< January 13 January 15 >

January 14

Category:Streets in Hudson County

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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Streets in Hudson County should be moved to Streets in Hudson County, New Jersey to be consistent with other categories (Category:Streets in Passaic County, New Jersey, etc.) and to include the state name. Tinton5 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 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.

Category:Akanland stubs

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lots of articles and categories about a non-existent "Akanland" were created by this now-banned user - this should be cleaned up Little Professor (talk) 21:20, 14 January 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.

Category:Algonquian personal names

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: listify and delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Each page should already be in a more specific "people" category e.g. Category:Ojibwe people. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For the record, although some people stated below that certain categories do not exist, there are categories with slightly different names and purposes: Category:Algonquian peoples, Category:Semitic peoples and Category:Surnames of German origin. It is always helpful to look for such categories before stating that they don't exist, as we then find out what is already working well (or not so well) in nearby parts of related hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 14:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename wouldn't work, because 1. there are Algonquian people who do not have Algonquian names. 2. Algonquin (at least as used in that catyegory) is a language family not an ethnicity, so there are no people who selfidentify as "Algonquin".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone else sees it that way. Look at the over 100 articles in the category. We need to keep the category, and what is wrong with the category name for bio articles? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its like having a category of "Smith" or "Italian surnames" or "names ending with B". At the very least the category should be renamed to "People with names from Algonquian languages".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with "People with Algonquian names". Then we could keep the category population as is and combine it with Algonquian place names into a supercat for Algonquian proper names (with two divisions, places and people.) This is an important subset of Algonquian languages. Ethnicity is another topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing it is part of Category:North American given names. Everything else in that category is articles on specific names, not on the people who held this. In some ways this dehumanizes the Native American people here, by reducing in some sense the articles on them to being just about their names. The articles are not on the names. Actually other people have argumed this is an odd grouping. We do not categorize people by their names, what next Category:American people with German surnames. We categorize people by nationality and ethnicity, not by the origin of their name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is not ethnically these people should not be identified as "Algonquian". They belong in Category:Wampanoag people, and Category:Shawnee people and Category:Potawatami people and lots more. This is an unneeded category. Renaming would improperly group these people. There needs to be attention given to making sure all these people are in such categories, but this would not work as a category even if renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we have done and should do for Algonquian names, which should be an exception, because this is an important component of the study of Algonquian linguistics, which is concerned with preserving whatever information hasn't already been eradicated. This should be a linguistic category of personal names for biographies, not ethnic. I again implore editors to consider the Systemic WP:BIAS here and consider a category with the current population as a useful category, even if it it were retitled to "People with Algonquian names". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like what you should do is create a list. As Carlos Suarez stated we categoriez articles, not titles. This categorizes titles, and is just a bad plan. A list would allow lots of other possibilities for providing more information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it is a "bad plan", since it hasn't caused any problems for anyone whatsoever until only now you started complaining about having a category for "Algonquian names". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things it mixed together articles on real people and articles on mythical beings. I removed all the articles on mythical beings, since it does not make sense to put them in a category full of articles on real people. However, the category is still classifying the articles on people as if they were articles on names, which they are not. They are on the people, not the names. Reidrects from other names of Blue Jacket should not be in any categories, because categories are about things, not names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed categories for names, and it seems this is one of them. It's a case of names being rather important to the linguistic study, although not as extreme as in say, Hurrian (where names are a vast proportion of what is known); it seems to me we could have eventually a category for people with Hurrian names for the same reason. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:19, 17 January 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.

Category:British and Canadian citizen of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent

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. delldot ∇. 21:30, 22 January 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.

Category:Images of Alanis Morissette

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That's what it is--free media will be on Commons —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:09, 14 January 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.

Seasons of Scottish soccer

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Seasons of Scottish football into Category:Seasons in Scottish football

Nominator's rationale: The seasons by year for Scottish association football (soccer) follow the usual naming pattern (using in), eg Category:1953–54 in Scottish football, yet that category and others are a subcategory of Category:Seasons of Scottish football, which is a subcategory of Category:Seasons in Scottish football; while Category:1954–55 in Scottish football is a direct subcategory of Category:Seasons of Scottish football. Overall the years 1870-71 to 1904-04 are subcategories of Category:Seasons in Scottish football (created 2005) while the years 1905-06 to 2013-14 (with 5 exceptions) are subcategories of Category:Seasons of Scottish football (created 2009) which seems an unnecessary intermediate category. Upmerging would result in a simplified structure, like that of Category:Seasons in English football. Hugo999 (talk) 11:56, 14 January 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.

