< March 14 March 16 >

March 15

Category:1899 rugby union tournaments for national teams

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 to delete. This is part of a categorization scheme by year, although strangely there's no collector Category:Rugby union tournaments for national teams.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. There's no need to split the relatively small Category:International rugby union competitions by year and especially not in the 19th century when international sports events in general and international rugby events in particular were quite rare. There's no need to upmerge since 1899 Home Nations Championship, for instance, is already categorized in Category:Six Nations Championship and in Category:1898–99 in Irish rugby union and the equivalents for Wales, England and Scotland. Pichpich (talk) 18:59, 15 March 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:Christian Bible College alumni

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. This is sure a lot of debate over a category with one article in it. There's no guideline about whether diploma mills get alumni categories, but it's clear that many commenters believe they don't pass the smell test. I don't think we want a lot of categories about rubber-stamp degrees, so let's stop it here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no Christian Bible College article. That name redirects to an accreditation mill. This is an unnotable diploma mill and has only one known "graduate." This category has no purpose. You too can get a doctorate by mailing a lump sum payment to a PO Box: http://www.christianbiblecollege.org/costs.htm.SalHamton (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime after I made the above comment, I edited the article (the one about the accreditation agency and the college) to identify Mr. Baldwin as an alumnus. That pretty well eliminates any purpose for the category. --Orlady (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Instutite of Religion and Law that published Name it and Frame it, was controlled by Levicoff, who wrote the book. Thus is is clearly a self-published work. I also think we should avoid taking wikipedia into limiting alumni categories to institutions it deems "worthy". I think the deletion of an alumni category based on how the institution is presented by a self-published book sets a very bad precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep it the onus is on you: Do you have RS that demonstrate this is an institution of higher learning? Because it would be very bad precedent to keep a category with one item because a website that sells degrees claims to be a "university." SalHamton (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on why it's a bad precedent to keep a category for a diploma mill. We have categories for alumni of all types of institutions, including unaccredited universities and colleges and schools, so I'm not clear on how this is so grossly different. It's clear that it exists, and it's clear that it gives out diplomas—how they are awarded is a separate issue that should be addressed in a relevant article. However, I can understand the argument that the "school" itself is non-notable and not discussed in reliable sources. This, however, seems to me to be a separate issue. If the argument is being made that a non-notable institution should not have a corresponding category, I wish that argument would just be made in that manner. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm convinced that this college is real and that it's in North Carolina. As with many religious schools in the U.S., the school's lack of accreditation probably doesn't much matter to the "customers" of ministers who claim degrees from the school. I am, however, troubled by the idea of a single-member category that has little prospect for growth. I have not been aware of categories for alumni of other never-accredited-or-authorized institutions, including some much more solid and much better documented schools, such as Elim Bible Institute. However, when I investigated to see what I was missing, I did find Category:Pensacola Christian College alumni for Pensacola Christian College. Regardless of the existence of that one category, because it isn't typical to create this kind of category, it seems unsettlingly POV-ish (an effort to discredit Baldwin?) about having a single-member category for alumni of an unaccredited school about which we have too little information to create a stand-alone article. --Orlady (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern is that there is only one article in the category, it probably can be populated with other articles. I haven't done a thorough search, but apparently Jack Van Impe has "earned" a diploma from the same place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I've seen for the Van Impe affiliation is an online forum called Baptistboard.com. That's clearly not a basis for including him in a category. Did you find something else? The Wikipedia article about Van Impe lists education at two other Christian schools, neither of which was accredited when he attended. --Orlady (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it mentioned in a book, but as I said, I didn't do a very thorough search on the issue. The fact could well have just been copied off the Van Impe endorsement found on the official website of Christian Bible College. Judging by what users have suggested in this thread, I have no idea if the endorsement is legitimate or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search for Van Impe and Christian Bible College. Is the book you are referring to Teens and devil-worship: what everyone should know by Charles G. B. Evans (Huntington House Publishers, 1991)? The complete mention is "Dr. Cecil John/Christian Bible College" and the next line is "Dr Jack Van Impe/Jack Van Ministries" on page x of list of people thanked. I don't see any link between Impe and the school in that trivial acknowledgement (also is that book self-published?). This again means there ARE NOT multiple non-trivial sources about this alleged degree mill and yet people want to keep its category despite not even having an wiki article. SalHamton (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I was looking at a book about teens and devil worship. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Bible College fails WP:GNG, which is why there is no article about it. That hasn't been presented as a reason to delete, but as a relevant point regarding the likelihood of the category having any value and growing, which are grounds for deletion. Despite there not being an article for it, a now banned user created the category (he was criticized for in his RFC for "creat[ing] a new article for every single obituary or newspaper story he reads" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn.) This CFD isn't about "righting wrongs" and I have no idea what you mean POV "denying any mention..." Aside from this as a category, there are no other "mentions" of it that I've attempted to remove!
My nomination is because this category has ONE item in it, it is unlikely to grow and has been labeled a "university" and/or theological school despite there not being multiple non-trivial sources to demonstrate that this "university" is anything but a degree mill that sells "degrees" from a website. SalHamton (talk) 01:27, 7 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.

