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. Kbdank71 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No issues. Chris (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is the usual solution for renamed institutions. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename as there are no objections. Kbdank71 17:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category consists of current and former local authorities with in the fotmer County Dublin and the city of Dublin. The current naming convention is that categs relating solely to the city should be named "Foo of Dublin", whereas categs which cover both the City and County should be named "Foo of County Dublin", which sub-cats as needed. Since this category has the wider scope, it should use the more inclusive name. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 11 December 2010 (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:WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads participants[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Golden Horseshoe Roads project was upmerged into WP:ONRD. The remnants of the project have been nominated for deletion. Imzadi1979→ 19:13, 11 December 2010 (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:Buildings and structures at the University of Dublin, Trinity College[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename per parent cat and head article. Kbdank71 17:24, 20 December 2010 (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:Football captains in Brazil by club[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete the nominated categories only. The only category discussed was not tagged for deletion. Kbdank71 17:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category has only one subcategory, as do the three above it (which I am also nominating). This category tree seems to have spawned from one user's desire to sort Category:Clube de Regatas do Flamengo captains into more than just the club category. If more club captains categories existed (although I don't think they should), I could see a need for these categories, but this is overkill at this time. – PeeJay 15:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – and also delete Category:Clube de Regatas do Flamengo captains. Being captain is not a big deal in football. (Looking through Category:Clube de Regatas do Flamengo captains, I have not yet found a single article which mentions the captaincy; neither is there a list anywhere, so this looks like unsourced OR. We don't even categorise by captaining the national soccer team, which is a bigger deal.) Occuli (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including the Flamengo one, per Occuli. Being the captain is not a defining characteristic worth categorising -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Kbdank71 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I recommend that this category be deleted and that the single article in it (and the only one that will ever apply) be merged upward into Category:Buildings and structures in Washington, D.C.. In my opinion there is no need for this level of category granularity for a single article. Kumioko (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that brings up a good point. Rather than have 2 separate categories for Zoos and Aquaria by state and most of them have less than 5 pages in each category (many have 1 page). I think it might be a good idea to merge the 2 parent categories of Category:Aquaria in the United States and Category:Zoos in the United States into Category:Zoos and Aquaria in the United States. This would eliminate about 50 categories, would consolidate these 2 like things (they both house planetary creatures for study, preservation and view) and still allow state by state visibility. --Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its easy to add a category (or in this case merge 1). It would still be organized by country/state, we don't need to have either of those 2 categies we can just add the parent categories of Category:Aquaria and Category:Zoos by country to the new Category:Zoos and Aquaria in the United States and it will still have the same effect, only with less categories to maintain/have on the articles. --Kumioko (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All it takes to make it a subcat is to add it. The title itself doesn't mean that it can't reside as a subcat just because it has 2 different things in it. We do this kind of thing all the time. But your oppose is noted. We'll see what other editors think and if its decided we need to keep it thats fine. . --Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep both Unnecessary housekeeping change that does not help the category system. These categories are part of a recognized worldwide set of categories--a pattern. We do not make piecemeal changes at the lowest level, based on the current number of entries in a particular subcat. Hmains (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Aquaria is currently a sub-cat of Category:Zoos so each state aquaria cat could be added as a subcat under the state zoo cat. That wouldn't fix the low count of articles in each though. At least in the United States, just about all the professional associations consider zoos and aquaria to be a type of museum so there are definitely alternate classification possibilities. I agree with Hmains that any such reworking should start at the top level though.RevelationDirect (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as part of parent categories that organize such establishments across the U.S. Alansohn (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2010 (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:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Washington, D.C.[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep/withdrawn. Kbdank71 17:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I recommend that this category be deleted and that the single article in it (and the only one that will ever apply) be merged upward into Category:Airports in Washington, D.C.. In my opinion there is no need fro this level of category granularity. Kumioko (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an incomplete merger, as it would lose the U.S. Army Air Force connection. The parent on that side is Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the United States by state, which is clearly an inappropriate merger target, and of which this category forms part of a comprehensive system. Which provides the need for "category granularity" in this instance. postdlf (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it needs to be added to that Category as well. Could we upmerge it to that one as well. I just don't see the need for a category that will only ever have 1 article although I do agree that it shouldn't be removed from that category. --Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After further review of the articles and categories relating to this I concede that this is probably not a good suggestion. I would like to withdraw this CFD. --Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete all. Kbdank71 17:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:ONRD's parent project WP:CRWP has used the standardized category names used by WP:USRD and other highway projects rendering these categories out of use now. Imzadi1979→ 09:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The effect of this change will be to complete an upmerger of Category:WikiProject Ontario Roads articles to Category:WikiProject Canada Roads articles, a change which appears to have been driven by the nominator in connection with a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads and some shorter discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Ontario. Both discussions have very few participants, and no clear explanation of what's actually going on: I presume that some templates have been merged, but it's not clear exactly what has been done. I have no particular concern either way about whether WikiProject Canada Roads/Ontario continues to have its own category tree for assessments, but I am concern that this change appears to have been made with relatively little participation. It seems to me that WikiProject Ontario may be expected to have some views on this, but I see no sign of any relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario. In short, this change seems to affect a number of wikiprojects: WP:ONRD, WP:CRWP, WP:CANADA, and WP:ONTARIO, but AFAICS only the first two have been consulted. The latest template changes partially reverse a previous merger of templates, and such instability is not helpful. Please ensure that this merger has consenus amongst all the involved projects before proceeding. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are category trees for all provinces and territories now. This category tree though is redundant. As for WP:CANADA and WP:ONTARIO, they're not affected. Their banner templates remain on the articles, and they had separate category trees. In short, this category tree was only used by a now-deleted banner template. Your concerns and reasons for opposing are baseless. Imzadi1979→ 03:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try a little civility, rather than flatly saying that my "concerns and reasons for opposing are baseless".
