Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 18
| < January 17 | January 19 > |
|---|
January 18
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the conventional form as per its siblings in Category:Buildings and structures by city. Choalbaton 23:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. - choster 15:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect --Kbdank71 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and duplicate of Category:American radio networks. Vegaswikian 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I stuck a {{categoryredirect}} on it as a temporary measure — this seems to be part of the neverending Ronald20 thing. I'd suggest leaving it as a redirect for now, since admittedly there is a lot of confusion and uncertainty around the situation for US-related category names. But that's just a suggestion; I won't stand in the way of deletion if that's where the consensus goes. Bearcat 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is an ongoing problem, I'll support Bearcat and also recommend that the page be protected. Vegaswikian 07:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant, replaced by Category:C++ standard library. Empty, and no pages link to it; currently exists as a {{categoryredirect}} 82.7.125.142 23:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect or whatever and delist from CfD. Pavel Vozenilek 19:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unnecessary redirect; nobody is going to sit down at a computer and search for "C plus plus" on wikipedia. siafu 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect --Kbdank71 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and duplicate of Category:Mexican radio networks. Vegaswikian 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I stuck a {{categoryredirect}} on it as a temporary measure — this seems to be part of the neverending Ronald20 thing. But the redirect's just a suggestion; I won't stand in the way of deletion if that's where the consensus goes. Bearcat 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is an ongoing problem, I'll support Bearcat and also recommend that the page be protected. Vegaswikian 07:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Culture of West Virginia --Kbdank71 15:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abandoned and unpopulated. Created December 3, 2004 and never touched again. Whether this should be deleted or moved to Category:Underpopulated categories, I can't decide. --Aaron 21:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at how other states handle it. I've moved a couple of tiems down into this category. I'll look for more possibilities later, but there are not a huge amount. But I would vote Keep just to be consistent with the rest of the states. - TexasAndroid 22:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TexasAndroid and rename per Radiant. Unlike some may think, there is culture in West Virginia. ~~ N (t/c) 23:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, should be "Culture of West Virginia". Radiant_>|< 09:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not oppose this rename. - TexasAndroid 14:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Radiant. siafu 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Radiant. Ze miguel 12:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an attack. It is inappropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:NOT Harvestdancer 21:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This category does not help Wikipedians create an encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reason to categorize Wikipedians in potentially uncivil fashion. ~~ N (t/c) 23:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. In principle I feel all user cats should be allowed where not utterly stupid or offensive. I don't consider this utterly stupid and though some people may take offense, I do not consider that stating one's opposition to a belief system is inherently offensive; after all Category:Rightist Wikipedians are implicitly stating their opposition to "leftism" and Category:Leftist Wikipedians are doing the converse (etc). However, I am a little queasy about this cat and strongly dislike the tone of the cat description as that is clearly uncivil and in the event that this cat is not deleted, the creator (or someone being bold) should amend this to a more neutral tone. Valiantis 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, attack. Radiant_>|< 09:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Wow. Some issues here are:
- There is a Scientologist Wikipedians, so if the point is to delete categories to eliminate potential POV-group cohesion, that gives the advantage to the Scientologists if this category is deleted.
- But you supposedly couldn't eliminate Scientologist Wikipedians without also eliminating every other religion category, which would require a policy change I guess.
- But scientology is not really like other religions. Wikipedia is ultimately based on Enlightenment values. Just about any other religion you can name has come to terms with the Enlightenment. You can be a good Jew or Catholic or Muslim or whatever and also value reason, scientific method, results obtained by rational investigation and discourse, that sort of thing, and be prepared to engage objectively with the history, structure, etc of your religion. But you can't really be a good Scientologist and do that, because of Scientologist doctrine. (A generation or two and they'll normalize, but they're not there yet.)
- So keeping Scientologist Wikipedians while eliminating this category would be a lot like keeping the category "Wikipedians Who Utterly Reject The Core Values Of Wikipedia" and eliminating the category "Wikipedians Against Those Who Utterly Reject The Core Values Of Wikipedia".
- Which is just the sort of situation that (small-l) liberal institutions like Wikipedia have a hard time grappling with: be nicey, no attacky, etc or defend yourself.
