Expand to view current and archived category discussions related to this category
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Subcategories of Courthouses in the United States[edit]
I'm nominating these two categories for renaming to make them consistent with the naming conventions at Category:Courthouses in the United States, the parent category. Besides consistency, having "county" in the category name discourages categorizing appellate and supreme court buildings here, but it's more logical to have all the courthouses for one state in the same category (they aren't very large).--Chaser20:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with removing county from the name as I see no reason to mix them. If and when such images get uploaded they can have their own category. Cburnett20:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They'realreadybeinguploaded and there are probably double that many images on the English Wikipedia that could be moved to Commons for the occasional non-English article about a state supreme court (in the case of the Nevada image, it was uploaded here for just that purpose). Having them all in the same category makes sense at this stage because it's rare for Wikimedia to have more than one image of any state supreme court.--Chaser00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about for TX & IA, but that's fine. Assume all IA courthouses have a picture. You're talking 99 counties plus Northern (2) and Southern (3) halves of the 8th circuit. Assume none of the files are named systematically and you want a picture of the appellate court in Davenport. Go. Worst case is you have to click on 104 images to read if it's the right one. In this case the point of categorization has lost all meaning and helpfulness. Assume that the files are named reasonably, you still have to look at 104 file names to find it.
It would be a heck of a lot easier to find what you want if you had a category for each, much so if and when courthouses start getting duplicates. Instead of setting up the categories for future hardship why not solve the problem here and now? Is a few dozen more categories going to break commons or something? Cburnett15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. At least remove the "county" restriction from the name, as per the reason stated above. No opinion about "of" versus "in", though. — Loadmaster18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Create a new, higher category of Courthouses of Texas that County Courthouses of Texas would link in to -Nv8200p15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the concept of using the naming convention to standardize the form. A courthouse could theoretically not be a county one, for example the state's Supreme Court, so the word "county" is inappropriate. Adding those few images to state's pool doesn't make it more unruly. Hopefully the uploader would add the county courthouse to the appropriate county category so that it's easier to find. Disagree with the word "of" - it should be renamed to "in" in order to be consistent with parent category. The naming convention of all other buildings that I know of is "Building" in "State", so this convention should be changed for greater consistency. I hate the whole "in" vs "of" confusion - pick one and go with it. "In" makes more sense to me. Royalbroil04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Different species. County courthouses are in some places owned and run by the county itself, for the dispensation of local justice, which makes them a different kind of facility from a "state" courthouse, and definitely from a federal courthouse (which houses a federal court). Put them under a parent cat, per Nv8200p. BD2412T16:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
