Category:National Register of Historic Places listings in Imperial County, California[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.
Nominator's rationale: The word "listings" seems to be mostly used in the list articles, as in National Register of Historic Places listings in Imperial County, California, whereas in most states, the category for the county doesnt have the word "listings". I think it should be one or the other, and consensus seems to show it w/o. I dont really care which is chosen, but consistency may matter (i dont know if it would be less work to change the names of the less used type). there are other county categories which use "listing" in this state and other states, but i do not know how to make a multiple CFD or AFD. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, renaming rational appears to be valid.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The name format used by articles is because we couldn't find a better name for the lists themselves; they would be "List of..." if we could. Since the categories aren't lists, they shouldn't follow the naming convention for the lists. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2013 (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 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 of the Arab Spring[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.
Nominator's rationale: These categories are described as "buildings ... of the ... protests", but the buildings etc existed before the protests so it isn't a defining characteristic. Some of the articles (e.g. Giuliana Bridge) don't even mention the protests. DexDor (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- At best this is a performance (building) by performer (protest movement) category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for example with the squares in Egypt, these are the main public squares of Alexandria and Cairo. They will have lots of events over time, and thus if we allow this will get cluttered with various categories for events occuring in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although just for the record WP:OCAT's proscription against "venues by event" is probably a better encapsulation of why these shouldn't exist than the one against "performers by performance" is. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Bearcat. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2013 (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: Consistency with most other categories under Category:Individual physical objects and to allow any articles about (notable) cranes that don't have a name (e.g. "Crane number 1 at Foo Docks") to be included. DexDor (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current and proposed names are bad, they are ambiguous. The current name could refer to an individual crane, or a model, or a series, or a manufacturer's total production. Both are ambiguous with crane (bird). "Individual X" is also the format used for individual animal categories. The main article is crane (machine), so this should be renamed to Category:Individual cranes (machines) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak support (cat creator) MediaWiki categorization doesn't require format-based naming and Wikimedia projects have a bad habit of pretending that it does. This leads to arcane and convoluted names for things that bear no relation to real language use for the same term, thus needless confusion for readers. That said, this one appears harmless and if "Individual cranes" is at least as readable as "Named cranes" (as it's a category of articles, then we expect nearly all to have to demonstrate Notability), then there's no reason to oppose it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename whether named or not shouldn't be a categorization basis. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It took me a while to figured out this was not as closely related to CategoryNamed dogs and Category:Named horses as I first thought. We should make it clear this category should not included birds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Individual cranes (machines) works. The issue is the thigns are individuals, not named. Individual generally refers to living things, so the need to disambiguate from the birds would be even more pressing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2013 (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.
