Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 18 September 20 >

September 19[edit]

Category:LGBT Celebrities from South Africa[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not have an "LGBT celebrities" category tree; we subcategorize LGBT people by specific occupation, not by the general (and subjective) question of whether they're "celebrities" or not. The one person here is already in another "LGBT specific-occupation" category as it is, so there's no upmerging necessary. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 19 September 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.

Category:LGBT actors from South Africa[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: merge, and also to Category:LGBT actors. – Fayenatic London 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per past consensus, actors are not an occupation where we want LGBT people to be subcategorized by nationality; we use the Category:LGBT entertainers by nationality tree, not "LGBT actors by nationality" categories, for actors and comedians and YouTubers and the like. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 19 September 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.

Category:Indoor arenas in the United States[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are specific categories for all types of venues and a category for every state's indoor arenas. The whole arenas category tree is a total mess. Deleting this category will remove the biggest mess of them all. TM 14:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – part of Category:Indoor arenas by country. It doesn't make sense to remove one subcat out of over 100, or to remove the parent of the extensive Category:Indoor arenas in the United States by state. Oculi (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The category is an essential part of the category tree for both "Indoor arenas by state", for types of indoor arenas in the USA, (and for the 17 subcategories of it). This is similar to any category in a country subdivided into states or provinces e.g. Category:Sports venues in Canada where articles on individual sports venues are categorised by province (although in Canada indoor arenas are not). The only problem is that most, probably all, of the articles in the main category should be moved into the appropriate "Indoor arenas by state" subcategory, which I have started doing (and I also created subcategories for the c15 states that did not have one (e.g. Category:Indoor arenas in Kansas). Hugo999 (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if all of these categories belong elsewhere, let's either delete the category or label it as a container category. The whole category tree around arenas needs revamping and I don't think this one is serving any good at this point.--TM 03:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it could be named a "container category" except perhaps for any articles or lists on American indoor arenas in general, so have labelled "catdiffuse" in meantime. The main (only?) change needed is to move articles to the appropriate "state" subcategory. Hugo999 (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Containerize I think the problem here is that this is a catchall for hundreds of articles that belong in the subcategories (and are already in those subcategories in many cases). I do share the nominators concern that this is currently a mess though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have solved the problem which is the content of the category not the category itself by moving articles to appropriate subcategories by state Hugo999 (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a type of venue, but should probably be a container-only one. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not fully convinced this category is necessary but I am satisfied by turning it into a container category. Withdrawn.--TM 00:10, 25 September 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.

Category:Sports in Arcadia, 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two categories and no articles. Unlikely to grow. TM 13:54, 19 September 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.

Category:Horse racing venues in Arcadia, 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One article. Unlikely to grow TM 13:52, 19 September 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.

Category:Horse racing in Arcadia, 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One category (no articles). Small category unlikely to grow TM 13:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this has 110 articles in subcats, all about horse racing in Arcadia, and is by no means small. Oculi (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Santa Anita Park has 110 articles in it. Not proposing to delete that category but it is literally has one sub-category and that sub-category (also up for deletion) has one sub-category.--TM 14:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this places the 110 articles about horse racing in Arcadia into the appropriate parent category. Category:Horse racing in Arcadia, California has 110 articles in it, and is not small. Category:People has 2 articles at the top level - should we delete it? Oculi (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added Category:Horse racing venues in California to the one viable category. Now it is in the appropriate parent category. This one is not viable.--TM 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only 1 and little chance to ever grow. The one sub-category is well populated but this parent category doesn't serve a navigational purpose. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge the whole tree, obviously. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 24 September 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.

Category:Black British DJs[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 9#Category:Black British DJs. ℯxplicit 01:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ethnicity isn't important on WP. — Zawl 11:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ethnicity isn't important on WP is just incorrect, with the number of articles and subcategories under Category:Black British people. feminist 13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all those other (sub-)categories should be reviewed too. These musicians are known for their professions not their ethnicities. — Zawl 07:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Agree with feminist - It is important as there are many thousands of ethnicity-related categories. Here's an example: Look at how many subcategories under subcategories under Category:American people of African descent. Same goes for Category:African-American people. Category:Black British people is no different. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above, but I will also try and use a hypothetical anecdote to argue that these cats are useful, they can help people find needed information. Imagine you go to a music festival and see a DJ, you happen to have seen the same guy on an interview on BBC news before, but you get home from the festival and can't remember which name on the line-up he corresponds to. Browsing to this category might enlighten you. – filelakeshoe )³.
  • Strong support per WP:EGRS, there is no particular relationship between race and this occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The ethnicity may well be significant to his clientele. At worst this should be upmerged to all (or most) parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 1 October 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.

Category:Assamese Brahmins[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This a duplicate category of Category:Brahmin communities of Assam. It should be deleted to ensure Brahmin categorisation is constant, keeping in–line with the Brahmin community categorisations for other Indian states, such as Brahmin communities of Uttarakhand etc... AnjanBorah (talk) 11:07, 19 September 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.