Category:Works of unknown authorship

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 by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The convention of Category:Works by writer is to use writer. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:25, 14 January 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.

Category:Canadian record label compilation albums

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 CfD 2013 January 29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to diffuse category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Record label compilation albums may or may not need the diffusion, but Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists does. Is there any real reason why this needs to be deleted besides "I don't like it"? Keep. But even if it does get deleted, articles within it must be upmerged to Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists as well as Category:Record label compilation albums; although some of the albums have been double-filed in both categories simultaneously, most haven't been and Justin is the person who incorrectly duplicate-categorized each and every last one of the ones that are. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response Why does Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists need more diffusion? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because by itself, it fails to properly distinguish greatest hits albums by single artists, and compilation albums which are actually compilation albums in the traditional definition of the word compilation (i.e. albums on which each track is by a different artist entirely.) That is, without the diffusion it mixes up two completely different things that don't belong in the same category as each other. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response But this is even more confusing. Now you're proposing a categorization scheme based on the location of the record label which issued it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:35, 24 January 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.

Category:Track and field athletes from Georgia (country)

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Because in Georgia (European country) is "athletes" not "track and field athletes". --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the votes of the IP should not count. It is easy to log out and vote as many times as you want with a dynamic IP. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, and very handy for you, since it's a lodged opinion against your proposal. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not WP:CIVIL. If you have a problem, lodge an WP:SPI -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand the point of the question. If you have Category:Track and field athletes from Georgia (country) you need Category:Track and field athletes from Germany, Category:Track and field athletes from France, Category:Track and field athletes from Spain, Category:Track and field athletes from Finland, Category:Track and field athletes from Great Britain, Category:Track and field athletes from Sweden and all the rest of the old Continent. --Kasper2006 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not delete categories just because potential sister categories have not yet been formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it's a perfectly valid subcategory which does NOT have equivalent scope as so many editors keep arguing. Whether the parent benefits from such a split is another issue, which I am somewhat neutral on. Looking closer, most of the larger members of Category:Athletes by nationality have been made parent only categories with a by event split (eg see Category:French athletes). That approach would for Georgia involve replacing the nominated category with 4 or 5 single person categories, to go with the existing 3 single person subcategories, so is probably premature. --Qetuth (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canada, Quebec, Trois-Rivières your first edit was on 4 January 2013. I do not understand how you can say these things. I rather suspect that you are a "duplicate" of another user who already commented on these pages. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even understand Canadian English? You will note I am in Canada, and as such can be assumed to understand Canadian English. Yet you think British English should rule the world? You force British English onto Canadian categories and think that such a position will be accepted by Canadians??
You were warned by Nyttend to stop gaming the system and fooling around with the categories, as you were going to get blocked (User_talk:Kasper2006#Category:Canadian_track_and_field_athletes) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if that was a warning or not, he just explained me that I could not put in a category directly in SD (things that happened about two months ago), and I do not think since then has never worked in that field. The fact remains that I have a name and and you an IP. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where it is, but somewhere in the wikipedia guidelines there is something that states "IPs are people to". If you want to get all huffy about "using your name", I could point out that my account is under my leagl full name, which is more than you can say for your, unless your last name is a year. The fact of the matter is that you cannot treat IPs as non-persons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 18 January 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.

Category:Education in the Republic of China

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see anything here that isn't in the current boundaries of Taiwan, and so I'm not sure why it's an RoC category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 07:49, 14 January 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.

Category:Universities and colleges in the Republic of China

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These all appear to be in Taiwan proper. Two of them, National Central University and National Chiao Tung University, started on the Chinese mainland, but have moved to what is now Taiwan.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 07:45, 14 January 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.

Category:Military academies of the Republic of China

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of these are in Taiwan proper.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 07:38, 14 January 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.

Category:EC 3.5.1

Discussion has been relisted, please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_24#Category:EC_3.5.1. delldot ∇. 19:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government Actuaries (United Kingdom)

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 by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: This seems like over-categorization. Illia Connell (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn per comments below. Illia Connell (talk) 02:50, 19 January 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.