Category:No Wave

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:No wave. I can't see any likelihood of confusion here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:No Wave to Category:No wave (art genre)
Nominator's rationale: The head article has just been renamed to no wave per Talk:No wave/Archives/2015#Requested_move (my nomination, prompted by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February_28#Category:No_Wave_musical_groups. Another editor made a speedy nomination to rename the category in the same way, but that was opposed on the grounds that the uncapitalised title is ambiguous.
I'm inclined to think that both views are correct: "no wave" should be uncapitalised, but it is ambiguous. So I reckon the best option is to rename to the lower case format, but with a disambiguator.
I'm not sure what would be the best disambiguator. In the nomination, I suggest "art genre", but I can also see a case for "art movement". Maybe others will have better ideas :) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
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:People from the Inland Empire (California)

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: diffuse to appropriate county categories, then delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize people by region[2], but city or county. Any persons in this article should be categorized in either 'People from San Bernardino County, California(or one of its 14 towns that have its own category) or 'People from Riverside County California,(or one of its towns etc). Many of the people already in this category are in one of the target categories already. If deleted, I'll make sure everyone is moved like before when the above linked category was eliminated. ...William 18:04, 15 March 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:Black television drama series

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:African-American television drama series and purge if needed. It's unclear to me that this is a "genre," but people seem to want to keep this under a different name. Note that Category:Black sitcoms has a head article, Black sitcom, meaning a rename there is less clear.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I find this category very troubling. The definition provided is far too vague for this category to be maintainable. What percentage of the cast should be black before it is considered a "black television series"? I am not being flippant, I really want to know. With some of these shows, the majority of the cast is white, and one or two cast members are black. The larger question is, since this is Wikipedia, is this an encyclopedic way of organising and categorising this information? I encountered this category at the article for The Wire, a critically acclaimed tv series that looks hard at the drug war, crime, poverty, political corruption, the economy, etc., in Baltimore. A large percentage of the cast --- both cops and criminals --- are black. But, that categorization does not add to an understanding of the show, and does not say anything about the complexities of race relations as the show discusses them. Simply put, this is bad categorization that obscures more than it reveals when it comes to these television programs. I believe we can do better. The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This will not work as a trans-national category at all. It might work if we limited it to shows from the United States, and we might be able to create similar categories for other countries, but we cannot pretend that Zulu are ehtnically the same as African-Americans. We classify be ethicity, and there is not a trans-national ethnicity here to classify. However I do not see any clear definition, so do not think this works as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was my point. Am I missing something? trespassers william (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the points raised by trespassers william are well taken. However, a name like "American television drama series related to race" doesn't exactly do it; just because the characters are Black doesn't mean it automatically relates to race. Additionally, I would reiterate that the "we only classify by ethnicity" argument really doesn't fit the unique history of African-Americans (as I noted in detail above), but that's another discussion. ABCxyz (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
African-Americans are a clearly defined ethnic group. However to try to pretend they are the same ethnic group as Igbos in Nigeria and Zulus in South Africa is to create a false impression and put things together that do not belong. Further, to try to classify every show here with even clearly African-American actors who exceed some arbitrary and unclear definition of "main character" will lead to a total mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, I think you may have misinterpreted what Trespassers meant — I can quite easily see where you got the idea that he was implying that "African Americans and Igbos in Nigeria and Zulus in South Africa" were a common ethnic grouping and should be put together, but I can also quite clearly see that what he meant was "a category exclusively for African-American series only, with maybe one or two separate parallel categories for specific countries if and where numbers warrant" (which wouldn't actually contradict your point at all.) That's where the confusion seems to be emerging — you're actually both making the same point, Trespassers just phrased it a bit ambiguously in one spot. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your solution still involves categorizing these shows by race --- African-American is not an ethnic group --- and still fails to address what I regard as the core issue I brought up in my nomination: what is the common factor that makes these tv shows "African-American"? The categorization is too broad and vague to be encyclopedic, as it will lead to arbitrary judgements on the part of editors. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we limited this to shows where a majority of the leads were African-American, with possible exceptions for things like "Guess Who's Coming to Diner", where ethnicity clearly plays a key role even if most of the main characters are white, than it might work. However, just including any show with a "leading charcter" who is African-American is characterizing by something other than a major detail. What next Category:Asian-American television series, which will include Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman because the #1 billed character was of Japanese descent? I am not sure Dean Cain appears more in the series than Terri Hatcher, but he was listed first in the credits, and their chactacters are the focus of every single episode. Actually, Cain probably does appear more often, but not by much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines explicitly state we categorize by ethnicity, not by race. To categorize by race goes explicitly against our guidelines. Race is not a defining characteristic here because we lack any clear definition of what makes a show "Black".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 23 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.

Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WolterBot (talk · contribs) hasn't edited over three years, thus this empty category is not needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:17, 15 March 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 patrol

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 all per nominator, for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Military patrol" is a highly ambiguous name; it impiles a patrol of soldiers through the forest/jungle/desert seeking the enemy, not a winter sport. The article may or may not need to be renamed, but the category certainly should be disambiguated. Subcats as neeed to be speedied if this passes. The Bushranger One ping only 10:44, 15 March 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:Donghak Peasant Revolution

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: withdraw nomination. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:03, 15 March 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:State cabinet secretaries of the United States

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 new officers category tree may make this a moot point, or require another nomination as desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are two problems with the name of this category. First of all, Governors and Lieutenant Governors are not "secretaries," but there is no reason to organize them in a separate category tree than the other cabinet officers. Secondly, there are numerous "secretaries" that are not cabinet level offices (for instance secretaries of environmental protection agencies, or secretaries of transportation, and others, but, to be fair, some obscure ones like that may very well be constitutionally designated in some states). Insofar as the essential qualities we are looking for in organizing these offices, what matters is whether or not the state constitution provides for their designation. This rename should be implemented down the whole category tree. I discovered the issue while working under the Connecticut and California categories. Greg Bard (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "constitutional officers" idea doesn't work for me, as "constitutional officers" vary from state to state, and generally don't include all of the positions considered to be cabinet secretaries. In some states, most or all of these officials are elected, but the length of the list of electeds varies from state to state; in some states, some or all of these officials are appointed by the governor or by the state legislature. Some or all of the individual types of state constitutional officers are currently covered in specific categories such as Category:State treasurers of the United States, Category:State secretaries of state of the United States, and Category:State Attorneys General in the United States; I don't see any benefit to creating a new umbrella category for "state constitutional officers". --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As currently used for most states, the "cabinet secretaries" category consists almost entirely of offices that aren't constitutionally designated. For example, the topical articles in many states categories include one for a commissioner of agriculture, which is not a constitutionally designated state office. A few of the state "cabinet secretaries" categories (namely California, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, and Texas) do include one or more constitutional officers that do not appear to be gubernatorial appointees or cabinet members, but those exceptions don't justify repurposing an entire category hierarchy to become something different than it is now. If you want to create categories for the constitutionally designated officers in each of the 50 states, that should be done separately from the cabinet category system -- and note that you will need to research each of the 50 state constitutions rather carefully to determine which offices are constitutional offices in each state. --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to embark on such a project, I would be disingenuous if I didn't first propose this rename. It would be a colossal overlap, and most likely cause for this "cabinet secretaries" category tree to have a "mission creep" or purpose shift to cover all the lower appointees not constitutionally designated. If there is no strong objection, I may very well do some state constitutional research. It would be a more convenient way to organize it for the readers. Greg Bard (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "colossal overlap". As noted in my comments, there are 44 state-specific categories for state cabinet officers. I looked at all of those categories. Only five of the 44 appear to include constitutional officers who probably aren't cabinet officers. Many of them do include constitutional officers that are also cabinet members (for example, in a number of states the attorney general is a constitutional officer who is appointed by the governor). Most of the people and offices included in these categories are agriculture commissioners, corrections commissioners, secretaries of environment, and other similar positions not designated in the state constitution. Furthermore, reasonably well-developed categories exist for the principal constitutional officers of the various states, including Category:State treasurers of the United States, Category:State secretaries of state of the United States, and Category:State Attorneys General in the United States. --Orlady (talk) 19:08, 28 March 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:Jurassic Coast