- So, having thought it through, I see my way clear to say Keep until all the religion categories are taken out also. Herostratus 10:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete another daft category. Djegan 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and all user cats; nothing but trivial and divisive. Carlossuarez46 01:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge to Category:American generals --Kbdank71 15:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy where it was proposed to remove the abbreviation to make it Category:United States generals by Vegaswikian at 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection Excessive subcategory. Delete and place the four subcategories directly into Category:American generals. Choalbaton 05:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to deleting from speedy if you wish to add below as a standard CfD. Vegaswikian 08:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection Excessive subcategory. Delete and place the four subcategories directly into Category:American generals. Choalbaton 05:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal is therefore to merge it into Category:American generals. Having United States generals as a sub-category of American generals will cause confusion even if there is a technical reason for it. There are only half a dozen subcategories in total. Choalbaton 21:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. It seemed confusing when I ran into it, and your solution seems to work. Vegaswikian 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Radiant_>|< 09:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the U.S. category of Category:Children's sport, a sibling of Category:School sport in the United Kingdom. It should be given an unambiguous name to avoid confusion in the future. Usage of the term "High school" is not consistent around the world, and it would not be appropriate to apply it to all countries, but it is correct for the U.S. Choalbaton 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename to Category:High school sports in the United States. The phrase "high schools sports" is incorrect in American English; it's "high school sports." — Dale Arnett 21:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's incorrect in all versions of English. It was just a typo. Choalbaton 23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Blame me, I had run across a large number of orphaned league and association articles and needed to create a category structure for them. I had understood Category:Children's sport to be synonymous to what in the US might more commonly be termed youth sports, which includes both club and varsity competition for both the elementary and secondary school-aged. The intended distinction of Category:High school sports was for upper division intervarsity sports, thus it is not an exact sibling of Category:School sport in the United Kingdom. I had hoped the term generic enough to cover at least the US and Canada (as opposed, for instance, to "Prep sports" which many U.S. newspapers use).- choster 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: written as an article; empty category. (I have already copied its contents to Solitude).--Mareino 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete empty, unused - • Dussst • T | C 18:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Politicians with physical disabilities --Kbdank71 15:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not, itself, a list. Remove "List of" from category name. - TexasAndroid 15:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nominator. Carina22 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good, rename per nom - • Dussst • T | C 18:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess in current society a successful politician who has a physical disability is rare enough to be notable in itself, but I am a little concerned about categorising people by "disability + profession". I would think it is enough to categorise them as Category:Politicians (or the appropriate subcat) and as Category:Blind people, Category:Amputees etc. I'm not so naive as to suggest their disabilities are wholly irrelevant to their politics, but I would query whether they are sufficiently central to subcategorise them in this way. Also, at the risk of being accused of political correctness, the high level cat for people with disabilities is called Category:People with disabilities; if this cat is kept, might a rename to Category:Politicians with disabilities or Category:Politicians with physical disabilities be appropriate? Valiantis 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Politicians with physical disabilities to match (potential) parent; this isn't a category for people with mental illness, either (even though I disagree with the world in stating that behavioral health is not "physical"), so the word "physical" is necessary. siafu 21:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per siafu. Ze miguel 12:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same as below (Several items down now). Listify into a real list and delete the category. - TexasAndroid 15:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, has been converted to a list by the original author.-gadfium 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per gadfium. siafu 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not, itself, a list. Remove "List of" from category name. - TexasAndroid 14:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete outright. This is equivalent to something like Category:People named Junior. siafu 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:List of people by name index-only pages to Category:Lists of people by name index-only pages
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge to Category:Lists of people by name --Kbdank71 15:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list (singular) but a set of lists (plural). Rename to reflect that his is a category containing lists, nto a list itself. - TexasAndroid 14:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, and I'd also like to strike the "index-only pages" part (since I fail to see the point of it), i.e. Category:Lists of people by name. Radiant_>|< 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested by R. Vegaswikian 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Radiant. siafu 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same as below. Listify into a real list and delete the category. - TexasAndroid 14:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, has been converted to a list by the original author.-gadfium 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per gadfium. siafu 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be a real list, not a category/list hybrid. Listify and delete. - TexasAndroid 14:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, has been converted to a list by the original author.