< February 10 February 12 >

February 11

Category:University of Exeter Halls of Residence

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) 07:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only containing the eponymous article Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:26, 11 February 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:Voting systems

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: Procedural close as premature. Much better to open a new CFD to reflect the outcome of the Requested Moves discussion, whenever that happens.
This discussion was opened only minutes after the linked Requested Moves discussion was opened. However, the RM will remain open for at least 7 days, and possibly a lot longer (the discussion may be relisted, and even if it isn't, the backlog of RM discussions can be big). So by the time thge rM is closed, this discussion will be stale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Voting systems to Category:Voting methods
Nominator's rationale: See the discussion at the category's main article, Talk:Voting system#Requested move 11 February 2017 Homunq (࿓) 23:20, 11 February 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:Lego games

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 to Category:Lego since neither of the discussants was giving a rationale why the two articles and the subcat should disappear from the tree of Category:Lego. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category includes only two pages, which are seemingly unrelated apart being about a Lego topic. I guess it was created to unify articles about Lego board games, however, none of the games in the series has an independent article rendering the category useless. Lordtobi (✉) 22:06, 11 February 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.

Hotel buildings on the NRHP

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. The supporters have successfully answered most of the points raised by the opposers. I don't accept the suggestion that "hotel buildings" is ambiguous. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: per convention of Category:Hotel buildings on the National Register of Historic Places by state. This was a contested speedy (see discussion below), but as far as I can see the convention is clear. If someone wants to do a group nomination to rename Category:Hotel buildings on the National Register of Historic Places by state and all its subcats, then go ahead ... but in the meantime, there is no point in retaining these two as exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at WP:CFD/S
A lot (most?) of the NRHP listings on the mainland are former small inns that are no longer active hotels so that may be where the "buildings" naming came from. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and.
Note that businesses are not part of the list. The NRHP's scope is districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects ... and a company is none of those 5 types of entity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend, far from being irrelevant it is absolutely central. The articles may indeed cover many things, but this category is not trying to cover all those other things. The general category is Category:Hotels in Hawaii, but the NRHP categ is a sub-grouping of hotels which have one particular attribute: that their buildings are historic. This is a common occurrence throughout the category system: that a sub-category will group a sub-set of the broader category by a particular attribute.
    The houses comparator misses the point, because the term "house" refers to a building not to usage. A house may be used for many purposes, but it remains a house.
    Finally, we already have a category tree for hotel buildings: Category:Hotel buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. This is the bottom rung of that tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 24 February 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:Discoveries by institution