Category:Worshipers of the Mandarax[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that it is a category that cannot help improve the encyclopedia in any way and as joke/nonsense category. In addition, there is a longstanding precedent to delete categories associated with individual users such as this one. If kept, sets a dangerous precedent to allow a userspace category for "worshipers" of any given Wikipedia user. VegaDark (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from creator: This was a red-linked category on several user pages when I created this. I did not populate this category in any way. A possibility would be to hard redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. feminist 13:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The solution of changing the category to a redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages is something that was unilaterally instituted by one user without a consensus to do so because they decided that a redirect was less harmful to the encyclopedia than populated redlinks. This solution does not yet have a consensus for widespread use, and even if it did, is only appropriate after an official CfD resulting in deleting the offending category, the user(s) removed from the category, and said users re-add themselves to the category. This category has never been through he CfD process and as such the users have never been removed & re-added themselves, so it is very premature to discuss that solution. VegaDark (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a user category with no collaborative potential or purpose. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- at the very least this should be moved to being a user category, but its purpose seems more like categorising Facebook likes. It is essentially a pure vanity category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:28, 24 September 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.

Category:PhD dropout Wikipedians[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful category for the encyclopedia to retain. Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Sets precedent for any number of "dropout" categories if kept (Law school? Med school? Masters degrees? Bachelors degrees? etc.) Bottom line, you would never have an encyclopedic purpose to specifically seek out PhD dropouts for any reason that might improve the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-argument: this category/info actually bears potentially useful information – that he or she qualified to PhD study and was a postgrad at least for a while. However, I agree, that tis category is not very systemic. —Mykhal (talk) 22:46, 24 September 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.

Category:Anglican Church of Australia Ecclesiastical Province of Western Australia[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 to Category:Province of Western Australia. Please note there are several other, similarly named subcategories of Category:Anglican Church of Australia that may need to be nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Current name is too bulky. Equivalent Catholic province is called Perth. Disambiguation needed for the state of the same name. Would also accept ALT of Category:Province of Western Australia that matches lead article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed: i.e., to Category:Western Australia (ecclesiastical province). I wonder why the lead article title doesn't include the word "ecclesiastical" as you would not expect Province of Western Australia to be a religious entity. CravinChillies 16:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, can't we just rename it to Category:Province of Western Australia? It looks like the name of the main article isn't ambiguous, i.e. there is no other entity with the same name. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge all province categories to Category:Anglican Church of Australia and consider merging the provincial articles, which are all stubs, into a table or navigational template (as is done for the Episcopal Church). As is typical in Anglican practice, there is next to nothing to say about the provinces other than which dioceses are members and which diocese's bishop is the titular metropolitan. This is particularly so in Australia, where the provinces are pretty small. As categories they appear to add an unnecessary level of navigation. Now, I'm not from Australia, so it's possible that there's more to provinces there than I see, but what I see is that there is only slightly more to it here than in my church. Mangoe (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A bit drastic. What about a single category for all Australian Anglican provinces? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that, for the other Anglican cases I know of, the provinces are unimportant, and our categorization and articles reflect that by putting the provinces in a table and the dioceses in a single category of all dioceses in that church. The provinces don't even have articles because essentially all you can say is "these dioceses are in the province" and outside the US "the bishop of X is also the nominal head of the province" (the ECUSA provinces don't even have that). Most likely the Australian situation is the same. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Rename to Category:Province of Western Australia to match the main article, Province of Western Australia. (If that option doesn't win, this nomination's suggestion is an improvement over the current long winded category.)RevelationDirect (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support that too, as already implied by my question above. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Province of Western Australia" per the article. "Anglican Province of WA" is inappropriate, because both in Australia and most other countries, the Anglican dioceses are "Diocese of X". Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Support that (changed vote). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 24 September 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.

Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States[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 and salt. (For the record, a seventh page has been added since the list given below: Mountain High School (Mountain, Wisconsin).) – Fayenatic London 23:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category that was deleted twice in CfD over 5 years ago that was recreated and whose previous consensus should be revisited.
Created by the same author but I'm not sure if the concerns from previous consensus have been addressed to justify recreation. Due to the time since the last CfD, I suppose consensus could have changed. If category is deleted again, I suggest it be SALTed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • About wp:ARBITRARYCAT, that is a subsection of Wikipedia:Overcategorization about over-categorization, and seems to me not to be relevant here. The problem others are having is that the category is not as precise as they would like. They would like for the facts of architectural style for a district or house having multiple styles to be different, i.e. they would prefer for just one narrow style to apply, and to use that instead. If there is a problem, it is not that this is an overly precise category. --doncram 17:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per discussion provided in previous AFDs in 2011, and to be reasonable and allow for development of Wikipedia coverage in this area, on the topic of mixed revivals. They exist! There are hundreds of historic districts which have mixes of the revivals and even individual houses which are properly categorized by this. It has previously been asserted that developing the article is needed; well, allowing the category facilitates improvement of the corresponding article. Adapting from previous CFD:

The discussants in the CFD which deleted Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture and .... did not have full information, such as exactly how this category is used, and how many National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed places have this description. The term is one of 40 most commonly coded architectural styles for NRHP-listed places, as entered into the NRHP's NRIS database and is indeed somewhat a catchall, for buildings built with an amalgam of Revivals styles. The category is useful. There are many architectural Revival styles, and many of them were popular in the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th century period. Many buildings defy categorization with just one, like "Classical Revival" or "Egyptian Revival" (tho I am not sure these specific ones were among the popular revivals then) or other narrower terms, because they in fact show a mix of the Revival styles that were all in fashion. For individual buildings, if a primary, narrower category can eventually be determined from more sources, it would be fine to revise the categorization to something more specific. It was stated in the CFD that there probably would not be an article corresponding, ever. That is not so, the existing corresponding article/section at Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture exists and could/should be expanded to give more info. .... I had a report once of the number of NRHP listings having this and other of the 40 most common style categories, but can't find it right now. My guess is that there are 500-2,000 possible members of the category.

There were other questions asked and answered in previous CFDs. Currently there are just six articles in the category, for the record:
--doncram 01:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5 of those 6 articles have other, more specific subcategories rather than this NRHP catchall. (The exception is Missoula Downtown Historic District which doesn't really need a single architectural style since it covers multiple structures.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To User:RevelationDirect, please see my note of reply to you above, and here, sure, take Missoula Downtown Historic District as an example. The historic district is listed for it having a mix of architectural styles of the period when its buildings were built, i.e. Revivals styles of the late 19th and early 20th century. For example the NRHP nomination states that there is just one example of the Tudor Revival architecture style, the Missoula Hotel (1890-1891; 147 West Main Street). It mentions "two other landmark high style buildings that remain from the 1888-1900 period include the Missoula Mercantile (110 North Higgins) and the commercial Queen Anne-style Higgins Block (232-240 North Higgins). The latter featured ornamentation such as terra-cotta banding, elaborate....", etc. It would be appropriate for some U.S.-specific version of Tudor Revival architecture itself (e.g. Tudor Revival architecture in the United States (currently a redlink) if that existed as a separate article or as a redirect to an appropriate section in a bigger article) and some U.S.-specific version of Queen Anne architecture itself (Queen Anne architecture in the United States does exist as an article and includes reference McAlester, Virginia & Lee, A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred H. Knopf, New York 1984 which is one source of my understanding about these revival architectures in the U.S.) and their corresponding categories if they exist (e.g. Category:Tudor Revival architecture in the United States, Category:Queen Anne architecture in the United States) and other revival styles of the same era to be categorizeds with Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States. But for some individual buildings which are mixes and for some districts including this one, the wider category seems appropriate. --doncram 17:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I can sense your frustration and we both spend a lot of time with NRHP articles so I don't want to be discouraging so let me be a little more thoughtful
  • There may be a need for an administrative category on the talk pages called Category:National Register of Historic Places Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture Historic Districts or there might not. That would be a discussion at the NRHP WikiProject but such a category would actually group the very narrow set of articles you're after here.
  • This visible category would be for any article that was covering any building that was any type of architectural revival from that period whether you intend it to be or not. And the period is ambiguous: does it start at 1870, 1880 or 1890? And, even though it purportedly goes to 1999, I doubt there are many structures after 1940.
  • Maybe I'm being narrow minded though so I'll tag the NRHP WikiProject to get more eyes on this nomination.
We disagree here but I do wish you well in your editing. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As has been well established, this isn't a real type of architecture whatsoever. It's time to sanction the nominator for continued tendentious editing, with this as a good example. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a catchall category used by the National Park Service to group properties on the National Register of Historic Places that don't fit into a more common architectural style. It's not a style in its own right, and nobody outside of the NPS uses this as a grouping of distinct architectural styles. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for exactly the reasons articulated by TheCatalyst31. This terminology is just lazy writing on the part of NRHP documentation, and not a recognized architectural style. As stated in the 2001 conversation, "Wikipedia categories do not need to mirror the categorization schemes developed by other organizations." -McGhiever (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already given. Articles containing architecture in multiple styles should be categorized into relevant specific style categories, not a catchall. Magic♪piano 19:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category is too vague and doesn't represent an actual style. kennethaw88 • talk 04:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with TheCatalyst31 and Magicpiano. I don't agree with McGhiever, however. It is my experience in reading multiple NRHP nominations that the authors are not being lazy. The buildings coded as such have no discernable architectural style or they are a combination of styles and no one stands out as primary.Farragutful (talk) 14:52, 28 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_19&oldid=1138411579"