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. Most arguments for deletion have been successfully addressed. Sub-cats do not necessarily have the same characteristics as their parents, e.g. "people from Foo City" should be categorised under Foo City even though it contains people rather than cities. Nevertheless, Carlossuarez46's proposal for a centralised discussion on non-hierarchical geographical categories could prove useful. – Fayenatic London 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a mess of a category - e.g. it puts the Weymouth Beach article under Category:Cliffs, it puts the Highcliffe article under Category:Devon, it puts the Wytch Farm article under Category:Visitor attractions, it puts the Lockyer Observatory and Planetarium article under Category:Jurassic geologic formations, it puts the Corfe Castle article under Category:English coast ...). It also creates a lot of redundancy - e.g. most/all of the articles in Category:Beaches of Dorset are now also in a parent of that category. The two articles with "Jurassic Coast" in their title are in plenty of other categories.
An alternative to deletion might be removing all the parent categories except Category:English coast and removing all the sub-categories.
P.S. I'm aware that there are other categories with similar problems (e.g. the Windermere Steamboat Museum article really shouldn't be under Category:Subduction volcanoes), but that's no reason for keeping this category. DexDor (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is some argument to splitting this cat in two, into geology and tourism. That might well become clearer, as the reader groups are probably fairly separate. We care about reader clarity. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nothing to do (directly) with MediaWiki - it's about whether this category follows the guidelines laid down in WP:SUBCAT etc that most of the rest of WP categorization follows. E.g. Category:French cheeses is the intersection of a category for articles about France and a category for articles about cheese. If you've radical ideas for a different way of doing categorization then take those ideas to a RfC. In the meantime, please follow the existing guidance to avoid WP categorization becoming (more) inconsistent. DexDor (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think that MediaWiki is unimportant because you can re-define its behaviour however you want, then I wish you luck with it. Who's going to tell MediaWiki? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, many of the articles in the category don't mention the Jurassic Coast at all. The guidance on the proper use of the categorization function in Wikipedia includes WP:SUBCAT which says "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second, then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second." and "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also.". How does Category:Beaches of Dorset belong under Category:Geology of Devon and Category:Cliffs of England ? DexDor (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second,
If. In this case it doesn't. That's the point.
Besides which, what are beaches if they're not geology, or eroded cliffs. Are you familiar with this coast? The cliffs and beach are indistinguishable in the winter, owing to their frequent landslips. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 15 March 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:Iron Maiden (heavy metal band)

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:Iron Maiden (band). We don't have consensus to completely remove the disambiguator, but with the deletion of the other Iron Maiden article, shortening is possible.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. (See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_21#Category:Iron_Maiden.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 15 March 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:Danville, Virginia metropolitan area

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. There's no consensus to delete, and so if it stays, it should match the article name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Demoted to a Micropolitan Statistical Area as per the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's 2013 delineations. ANDROS1337TALK 02:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On consideration of further comments below I would agree that deletion is the better outcome, though my reasoning per using the census's categorizations remains unchanged. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 10 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.

Category:Structures, Historic Districts and Museums of Yellowstone

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 the buildings and structures to Category:Buildings and structures in Yellowstone National Park and upmerge the non-structures in the category to Category:Yellowstone National Park. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Structures, Historic Districts and Museums of Yellowstone to Category:National Register of Historic Places listings in Yellowstone National Park
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is clearly non-standard. The proposed name seems to be what this category might be for, and the article is named National Register of Historic Places listings in Yellowstone National Park. Another alternative would be to simply upmerge the buildings and structures to Category:Buildings and structures in Yellowstone National Park and upmerge the non-structures in the category to Category:Yellowstone National Park. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 15 March 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