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:Astronomical discoveries by institution. In reply to the last objection below, category names should be unambiguous on their own, without having to refer to their position within a hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Discoveries by institution to Category:Search for astronomical objects
Nominator's rationale: As per the prior discussion: The category seems to be only about astronomical discoveries. At first I would have suggested to rename it to "Astronomical discoveries by organization" but looking at the category's entries that wouldn't be a good choice. Instead all (or most) of the category's subcategories should be deleted and moved to this broad category. It should contain all organizations that search for astronomical objects along with other things such as tools and methods used for this. Alternatively it could also be moved to "Organizations that search for astronomical objects" or alike. Or maybe someone else has a better idea? (Note that the subcategories contain mostly redirects and that there are almost half a million discovered minor planets.) Pinging the participants @BrownHairedGirl, Steve Quinn, RevelationDirect, Peterkingiron, and Marcocapelle: Fixuture (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Well that was just a sidenote for an alternative approach - I'd prefer to have it moved to "Search for astronomical objects", not "Organizations that search for astronomical objects". And yes, all the subcategories are nominated as well and are up for deletion. --Fixuture (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Well, is there a script that adds the tag to all subcategories? If not I won't code it aorn and hence won't add the tags. But of course someone else could. --Fixuture (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can make requests here. You need to explain exactly what you want to have done because the people who are helping you are not familiair with CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would find such a tool incredibly helpful for other nominations too. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: How to avoid the problem of the countless potential and existing entries then? Have you looked at some of the subcategories. The category as of right now doesn't make much sense. And yes, the "search" term would expand the scope to include all kinds of efforts. --Fixuture (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, keep in mind that I would favor wholesale deletion because they're nondefining but don't feel able to vote that way because the subcategories aren't tagged. I'm not intentionally picking a rename that would harm this group but maybe my eventual deletion perspective skews my rename proposal. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is constant repetition that the discoverer is not defining but from details such as this it is clear that to astronomers the discovery and date thereof are the 2 most defining characteristics of such a body (comparable say to the birth and nationality of a person). Have astronomers been alerted to this cfd? Oculi (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we actually nominate all the subcats for deletion, that would be wise. The only thing on the table right now is a slight rename to the container category. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: But that ignores the problem of there being around half a million known minor planets. Do you want to create redirects for each of them? --Fixuture (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do they all have individual names? Picking Category:Discoveries by the Jarnac Observatory at random, it is not tagged and thus cannot be deleted; and I don't see anything wrong with it. The redirects are not all to the same list so it serves a purpose. Those of the 1/2 million not on a list will not have redirects. There are 200 million or so known Americans but this does not rule out Category:American people. Oculi (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on procedure: the subcategories need to be tagged before they can be considered for deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2) Is this a solution in search of a problem? Is some other category in need of disambiguation because of the Category:Discoveries by institution?
3) Renaming to Category:Discoveries by astronomical institution or Category:Astronomical discoveries by institution is a reasonable alternative. I prefer the former, to maintain continuity with at least 3 related categories: Category:Discoveries by astronomer, Category:Discoverers of astronomical objects, Category:Discoveries by institution.
4) I don't see why child cats would require the 'Astronomical' prefix, since that is intuitive given the "Observatory", "Telescope", "Survey", survey acronym, etc. at the end of each child cat name, and the "main article" (((Cat main))) line at the top of each subcat.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:39, 18 March 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:Ruthenian women

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. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Kievan Rus women. The only content, the subcategory Category:Ruthenian princesses, is already in Category:Kievan Rus women as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 11 February 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:Rus'

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. Although there has not been much participation here, the category talk page is already tagged with several relevant projects, which should therefore have been notified. The current name is ambiguous, and the proposed new name seems broad enough to cover all the current contents. – Fayenatic London 10:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for more clarity on the scope. Note that Rus' is a disambiguation page that redirects, among others, to Rus' people. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:47, 11 February 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:Fictional healthcare occupations

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 as unopposed. Due to the lack of participation here, this is a WP:soft delete. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Fictional healthcare occupations to Category:Medicine and health in fiction
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, neither of the two subcategories is really about occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 11 February 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:Norwegian 2. Divisjon players

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. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless category, a non-professional tier. Geschichte (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
I've taken the liberty to add the 3. Division category to this nomination because it wouldn't make sense to delete the 2. Division and keep the 3. Division. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 11 February 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.

Sports in the United States by state and year

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: Option B. Timrollpickering 10:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming 237 sub-categories of Category:Sports in the United States by state and year:
Nominator's rationale: The current "YYYY sports in FooState" format implies that the category is about which sport was invented in YYYY. There must be a concise form of words which avoids that.
This a followup to CFD 2017 January 11#Category:1997_sports_in_Arizona, where only one category was nominated. There seemed to be agreement there that the category name was flawed, but that it would be wrong to rename only one category out of a wider set.
Option B is the format proposed at that CFD. Option A is slightly a more concise format, though it is less grammatically correct. Grammar purists would probably prefer that option A should use an adjectival form of the state name, but as far as I can see no other US State categories use demonyms.
I'd be happy with either option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 11 February 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:Moveable holidays (Easter date based)

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. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The previous discussion having died for lack of interest, I'm going to try again as suggested. I have left out the word "Moveable" because it's implied: if they were fixed, they wouldn't be based on Easter.Mangoe (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
previous discussion here. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they aren't merely Easter-related, or else Passover would be in the list. They are specifically derived by adding or subtracting some fixed period of time from the date of Easter. Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 22 February 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.
More