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. – FayenaticLondon 14:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:ARBITRARYCAT. Categorizing buildings by their height is arbitrary and does not help navigation. TM 12:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – categorising skyscrapers by height seems the most obvious way of categorising them; the height is the essence. A cfd in 2007 reached the same conclusion. (The nominator should bundle these noms together, as was done in 2007.) Oculi (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and completed merge.--TM 12:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom as arbitrary, and it's better to have skyscrapers in a sortable table with exact height (as alreadg mentioned in previous discussion), and (in contrast to what's mentioned in the previous discussion) deletion of these categories would not lead to one huge skyscrapers category since they're also diffused by country and city. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment IF these are to be deleted, first it must be assured that all the articles are in other skyscraper categories. Currently, some articles on skyscrapers are only in one of these height categories. Hmains (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That occurs mainly/only at the lower end of the height range where they may not meet everyones definition of a skyscraper. DexDor(talk) 06:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Large buildings can already be categorized in several ways (e.g. location and type) and we don't usually categorize things by their size (e.g. We don't categorize buildings by volume, bridges by length, counties by area...). DexDor(talk) 06:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Some thoughts (I'm still making my mind up on this one - although leaning towards delete) - (1) "Currently, some articles on skyscrapers are only in one of these height categories." (in the above comment) is a reason for deleting this category (it's better to have one fully populated category structure than several partially populated category structures). (2) We do have some (in effect) arbitrary categories (e.g. Category:Munros). (3) If this category is kept it shouldn't become a precedent for creating categories for Skyscrapers by height in feet, Skyscrapers by number of storeys, Lakes by volume, Airports by number of runways etc. (4) In the long term WikiData may be able to do things like "Draw a map showing the locations of skyscrapers of over 500ft built by 1950.". (5) We don't generally categorize things by size (in many cases measuring the size may not be as straightforward as the height of skyscrapers) so this category is a bit of an oddity (and we prefer to have consistency in categorization). DexDor(talk) 05:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing beyond what I said above. It would be nice to have reliable sources defining these or any categorization of skyscrapers but I did not find any in a short search of goggle. I could not even find a good definition of 'skyscraper' itself. So what to do? Hmains (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2017 (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: Clearly this can have only two entries in the foreseeable future. We are unlikely to need it for the next few decades, at least... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I normally argue for argue "one franchise: one category", but that would be going too far in this case. Nevertheless, we should not allow fragmentation of fictional franchise categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2017 (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.