Read what I wrote. I did not say that this was a bad idea, simply that you had not consulted the other WikiProjects. You think they are unaffected; but try asking them. For example WP:ONTARIO may have views on whether or not it is a good idea to get rid of the Ontario roads assessment categories, or whether there should be some joint system of assessment categorisation.
You say that "There are category trees for all provinces and territories now". I have looked at Category:WikiProject Canada Roads articles, and don't see any such category trees, just one for all of Canada. Maybe I have missed something, but if so, where are these categories?
You say that "this category tree though is redundant". Why? What's its replacement?
Finally, I have no substantive view either way on this. I simply want to ensure that all the relevant wikiprojects are happy with whatever solution is adopted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was civil. Your concerns, while valid, have no basis in what is actually going on.
I did read what you wrote. The category tree was actually replaced. This is the old tree. It's not in use but if you look for Category:GA-Class Ontario road transport articles and its kin, you'd see that there is another category tree in place, which matches the trees for the other 9 provinces, 3 Canadian territories, 50 US states, 6 US territories and WP:HWY's regional task forces.
P.S. The Category:Stub-Class Canada Roads articles tree is also being retired, and replaced by Category:Stub-Class Canada road transport articles tree. The reason for the switch is that any articles that remain in the old category trees need the new banner template, and to be consistent with what the other roads projects have named the categories. In fact, the category tree was switched 3 years ago when the CRWP-specific banner was force-merged into the WP:CANADA banner. It's now being switched back on a national level, and the provincial- and territory-level trees have been implemented completely for the first time. Imzadi1979→ 03:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Imzadi, you may legitimately think that my concerns are mistaken, but calling them baseless is simply rude. As you saw above, I had several grounds for those concerns, so saying "baseless" either means that you didn't read what I wrote or that you think my concerns are delusional nonsense. Learn a bit of civility, and don't do that.
So, this is all part of a process of reversing a previous merger of templates, presumably at the behest of WP:CANADA. When something which has been merged by another project is now being unmerged, there will be instability unless all the relevant projects are involved. Your insistence that this is nothing to do with WP:CANADA doesn't fit with the history you have set out, so just notify them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointer; that's just the sort of cross-project discussion which I wanted to see evidence of, so I will strike my objection. It would have saved us both a lot of time if you had posted that link at the start, rather than snottily repeating your concerns have no basis like a robot in a programming loop. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bottom line, this is just a rename of Category:_-Class Ontario road articles to Category:_-Class Ontario road transport articles. Not a huge deal. --Rschen7754 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is in effect a renaming, why didn't Imzadi1979 set that out in the nomination? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know? You'll have to ask him. --Rschen7754 04:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unused and not needed. Dough4872 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, unneeded. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Convention of Category:Category-Class articles, also the category should be applied to the category talk page rather than the category itself. Tim! (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose these are not categories that are processed through the WikiProject banner (otherwise all the contents would be talk pages), it is a category of categories. It does not lie in the Category:Category-Class articles category tree. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the nomination, I said it should be move to the talk pages. Tim! (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if they are to be bannered into "Category-Class Science Fiction articles" then the wikiproject banner needs to be applied to the various categories, which is not a function of CfD. Indeed, there already exists a Category:Category-Class science fiction articles . 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This category should simply be deleted then. Tim! (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is not populated with WikiProject categories utilized by WikiProject Science Fiction. Rather, it is populated with a random set of article space Science Fiction categories. Its usage is not consistent with the other categories listed at Category:WikiProject Science fiction. No one at the WikiProject has noticed, so I doubt it will be missed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2010 (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:WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads articles[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete all. Kbdank71 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Golden Horseshoe roads project was upmerged into WP:ONRD. The assessment (quality and importance) categories are all unnecessary at this time and should all be deleted. Imzadi1979→ 08:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rschen7754 04:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant and unneeded. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categories no longer needed. Dough4872 01:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. Kbdank71 17:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Admittedly, I opposed this at first on the grounds of familiarity and common sense, as well as the fact that neither Dublin, nor anyplace in Delaware have an active light rail system, but the nominee does have a valid argument for doing so. As for Category:DART light rail station images, I was hoping to add the remaining images to the commons and get it deleted, providing that no images related to DART Light Rail that aren't in the commons can be stamped with that category. ----DanTD (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dublin does have a light rail system, called Luas, tho I encountered these categories when I sat that one of Dublin's DART stations had been added to (and removed from) a disused station in Dublin (which was not never a DART station). But the key thing here is that that the head article is Dallas Area Rapid Transit. There is a long-standing convention that categ names use the name of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I stand corrected regarding Dublin. But there's no mistaking Luas for DART. As for DART First State, I do remember reading about a proposal for a light rail system, but I forget where I read about it. ----DanTD (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, DART First State is strictly buses. There is a proposal for a Wilmington trolley line but they don't have the funds right now so, in the mean time, they decorated some buses to look like trolleys. To be honest though, no one could mistake these silly "trolleys on wheels" with an actual light rail system. But, someone unfamiliar with the different DARTs wouldn't know that. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all as there are no objections. Kbdank71 17:38, 20 December 2010 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)