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.
Rename - Although it only has two members currently, it will eventually contain more as the articles are created. A multiple property submission by the National Register of Historic Places denotes that these properties have been listed on the register because they are all intrinsically related to one another at a basic level. They were submitted together as a batch group for listing on the National Register, as opposed to the usual process of an individual property having to meet the rigorous criteria on its own merits. The nomination form for this set of MPS properties can be found here at the National Park Service.Altairisfar (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete. After doing a little more research and reading a few dozen of the more than one hundred MPS/TR nomination forms, I don't think that creating a hodgepodge of categories that most likely will never form a cohesive category structure is going to be the way go. Creating lists and/or navigation templates for ones that are particularly noteworthy will probably work better. Altairisfar (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Limestone Architecture of Jackson County MPS
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. OC small as a single entry category. While part of a series, it is not clear if we need to have a category for each and every MPS since inclusion is not necessary defining since the buildings are notable on their own. Listify is also an option. If kept, rename to Category:Maquoketa Multiple Property Submission. Individual nominations for a bunch of these since the outcomes are likely to be different. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice - Could contain more members, but only one article currently. The nomination form for this set of MPS properties can be found here at the National Park Service.Altairisfar (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Moldovan linguistic and ethnic controversy
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Categorizing by trivial intersection. Nationalities do not play a hockey position differently than any other nationality. TM12:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In looking at this nomination and seeing the spelling, my immediate thought was that this was about the buildings that they play in and not the position played. Don't know if this is an issue, but it should be considered if anything is renamed/moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are all subcategories of Category:Canadian ice hockey players (or the various other nationalities). It would make a very very big mess if you merged them into Category:Ice hockey centres for example. This is just diffusion of the overly large "X ice hockey players" categories. If it going to be merged anywhere it will need to be to the ice hockey players categories. And then also added to the categories you indicate causing the need for two separate categories on the page instead of one. I don't really see the logic in that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those categories are actually different in that they include more than just players. Though I suppose they could be sub categorized themselves. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DJSasso. Also, nationalities do play a role in determining which national team a particular player is eligible for, and the position becomes important within the nationality to the extent that it represents the players eligible (or who were eligible) for particular spots on the national team. That is in addition, of course, to keeping the size of the categories manageable. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Categorizing by trivial intersection. Nationalities do not play a hockey position differently than any other nationality. TM12:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are all subcategories of Category:Canadian ice hockey players (or the various other nationalities). It would make a very very big mess if you merged them into Category:Ice hockey defencemen for example. This is just diffusion of the overly large "X ice hockey players" categories. If it going to be merged anywhere it will need to be to the ice hockey players categories. And then also added to the categories you indicate causing the need for two separate categories on the page instead of one. I don't really see the logic in that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DJSasso. Also, nationalities do play a role in determining which national team a particular player is eligible for, and the position becomes important within the nationality to the extent that it represents the players eligible (or who were eligible) for particular spots on the national team. That is in addition, of course, to keeping the size of the categories manageable. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: More descriptive, as the category includes only lists and also removes ambiguity – when I saw this cat I thought I would see articles like Chris Judd and Nick Maxwell in it because they are captains of Australian Football League sides, but that is obviously not the intention of this cat. Jenks24 (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Response Perhaps the word 'Lists' will result in this category being buried. A better description might be 'AFL Captains' or 'Australian Football League List of Captains'. 07:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorbyron (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your comment, Victor. One question: how would renaming this category result in it being "buried"? Regarding your two alternatives, we cannot use simply AFL because AFL is ambiguous and your second alternative looks to be the same as mine, expect it is less grammatically correct (sorry to be harsh). Jenks24 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Neutral. While I was the first to suggest this at the NBC move, having done further research, it seems both are used by the network itself. see here, where the "Television Network" label is used (note the caps, as a proper noun), while the copyright notice on the bottom uses "CBS Broadcasting". So it seems not so clear cut. And as "broadcasting" is a very broad term that can also describe the radio operations, so it may not be precise enough. So I'm still not sure what the best name for this category is. oknazevad (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
