< October 7	October 9 >

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]

Propose renaming Category:The Rosenwald School Building Fund and Associated Buildings MPS to Category:The Rosenwald School Building Fund and Associated Buildings Multiple Property Submission

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]
- For a previous rename discussion see this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very short discussion, but okay. If the decision is to rename this one, these should be renamed also:

Category:19th Century Spring Hill Neighborhood TR

Category:Plantation Houses of the Alabama Canebrake and Their Associated Outbuildings MPS

Category:Spanish Revival Residences in Mobile MPS

Category:Advent & Development of Railroads in Iowa MPS

Category:Architectural Legacy of Proudfoot & Bird in Iowa MPS

Category:Guttenberg, Iowa MPS

Category:Limestone Architecture of Jackson County MPS

Category:Maquoketa MPS

Category:Public Schools for Iowa: Growth and Change MPS

Category:PWA-Era County Courthouses of IA MPS

Category:Towards a Greater Des Moines MPS

Altairisfar (talk) 14:26, 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.

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.

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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Holocaust in art and literature to Category:Works about the Holocaust

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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fire departments of Australia to Category:Fire and Rescue services of Australia

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' Satu Suro 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 per all above. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:17, 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" Ignorant Armies 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? Ignorant Armies 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' Satu Suro 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:IRAS to Category:IRAS objects

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.

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]

Propose renaming Category:Objects discovered in the Two Micron All-Sky Survey to Category:2MASS objects

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]
What about Category:2MASS discovered objects? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 13 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.

October 8

Category:The Rosenwald School Building Fund and Associated Buildings MPS

Category:Spindle albums

Category:Spindle songs

Category:NFL GameDay games

Category:Holocaust in art and literature

Category:Fire departments of Australia

Category:IRAS

Category:Objects discovered in the Two Micron All-Sky Survey