-gadfium 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per gadfium. siafu 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged and listed this way back in November, but somehow the listing got deleted. Edit conflict? Who knows. Doesn't really matter. Relisting it here and now. In general, this is not a list, but a category of the Freudians, and should be named to match that purpose. - TexasAndroid 14:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nominator. Carina22 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 21:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was duplicate listing --Kbdank71 14:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into category. When you look at all the other listing of Category:VFL/AFL players, they all use their nicknames, rather than "Football Club" at the end. This is to ensure consistency. Rogerthat 13:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate listing. Already listed for merge on January 12th. - TexasAndroid 14:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into category in the usual format. Choalbaton 08:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge as per nominator. Carina22 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge basically identical - • Dussst • T | C 18:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it should be the other way round, sport is plural in British (and Irish) English. This keeps consitentcy with Category:Sport in Northern Ireland. Grinner 14:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Shortwave radio stations in Florida to Category:Shortwave radio stations in the United States
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the List of American shortwave broadcasters, there are only two shortwave stations in the state of Florida, and it is unlikely there will ever be more than a handful. Given the international character of shortwave stations, it makes more sense to have these categorized by countries, or in some cases even continents. DHowell 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per nom. --Aaron 21:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Eh, I guess you're right... --Tetraminoe 03:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge --Jakes18 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrectly named duplicate of Category:Palaces in USA, which I have suggested in the discussion below should be renamed Category:Palaces in the United States Delete. Choalbaton 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Vegaswikian 05:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty duplicate. See category:Ice hockey venues in Canada. Choalbaton 03:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Palaces in USA merge into Category:Official residences or a subcat
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Palaces in the United States --Kbdank71 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Palaces" is a really inappropriate term to describe official residences in the U.S. There already appears to be some sort of hierarchy developing in Category:Official residences. The category as currently being populated is including Governors mansions as well as mayoral residences as well as the U.S. president's residences. older ≠ wiser 03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename Category:Palaces in the United States. The only palaces in the United States are those of the Hawaiian royal family and no-one is going to build any more. I will take everything else out and make a note that nothing else should be added. Choalbaton 03:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and Rename per Choalbaton. The fact is that there is a royal place in the US. Vegaswikian 05:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, do we really need a category containing a single item and that is extremely unlikely to ever increase? older ≠ wiser 13:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I should have used the wording from the Hawaii article, the only official royal residence in the United States today. There were several in the past and there is no reason why someone would not write an article about them. Vegaswikian 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I ask, why does this category need to exist? When I nominated it, the creator had populated it with a lot of mistaken entries such as Manoogian Mansion and the White House. Since those have been removed, I no longer really care all that much, but it still seems extremely odd to have a category that contains zero articles and only one sub-category and is unlikely to ever have any others. Why shouldn't Category:Palaces in Hawaii simply be placed in Category:Palaces and Category:Houses in the United States (this categories parent categoris)? There is no need for parallelism that I can see. older ≠ wiser 23:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is rather odd to only have the one subcat, but it fits better with the parent cat. Maybe we should ask why have the sub cat Category:Palaces in Hawaii? Just add a comment to the USA cat about them only being in Hawaii. Vegaswikian 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it a "better fit" with the parent cat? I don't see that with either of the current parent categories. However, the more specific Category:Palaces in Hawaii has some other parent categories such as Category:Hawaiian architecture and Category:Buildings and structures in Hawaii that would be inapplicable to Category:Palaces in USA(or the renamed Category:Palaces in the United States). Sure, the other sub-cats of Category:Palaces are countries, but when the Hawaii structures were palaces, Hawaii was a country -- I don't see a serious problem with having it in that category since it was unique among U.S states in that regard. As for the other one, Category:Palaces in Hawaii would fit into Category:Houses in the United States just as well as Category:Palaces in USA.
- Yes, it is rather odd to only have the one subcat, but it fits better with the parent cat. Maybe we should ask why have the sub cat Category:Palaces in Hawaii? Just add a comment to the USA cat about them only being in Hawaii. Vegaswikian 07:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I ask, why does this category need to exist? When I nominated it, the creator had populated it with a lot of mistaken entries such as Manoogian Mansion and the White House. Since those have been removed, I no longer really care all that much, but it still seems extremely odd to have a category that contains zero articles and only one sub-category and is unlikely to ever have any others. Why shouldn't Category:Palaces in Hawaii simply be placed in Category:Palaces and Category:Houses in the United States (this categories parent categoris)? There is no need for parallelism that I can see. older ≠ wiser 23:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I should have used the wording from the Hawaii article, the only official royal residence in the United States today. There were several in the past and there is no reason why someone would not write an article about them. Vegaswikian 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, do we really need a category containing a single item and that is extremely unlikely to ever increase? older ≠ wiser 13:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Palaces in the United States. As there are palaces in the USA we need a category for palaces in the USA. Carina22 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Choalbaton; though Hawaii was once an independent kingdom (and there remains a strong independence movement), it is part of the United States, and Category:Palaces is otherwise populated only with nation-level subcats. siafu 21:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.