Category:American people of Asian descent

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. In terms of a headcount, the debate was finely-balanced between those who support keeping the category and those who want to upmerge it. But WP:NOTAVOTE, and both sides made some good arguments which in the end were inconclusive. There was no agreement on whether this category should be seen a container category, nor on whether "Asian American" is an ethnic or racial concept, or indeed on where to draw a line between ethnicity and race. On those grounds, the closure would have been "no consensus", but there was one crucial point which makes this a "keep": that this is one of ten similar sub-categories of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin (others include Category:American people of African descent‎, Category:American people of Oceanic descent‎, etc). Since all the arguments which would support deletion of this Asian grouping can also be applied to the 9 other similar categories, there is therefore no valid reason to delete only the Asian category.
So the result is "keep, but without prejudice to a group nomination of this and other similar categories". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, we don't categorize by race, so this category has morphed into one for any and all peoples whose ancestry is from a locale in the continent of Asia, itself a political (not geographic) division of the Eurasian continent. Thus, this includes Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews. I know im probably stirring up a huge discussion, but I just dont think that categorizing people by gigantic land masses with no ethnic cohesion makes good sense. its like saying "people from the northern hemisphere", or "people from islands". I also recognize that my rationale would change a whole lot of categories. I will politely bow to consensus if its a snow keep, and i wont belabor the point endlessly. anyone else agree with me? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is nonsense, there is nothing that would make "Asian Americans" an ethnic group or more "akin to ethnicity". Ethnicity is not where one's ancestors originated it is about which cultural groups you identify as belonging to. And no the census bureau does not track people's genealogies they ask people to identify with one of a predetermined set of races one of which is Asian.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense—it just so happens that almost all people's identification with a particular culture and their ancestral genealogy line up. Find me a person who calls themself an Asian American but who does not have an ancestor from an Asian country. The "race" we don't categorize by is skin colour, flatness of nose—that type of thing. Phenotype, in other words. We don't categorize by phenotype, but we have a vast system of categorization by ethnicity, which this is a part of. And yes, part of that is classification by where one's ancestors are from. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly not ethnicity. If someone was adopted at birth but born to Korean parents but raised in a Euro-American household and Euro-American culture, they would still be encoraged to mark themselves as Asian on the census. In 1970 they would have been marked as Asian, no ability otherwise, since people were not even allowed to self-identify their race until 1980. Even now, the census guidleines would clearly encorage marking as Asian, when in fact they are clearly from an ethnic stand-point Euro-American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you recognise that some people equate biological ancestry and ethnicity—in which case, it very much could be ethnicity. All of your comments appear to be made with the assumption that there are agreed-upon definitions of the terms "race" and "ethnicity", which there are not. That's the central problem with stating "we don't categorize by race"—all it does is lead to the question—"what is race"—and there is no agreement on the latter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 20 January 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.

Category:American pornographic film actors of Asian descent

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: no consensus. The discussion seems to hinge whether this a category by race, by ethnicity, or a grouping by continent. There is no agreement about what the category is, or what to do about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to Category:American pornographic film actors by ethnic or national origin. i believe policy is we can categorize people by ethnicity or national origin, but NOT by race, which is what "asian" is. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If something is significatn, it is not the ethnicity, but the race of the people involved. Thus we are classifying by race, which we explicitly ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you assume that everyone agrees on a definition of "race". They don't. Saying "we don't categorize by race" is close to meaningless unless you define what "race" means, which there is no agreement upon. That's why I think it's a poor argument to make. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 20 January 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.

Category:Works titled –ana or –iana

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: Upmerge & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES; the parent category Category:Musical tributes and homages seems sufficient. Trivialist (talk) 03:17, 14 January 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.

Category:World Champions of Professional Football

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. We don't have by-player categories for American football champions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:World Champions of Professional Football to Category:AFL–NFL World Championship Game winners
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proper noun 'World Champion(s) of Professional Football' doesn't exist (at least notably). What is intended here is a category listing winning players of the AFL-NFL World Championship Game, the name of the precursor of today's Super Bowl. (I think that acronyms should be left where they form just part of the name, but technically to abide by WP category naming practice it should be Category:American Football League – National Football League World Championship Game winners, I suppose.) Mayumashu (talk) 03:16, 14 January 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.

Category:Structures with naming rights

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems to me to be categorizing things by a feature of their names rather than by something inherently defining in the thing itself. See WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. This is also a characteristic that can and does change reasonably frequently, which probably makes it a type of "current" category, which we try to avoid. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 14 January 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.
More