuro 11:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
While a few use/used "Fire Brigade" or others just use "Fire and Rescue" they're all services provided by the state/territory. "Fire and Rescue" is a good name for the category since all of the fire services in Australia also do non-fire related rescues.
Bidgee (
talk) 11:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support per
WP:ENGVAR and others above. The term "Fire and Rescue" covers the scope of what all of these departments do.
Orderinchaos 16:29, 10 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:IRAS
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename as this appears to be the standard form used in
Category:Astronomical catalogues. (This probably qualifies for speedy renaming but technically IRAS currently is not in the Astronomical catalogues category.)
Pichpich (
talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment though not everything in the category are from the IRAS catalogue (notably, the comets and asteroids aren't, AFAIK).
70.24.247.61 (
talk) 09:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support astronomical objects discovered, surveyed or catalogued by IRAS.
70.24.247.61 (
talk) 09:09, 9 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:Objects discovered in the Two Micron All-Sky Survey
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. If that changes the scope, then it changes it to the one used by all the other catalogue subcategories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 12:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename I'm proposing two different tweaks. The first is to use the acronym
2MASS since it's the name of the corresponding article. The second is to use the "Foo objects" form which is most common in
Category:Astronomical catalogues.
Pichpich (
talk) 00:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
As category creator, go for it.
JORGENEV 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment the rename will change the scope, from objects discovered by 2MASS to objects surveyed by 2MASS which may or may not have been discovered by it.
70.24.247.61 (
talk) 09:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Interesting comment. The obvious follow-up questions are "do we want two categories?" and if not "which do we prefer?". I'm tempted to say "no" on the first question but I really don't feel competent to answer the second one.
Pichpich (
talk) 20:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm not a native speaker of English but me think grammar not good with that title.
Pichpich (
talk) 15:27, 14 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.